&gt; France isn&#x27;t a part of NATO, and hasn&#x27;t been for 50 years.<p>Page<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnbc.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;16&#x2F;why-nato-probably-wont-help-france-against-isis.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnbc.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;16&#x2F;why-nato-probably-wont-help-f...</a><p>clearly claims that France
is a member of NATO.<p>&gt; You have to undermine the base of ideology or grievances.<p>Would be nice.  That would be the nice way.  For Viet Nam, my position was, and remains, just come home.  And now the US and Viet Nam get along fine.  We could have gotten along fine starting as soon as the Japanese left -- Viet Nam liked us then, we got rid of the Japanese
who had taken over 
their country and they had
helped downed US pilots, and could have liked us 
continually and more and more
to the present.  I never did understand why Ho, 
a dishwasher from Paris, was so eager to get free dinners in Moscow and Peking just to torque off the US.<p>What you said about Germany did work for a while, and what defeated Germany was mostly just the US, especially the US Eighth air force with B-17s leveling German cities, ones that were at all connected with war production
and likely more.<p>But ISIS is no longer a &quot;revolutionary movement&quot; and, instead, is essentially a <i>nation state</i>.  So, I don&#x27;t recommend occupying them and hanging their leaders from lamp posts.  I don&#x27;t want diplomacy, negotiations, surrender, unconditional surrender, or treaties.  We can&#x27;t settle for 
their promising to stop their
nonsense or even stopping their
nonsense.  And I don&#x27;t 
want to try to occupy them
like W did -- that would
cost US blood and treasure,
and not one drop of blood
and not one dime more
treasure than it takes
to defend the US.<p>Instead, given their
strong culture and many very
clear statements, 
we have to make
sure they are no longer able in
any sense to pursue their nonsense.  At this point,
I will pay attention their
capabilities, not their
statements or behavior,
and want to make sure
they have no capabilities
to inflict harm outside
their territories.  Sure,
in part that would mean
that no one, except
maybe some boys under 6
or some girls under 10, from the ISIS
area is ever permitted to
leave.<p>They are eager to die 
and to kill us.  We can help
them die, and without dying 
ourselves.  We don&#x27;t have to
be ashamed of helping them
die the way they want.<p>In particular they must not have the resources or ability to get a nuke bomb.  Essentially they have to be sent back to tents, flocks, and camels, tightly controlled, with their oil taken, and that&#x27;s at least.  The only safe way to remove a boot on their necks and just forget 
about them is, basically, to 
kill all of them.  It&#x27;s come
to that -- they make that 
fully clear in all their
propaganda.  So be it.<p>They would love to light off
a nuke in NY harbor, and I&#x27;m
just 70 miles from there.  &#x27;Nuff for me -- defend ourselves.<p>The only serious tool they 
have is our reluctance to 
kill their civilians, which
are really just their children
and most of their women.  They
have that tool only due to our
extreme, nearly suicidal, 
generosity.  We don&#x27;t owe them
that.<p>I&#x27;m sure that in WWII the US
killed a lot of really
nice, wonderful civilian
people in both Japan and
Germany.  But, we had to
win the war, and we did.
And Japan and Germany had
killed a lot of really nice,
wonderful civilians before
we did.<p>&quot;Nuke&quot; -- ISIS said the wrong 
word.  There are no extenuating grievances, history, or considerations.  It&#x27;s back to tents, flocks, and camels
right away or, 
and likely soon,
just &quot;wipe the desert clean&quot;.<p>Saddam said the wrong word -- <i>nuke</i>.  ISIS is really slow at learning and really fast to 
forget.<p>W was a total fumble bumble, but
his sense of responsibility
as POTUS to defend the US
was correct.  I&#x27;m sure
the next POTUS, either Hillary
or any of the Repub candidates,
will also take that responsibility seriously.  I
don&#x27;t like Hillary, but she
is not stupid; I very much
don&#x27;t like Hillary, but she
is likely the best informed
and brightest in the race;
I believe and very much hope
she loses, but I am fairly
confident that, as part
of being a responsible POTUS,
and I am sure she has plenty
of pride for that, 
she would be
ready, willing, able, and eager to
tell the USAF to level the
ISIS areas -- wipe the desert
clean.<p>ISIS wants to take their
magic carpet ride to Allah, and
it&#x27;s about certain they will.  I&#x27;m very sorry the ISIS area
innocent women and children
have to go along for the ride.<p>A threat of a nuke in a US harbor -- we need to make sure we don&#x27;t have to worry about that at all, and we can, and I believe that we should and will.<p>&quot;We don&#x27;t want the smoking 
gun to be a mushroom cloud&quot;;
I didn&#x27;t, and don&#x27;t, think
that statement was appropriate
when C. Rice said it, but
I believe it&#x27;s appropriate now.  We don&#x27;t want to wait;
the Paris attack was 
enough for a Pearl Harbor
wake up call.<p>For the ISIS areas, France
is fully capable of
wiping &quot;the desert clean&quot;
in an afternoon -- they better
do it.