Seriously? Having one LESS enemy will make the world less peaceful. Once again you demonstrate your skill at using completely irrelevant arguments. That just doesn't even make sense.
As for the others, my guess is that at minimum, the threat of being eliminated from the face of the planet, just as they profess the intent and then engage in the actions to do to others, would lead them to stop and consider their actions. As another member is fond of point out, Mohammed was a pragmatic individual. I have noticed that this trait has been passed down pretty reliably, at least to the extent that they only engage in hostilities when they have a pretty solid chance of success. Demonstrate that this chance doesn't exist, and they will knock it off. As it is, they know that we won't do anything, and if we do, it will be more focused on the financial gain of the contractors and suppliers than on actually solving the problem (i.e., liquidating the problem hostile forces).
Let's see...
3. I suppose we could simply start accepting terror attacks as a way of life, let it go unfettered, and just accept the notion that so many people a year will die from it, just like disease, accidents, lightening strikes, and so forth. Of course, if we aren't going to use our military to provide safety from foreign threats, preferably before they strike on our soil, we might as well eliminate the military.
4. You are going to concede the economic damage done through counterfeiting but not the economic damage done through driving energy costs through the roof? Do you own a lot of green energy stock?
6. I will grant you that invading Iraq was not the best plan, but that doesn't excuse Iran for jumping in or for stealing our drone, covering point 5.
7. Seriously? The Kenyan just negotiated a deal essentially handing Iran nuclear weapons that they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to use on others which would include us, and you don't consider that worth worrying about? Do you have some type of magical defense over yourself and your home which makes you impervious to nuclear attack? Maybe a bunker somewhere in North Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana?
Last but not least, are you willing to simply absorb the damage from terrorism while we start waiting for the rest of the world to start sharing the wealth? I don't know about you, but deliberately choosing to be an undefended target just doesn't sound very appealing to me.
If you're scared of terrorism nuke Saudi Arabia. 911 wasn't funded by iran.