Are we back in kindergarten, George? 

I think I said earlier that I am neither liberal nor conservative...nor am I reactionary, nor radical. If you must place a label on me, I think the one that best fits (but not perfectly) is Machiavelian Pragmatist. I like to keep all the options open, and select the solution that best resolves the problem without regard to political philosophy.

Your idea of humans rights and those to whom they apply is somewhat distorted. "Fundamentalist Islamic folks are not human."  Hmmmmmm....It seems to me that I have heard similar arguments ....Was it during the World War 11 era?....Nuremburg? If I recall 6,000,000 people were wrongfully sent to their deaths pursuant to this theory. Does the phrase "NEVER AGAIN" ring a bell?

Executing families of insurgents? Why? Doesn't that seem rather extreme to you?  I recently read an article on the Third Crusade. Richard the Lion Heart executed approximately 200 Islamic prisoners because it was too much trouble to house and feed them. By today's standards, he would be deemed a war criminal. Is that what you are advocating?

In so far as a solution for capturing Bin Laden, I have already indicated that I have thoughts on the subject, but not solutions. Please refer to my response to Jack's posting above for those thoughts.

Re-emergence of the Taliban?... You think they are all dead? Think again. They are very much alive and active in portions of Afghanistan  and Pakistan over which the respective governments have little control and over which local tribal chiefs exert more control. If you doubt this, simply review the news casts for the past month.

In so far as the 2,500 dead in Iraq is concerned, I don't think that the loss of lives for no purpose ever gets old. Your comparison of this to lives lost in Viet Nam is simply a matter of time. We have been in Iraq for 3 years. we were in Viet Nam for 10 years beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in l965 and ending with the U S withdrawal in l975. Prior to l965 we were providing military advisors. So, in another 7 years possibly we will match the Viet Nam death toll. Is that what you are advocating? Do you really think it is relevant to ascribe the American involvement therein to any particular political party? By the way Eisenhower took office in  l952 not l954. The war escalated under the Johnson Administration(D), and contnued under the Nixon administration (R) and his infamous Vietnamization plan to end the war. His plan was to withraw American troops as the Viet Namese were ready to assume the defense of the country. They were never ready to assume control. It did not work. Sound vaguely familiar to the Iraqi situation?

Do I have answers to the problem? No, I don't, but neither apparently do you. I have sat here, and seen you do little more than belch platitudes through this entire thread.

"The Big Kid on the Block"... I was a poltical science major (concentration in Soviet foreign relations)  with a history minor in my undergraduate work. I recall one of my poli sci professors talking about the same subject. It was called a messianic foreign policy. In other words big kid on the block...policeman of the world. I had some difficulty understanding why we should involve ourselves in it back then. I have even less tolerance for it now since the Soviet Union has fallen and the revolution in China has softened. I really do not understand nor advocate unnesscesary involvement in foreign conflicts that do not advance our interests.

Sacrifice, death and misery to remind you of your goal? Would it it not make more sense to evaluate the goal before the need for death, sacrifice and misery arises?