Here's the rub, Bluie: How many countries (barring Middle Eastern ones fomenting terrorism) are in danger of being invaded by the United States in the foreseeable future as opposed to how many countries are in danger of being bombed for no discernable reason (outside of purely arbitrary political-religious excuses such as mandatory burkhas for women) by people who worship Allah?
A reasonable person will answer that the United States could possibly invade one country (North Korea), but Islamacists will likely bomb any country they possibly can while doing maximum damage.
Do you see the difference? While threads like this are an easy way to stir up controversy and discussion, a more insidious mindset lies underneath-- that the United States in all her gaudy, sometimes crass, and envy inspiring glory is a worse danger than the one which faces every country, Islamic and non-Islamic alike: radical Muslims. Along side that assumption is the wishful thinking that if we were to just leave them alone that these same radical Muslims would be content to keep to themselves and not bother anyone.
It is this sophomoric logic which places us where we are today: A dissatisfied public and disapproving world opinion. Regardless our alliance with Israel, or if we could somehow never use another drop of oil ever again, never steam our warships in the Persian Gulf, it would not be sufficient to placate Muslim extremists. So, a more realistic world view is in order. We support Israel, we take a proactive stance in world politics, we attack countries which are aggressive or are home and safehaven to terrorists.
Does this mean we make these choices willy-nilly? No, we push Israel to live peacefully with Palestine, we build up relationships with countries actively fighting terrorism, and we make concessions with and give aid to countries willing to forsake radical Islam.
Totem