Ah but your analogy is based on something that won't happen CJ. In the examples you cite, we had civil war here or a global war there complete with standing armies. Not an analogy that works in this situation. These people with the "ideas" you wish to kill don't wear uniforms and fight a conventional war do they? A better analogy would be Vietnam or Korea, how'd those turn out? Ask Russia how well they did in Afghanistan for that matter. BTW...how well has the "idea faded" down south that led to the civil war? I think the lesson for Americans is that you can't smuggly believe that past wars and the methods used to fight them can win out in a war without borders, uniformed armies etc... We've been there and done that and it didn't work. The only way to win in those situation would be to utterly destroy the countries in question. We surely can't nuke folks can we? Afterall when we used them against Japan, we were th only ones in possession of them, which is no longer the case. For me, you fight wars when you have no choice and you deal with the casualties. Americans simply have no desire to sacrifice their children based on futile, arrogant wars that are neither winable in a conventional sense or can provide the abjectives hoped for initially.
Sure the fanatics would try to keep it going that way, their problem would be our LACK of presense in their region to fuel the hatred. There will always be those that hate us for good reason or no reason at all. The difference is hating us is one thing, acting on that hatred is quite another. When we bomb and occupy an area as we have in Iraq, we nurture and aid in turning dislike and hatred into violent response by a much LARGER number than otherwise wouldhave happened. I also doubt the average middle easterner needs to be spoonfed propaganda when we've provided them with so many real reasons to dislike and distrust us. We hve interfered in their countries for how long now? Covertly funding this, playing off anomosities of this group against that one, helped prop up repressive governments in regions where that repression was profitable to us and claimed righteous indignation where the government wasn't friendly to our interests. Gee I wonder why they'd have a problem? Afterall, doesn't every country want to be treated like pawns in our game of self-interest? Needless to say, every country acts in this manner to some degree, ours is more glaringly obvious because of who we are and the scale of it.
On the issue of Global warming...Would you rather do nothing and hope science is wrong (although evidence seems to be pointing to them NOT being wrong) or air on the side of caution and do something to not only stem carbon emissions and airbourne pollution but also reduce or need for oil?