Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
Here's the thing: we go to war with Iran, we go to war with Russia. We mess with Pakistan too much, and our allies in India get pissed off. We invade Egypt and we bring on WWIII. We can't fight military battles in every place in the world in which radical Islam is running the show, we can't even completely root it out at home because of our own Constitution and protection of free speech.
Once again, you're falling for the liberal trap, that if we cannot solve the entire problem at once, we should do nothing. Combine that with some serious strategic ignorance, and you sound like our State Department. Here's a few of the places where you are wrong:

Iran declared war on us in 1979. They're already at war with us. Instead of trying to cajole them into abandoning nuclear weapons, we should be examining ways to undermine the regime and collapse it. Does that mean that we need troops on the ground? No. What we need is to support the Iranian resistance, the same people who have been taking to the streets and demanding reform. We need to equip the resistance with the full range of telecommunications equipment, so that they can communicate with each other and the outside world. We need to expose the horrors of the regime and isolate it, and we need to give sanctions teeth by making it clear that doing business with Iran means not doing business with us (yes, that's an act of war against Iran, but see above). Regime change in Iran means regime change in Syria and Lebanon, where the current regimes are kept in place with Iranian money, Syrian arms and Lebanese terror.

Russia doesn't support Islamist terror. Look up Beslan, or the Moscow theater bombing. The one area that Putin is in lockstep agreement with us is the threat of jihad. We don't need to fight Russia, we need to get Russia to fight for itself.

India detests Pakistan. If Pakistan went away tomorrow, the celebrations in Dehli would be huge. The answer to Pakistan is not to fear India, but to work with India, as well as to start getting serious about Pakistani support for terrorism. Immediately after the Bin Laden raid, when Pakistan began to make noises about their sovereignty and our encroachment, the correct response would have been outrage on our part. A competent president would have announced an immediate cutoff of all aid to Pakistan, pending review of the Pakistani's sincerity in dealing with terrorism, especially given that they harbored Bin Laden for the better part of a decade within spitting distance of their military academy. We should have used the opportunity to force more concessions from Pakistan, rather than suck up to them.

We don't need to invade Egypt. Egypt is collapsing on its own without our help. Their economy is a shambles, and the only thing propping it up is our aid. If Morsi wants to tear up peace treaties, then we can tear up aid agreements. We also don't need to be giving them tanks and fighters. We give those to our allies, and if Morsi isn't going to be an ally, then he can fight with T-72s and MIGs, if he can find the hard currency to pay for them. We need to stop propping up countries that attack our interests.

Domestically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the free exercise of religion includes the denial of the rights of others to practice their own faiths. In fact, it pretty much says the exact opposite. The various inroads by the Muslim Brotherhood are not protected practices of religion, but prohibited acts of incitement, terror and fraud. We don't have to expel peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, but we do have a right to expel imams who preach the overthrow of the United States government and the Constitution (sedition is not worship). We don't have to tear down mosques, but we don't have to provide them with sweetheart deals for real estate or otherwise subsidize them. We don't have to ban Islam, but we do have to make sure that Muslims understand that they are only one of many equal religious groups in America, and if they cannot accept that, then there is no place for them here. We can also start denying welfare benefits to able-bodied immigrants, especially illegals. If the Democrats want to make the case that illegals are here to work, then they should be working, not shirking.

Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post
It hasn't been effective because the government had been refusing to drop bombs in the middle of Baghdad and Pakistan, other-words turning them into parking lots.

You want it to be effective? Blow the scum up. Knock Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan off the map. That will make the Jihadis drop their arms right away. You have to play with these uneducated inbreeds on their level. if blowing things up is all they know, then we proceed to do such.

And we could take Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan out of commission, but like I said we won't. I think we all know why, though.
We don't need to scorch the entire Muslim world if we defeat them intelligently. While most Muslims do subscribe to Sharia law, the majority doesn't necessarily want to open up the can of worms that comes with trying to impose it on the rest of the world, or at least, they wouldn't if the consequences were severe enough. The policies that I proposed above would have the effect of defeating the worst offenders and containing the ideology without having to engage in genocide. Eventually, Islam will either reform itself or collapse as the rest of the world advances past it and the petrodollars dry up.