[sixmil]

Your response is the most sane I've seen on this thread. Our nation is not great because we can get more medieval than cavemen. We are great because we recognize the value of life and make the decision to take life carefully, generally preferring to avoid collateral casualties. This nonsense about taking out all Muslims, or Arab cities, is the voice of rage. For those of you filled with it, go ahead and rage. But if it was your nation to lead and you had to contemplate taking thousands of lives unnecessarily, you wouldn't be foolish to do what you advocate here. You'd find a better way.

No war is over until enough people have died. We can either get them all out up front and minimize losses on our side, or we can do this the slow way and give up a lot of our kids lives along the way. Which is more humane?

[DC Bound]

"No war is over until enough people have died."

I don't believe you are advocating killing for the sake of killing. So I'll assume that any collateral deaths caused by using the nuclear option are deaths you would prefer to avoid. If that is the case, and I admit I'm making an assumption from your post, if there are weapons that would achieve the same destruction on our enemy without the collateral damage, would you prefer to use those weapons first?