[krapp]

> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.

That was a world war if I recall, and the US didn't even care about the Nazis, or Japan until they were forced to. "we" didn't stop the Nazis, the world stopped the Nazis, with our help.

Don't be so quick to call for World War III, because i'm not at all certain we would have more allies than enemies if we unilaterally decided to declare open war against the rest of the world, which is what it would amount to. Because the truth is, most of the world 'harbors' and 'funds' terrorism to some degree, including the US. And we've already proven to the rest of the world that we're willing to drag it into a war on false pretenses, so I doubt they would be eager to throw themselves into another one on our behalf. That political capital has already been spent.

Which is, of course, why we don't do what you suggest.

[javert]

a) You are making a false equivocation with WWII that I did not make.

b) We don't need political capital to do it.

c) Lacking political capital is not why we don't do it. We don't do it because US leadership and the US people do not think it's a good idea.

[dsuth]

> b) We don't need political capital to do it.

The US's unilateral declarations of war have caused a huge amount of tension, globally. To do what you propose would be a log breaking the back of many a diplomatic camel.

Contrary to your opinion, the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things. Take a look at what has happened to empires who over-stretched historically. Hint, it's not pretty and they're not around anymore.

[javert]

The US should not have a diplomatic relations with any nation that would seek to prevent it from defending itself with Islamic jihadists.

And besides, the interests of the US align on this with literally every other civilizized country on the face of the Earth.

> the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things.

Compared to Iran or Pakistan or Yemen, the US is Superman.

The US is not an empire. It is a republic. This would not be a war to expand US territory.

[krapp]

> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.

How is this not an equivocation with WW2? I apologize if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it seems pretty obvious.

By "political capital" I was referring to a quote by George Bush, and the Bush doctrine in general. Mainly, that any goodwill we might have had to build a robust global coalition for anything has more or less been squandered by the debacle that was the adventure in Iraq, and the premise of the "axis of evil", and "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

[javert]

Because the states that harbor terrorism are not the civilizational or military equivalents of Nazi Germany or Japan. They are much closer to fruit flies.

A country that acts morally, in its own self-defense, does not need political capital. If nobody at all sides with the US, fine. But nobody is going to side against the US that matters in a just, morally correct war to stop state sponsors of terrorism.