AlphPistolPete,
Yes, because it's certainly a proven fact that invading and occupying a country in the Middle East is a cakewalk, and there's NEVER any blowback. Let's use Iraq as an example, why the people welcomed our soldiers with flowers, it only took a month or so to set thing straight and we left the place a very quite place, with record low levels of violence, no extremists and a full blown democracy.
Wait, wait - that's not exactly how it turned how now is it? In fact, we ended up with a far worse defense posture in terms of threat than we did before we engaged in that ultimately failed venture. What countries do you figure we can invade next where things will just go so much smoother?
So you think it's time to double down on that approach? How much money do you think this country can spend on such follies? How many times do you think we can constantly send troops into harms way before we reach a breaking point with our military? How much good did it do the last time we invaded a middle-east country (did we end up with a lessor or greater risk from extremist)? Are you prepared for you, your spouse, your kids to be drafted because that's what it will come to? How is a nation with a population of around 320 Million going to fare in a fight against 1,000,000,000+ Muslims of 40+ countries, spread around the globe?
And seriously, you're talking about putting a policy that makes the Nazi's "Final Solution" look mild in comparison into place? ("Wiping the Muslims off the Face of the Earth")
The other thing I think you're wildly missing the target with is your apparent assumption that the Leaders of most of the Muslim countries are in league or supporting these radical elements. (Now granted, I do believe that there are certainly elements or a few members of those governments who do, especially among the Saudi Royal family.) But the reality is that in places like Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia, et al, the governments have as much to be worried about those radicals fomenting rebellion and attacking fellow citizens and the government as much as we have to fear from them. (The threat they pose to their fellow Muslims in reality, dwarfs the threat they pose to Western nations.)
You seem to think that pointing a sword at these country's leaders is going to force them to deal with a situation, which most of these countries are already dealing with because these radical elements threaten the lives, safety of their own families and govts. Do you think threatening Lebanon for example is going to help the situation on the ground there, when the Lebanese govt is already fighting back against Isis radicals who have attacked and killed Lebanese citizens including 50 deaths from 3 suicide bombers just on last Wednesday alone?
I understand your visceral reaction to events like this, but what you are proposing would only expand the "war on terrorism" and lead to an abandonment of this country's core principles, would lead ultimately to far more violence and threats than we face currently and would eat up so many or our resources, not to mention the lives of our fellow citizens that it would end up making the blunder by the Bush Administration of invading Iraq look like a minor blip.
Again, you declare war on "Muslims" in general and how many days do you figure it takes some radical elements within Pakistan to seize control and start nuking "Christian" and "Jewish" nations? Please explain how we are going to put your proposed policy in place without the whole damned thing blowing up in our faces?
By analogy, when the Catholic elements in Northern Ireland (IRA) were bombing and killing British soldiers and targeting Britsh citizens routinely through terrorist attacks: Do you think that GB would have achieved their goals of peace easier, earlier and with less bloodshed if they simply started targeting Catholics around the world as a means of forcing Catholics to put pressure on the IRA to stop their terrorism?
