>>>>>Everyone that has played the anti-american, wacko card, is eventually taken out, contained or somehow sidelined.
>>>>
>>>>I agree but I hope it is containment and sidelined, not "taken out" because that just leads to more fanatics and mad men martyrs. Interesting poll results in Iran.
>>>
>>>One counter-example. Taking out Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito seemed to work. Europe and Japan didn't have a backlash of facists.
>>
>>The context, Evan, the context!
>>Hitler et. al. were the AGGRESSORS and their people were reduced to near animal state.
>
>Irrelevant. My point was that sometimes the movement collapses without the leader. Violence sometimes settles things.

Well Hirohito was around for a good long while AFTER WWII. How does that serve your "point"?

In the cases of Germany/Italy the whole countries were in collapse, and after 5+ years of hell on earth. And each of their leaders 'died' literally days before occupation was complete.

How did things work out in Korea?... or Viet-Nam?

I don't get your "point" as far as Iran's stupid leader is concerned.
If the U.S. (with allies real or imagined) attacks Iran they face a far different "problem" than they did attacking Iraq. Iran is not under embargo for years before. Iran does not have a decrepit military. Iran has not had "no-fly zones" in place for years. Iran does not appear to be held together by an iron-fisted leader.
Those circumstances might lead the U.S. or Israel to consider nuclear weapons. I think it's obvious how that would be received by the rest of the world. Assuming they too understand that, some form of conventional war is what you're talking about. That would be the U.S.'s fourth straight war against a Muslim country and the third where OIL is a major factor.
I somehow think that such an event would indeed give rise to countless more martyrs and madmen and make the world a terrible place to live.

The U.S. may increase the sizes of the army and marines to properly face the on-going "war on terror".
That should be a warning sign to everyone that strange events are on the way. The U.S. military is plenty strong enough today to fight terror - when it is done sensibly.
The U.S.'s current tactics in the war on terror are clearly not workable, witness the situation in Afghanistan. (not to mention Iraq). Larger army and marine forces only portend more of the same!

Violence can work, but the chances are greatly diminished for the aggressors in such instances. And with Muslims being so widespread and with communications being what they are today, Jihadists and martyrs can only expand greatly under such circumstances.