Obama's non-strategy to fight/not fight a war/not a war, against non-Islamic non-terrorists is rock solid, baby

The American public has been thoroughly conditioned to believe several things:  That America (and particularly capitalism and freedom) is essentially bad.  That going to war is always bad.  And that thugs who have openly, repeatedly announced their intention to kill all of us--statements they've videotaped and posted on the internet--are just poor, misguided souls who aren't really serious.

Of course all these beliefs are utter bullshit, but the constant barrage of propaganda by the American media, plus left-wing professors and Dem pols, have convinced at least half of the public of their truth.

Those who study military history know that merely going into a country and breaking a few things doesn't ensure peace, but quite the opposite:  The people you acted against will rally their fellow citizens to try again. 

But liberal/"progressive"/socialist conditioning has caused Americans to forget that there's another approach:  to crush the other side so completely that the survivors are horrified even by the prospect of contemplating taking up arms again.  But of course, the conditioning noted above makes Americans unwilling to endorse that strategy.

So, Leftists, progs and Democrats:  if you're unwilling to defeat radical Islam so utterly and thoroughly that they never again even consider violence, what's your strategy?

To see if we have a ghost of a chance of agreeing on anything, how 'bout answering a couple of questions for us?  First, do you believe that numerous spokesmen for Islamic militants have said they want to take over the world and turn it into a "caliphate"?

Seen any of the clips where some imam or Sunni guru claims "democracy is evil" and anti-Islamic?

If you've seen any of those video clips--and there are LOTS--do you believe the speakers were just spouting bullshit that they haven't the faintest intention of actually doing--as U.S. politicians often do--or do ya think they were/are serious?

If you think they're serious, and you oppose killing enough of them to make them renounce suicide bombs and hijacking and the whole gamut of lethal shit they do now, are you willing to commit your children to living under a regime that bans women from wearing anything other than black bags?

How about a society that bans *music*?  (Y'all think I'm kidding, right?)

If you're not willing to consign your kids to those things, what kind of intervention are you counting on to save us from becoming part of the "caliphate"?  The U.N.?  The E.U.?  The so-far never seen "moderate" muslims?

Do ya think cutesie ads for Coca-Cola ("I'd like to teach the world to sing/in perfect har-mo-neee...") will make them see reason?  Think giving 'em lots of foreign aid will do the trick?

Do you believe that if we simply don't use force against them, they'll stop trying to make the whole world muslim?

Many (most?) "progressives" blame "root causes" for the determination of Muslims to kill westerners.  "They only hate us because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan," say progs.  "So when we leave Afg at the end of the year they'll stop trying to kill us.  After all, the only reason those poor muslim guys flew those planes into those buildings was because we'd invaded Iraq!"

Yeah.

Root.  Fucking.  Causes, baby.  Explains everything.

So do you suggest we simply ignore 'em and hope they don't try to smuggle or deliver by missile a nuclear bomb into the U.S.?  How you gonna ensure that?  Is that a hit you're willing to take?  I mean, it's really not a problem for you *personally,* right?  You probably didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 either, so in the long run how much does it really matter, eh?

Do you believe having a few hundred American civilians killed each year by jihadi action is an acceptable price to pay to avoid using all-out military force against them?  I mean, people get killed every day, right?  So what are a few hundred civilian deaths each year?  We Democrats are quite willing to put up with that.  No big deal.

Of course that's will change if the rag-heads get an atomic bomb.  Or do you think muslim fanatics won't get their hands on an atomic bomb in your lifetime?  If you claim they won't, what's the basis for your belief?  Do you know--in detail--what it takes to make an atomic bomb?  If you do, what component do you think the fanatics are missing?

You're convinced you're smaht, because you're professors or media editors or such, and you voted for the emperor both times.  But do you know if any muslim-ruled country has atomic bombs now?  If one or more does, and if that nation has been credibly, seriously threatened by radical factions within its own population, would that change your risk calculations at all?  Because if the radicals got half-a-dozen of their members into the right posts, they could steal a bomb from the nation's stockpile fairly easily.

But you say even if the "militants" get an atom bomb it doesn't threaten us, because they don't have missiles with enough range to get it here.  SO THERE, SMARTY!

Surely you're not gonna count on that to save us, are ya?  Because thinking they'd need a missile to get a bomb to the U.S. is childishly naive.  And surely you know it.

So looks like you progs and Dems and libs are back to "Well, it's worth the deaths of a few thousand civilians to avoid going to war."

I disagree.  Strongly.