As far as fighting for decades in backwater hellholes -that won't happen either and I wouldn't support it. For all intents and purposes, the Iraq war is over and we now have a new ally in the M.E. The Afghan war will probably take another 5-10 years, but, yes, I believe it's worth it. I say we send about 500 Predator drones there and let them reign down hell on the enemy. Drones are cheap and don't put lives in danger - that's how we'll win Afghanistan.
Iran gettin’ nukes would be a game-changer. At this point, only air-strikes can stop them.
But, then again, the Muslims can overtake a society without firing a shot - via mass immigration and mating like rabbits, i.e. Europe. Europe is gone - 20 years from now, it will be an Islamic superstate. We can't let America become Europe. We have to expose their ideology as Lt. Col. West puts it: “a totalitarian political system disguised as a religion.” We have to convince the American people about the threat Islamism in America and creeping Shariah - which is already being practiced in some areas of England.
Defeating the “totalitarian political system” of Islam may take decades, it took decades to bring down the Soviet Union. But, we'll need people to stand up and fight Islamism with bold, strong, articulate, fearless leadership. I've yet to see Rand or Ron Paul stand up and declare “who” the enemy is, what they stand for, and how we confront them; except for the comments of a former staffer.
We'll probably never agree on foreign policy issues, especially in regards to the Pauls, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
To wit:
I'm all for nuking Mecca and Medina, let's do it already. Problem is, it'll never happen. Western Civilization doesn't have the cajones to ever do that. Also, the threat of nuking these cities doesn't work either. It's like telling the Japanese, “Hey, we got these two really big bombs, it's time to surrender” - And, then we never drop the bombs. Only the actual bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki woke them up. But that was the 40’s and West. Civ. still had a spine. It'll never happen again.
Well, then, I don't know what to tell you -- other than we can probably expect semi-continual, on-and-off War from the Islamosphere for another 1400 years.
The Destruction of Mecca (you don't even need to take out Medina, unless you just want to be thorough) would be as theologically devastating to Islam, as would the discovery of Jesus Christ's bones would be to Christendom (that is if Jesus Christ's bones were here on earth to be found; you can't keep a good man down). There's no point in fighting for a Religion which you know to be False... and if there is no Mecca, then Mohammed's commands and prophecies would be proven to be false.
You can't make a hajj to Mecca, if there is no such thing as "Mecca".
The 13th Imam cannot arise from Mecca, if there is no Mecca.
And etc. I could go on.
Now THAT is how you win a 1400-year conflict. If the West isn't willing to face up to what's necessary... well, then the conflict will continue. Indefinitely.
As far as fighting for decades in backwater hellholes -that won't happen either and I wouldn't support it. For all intents and purposes, the Iraq war is over and we now have a new ally in the M.E.
But we had Iraq as an "ally" before. As long as Muslims still have the religious motivation to seek new conquests (which is to say, as long as Mecca continues to appear on the map), there's really no telling which Islamic state will be our "main enemy" in another 10 years, or 10 years after that. It's like whack-a-mole with an endless supply of moles.
The Afghan war will probably take another 5-10 years, but, yes, I believe it's worth it. I say we send about 500 Predator drones there and let them reign down hell on the enemy. Drones are cheap and don't put lives in danger - that's how we'll win Afghanistan.
Except that you still face the same basic problem... just maybe not in Afghanistan. Who's next? Iran? Pakistan? Egypt, or even Turkey, after another Islamist revolution? Who knows?
If you haven't the gumption to kill the root, weeds just keep re-appearing.
We'll probably never agree on foreign policy issues, especially in regards to the Pauls, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Well, perhaps you realize that I'm not a total peace-nik; it's just that I agree with Ron Paul's proxy writer, Gary North: either fish or cut bait. If you're not willing to Nuke Mecca, then the best you can hope for is to try to avoid Wars with the Islamosphere. Hope that the alligator eats someone else -- encourage China to keep poking their Muslim Uighur population with a sharp stick, let them deal with the Muzzies for a few decades, or what have you.
We might have to agree to disagree; but surely you can at least understand my frustration with Middle Eastern wars when US war policy basically comes down to "No one's willing to say so out loud (except Ron Paul's people, writing on little-read internet blogs), but we do know how to win this war, permanently. We're just too squeamish to do it." HUH??