Worth the price, Octavio? You bet.
Reader comment on item: Decision Time on Iran
in response to reader comment: Is this war worth the price?

Submitted by James Vesce (United States), Feb 13, 2007 at 15:11

Points 1 and 2: If a half million Iranians die, and "thousands of Westerners get slaughtered", you're suggesting that would be a problem? It sounds like a casualty ratio of 100 to 1, enemy dead to friendly dead, in a war already declared by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Or, didn't you notice the repeated "invitations to Islam", and clarifications of the "invitation", and explanations of consequences of not accepting, all of which are part of the "legal" requirements for waging war against a non-Muslim enemy which are mandatory, to their way of thinking, for Ahmedinejad and his Shia buddies in Tehran?

It's a war. The only question is whether we want to fight it for ourselves, or because the Sunnis are manipulating us into it, to their advantage, or whether we want them to fight their own war against Shia Islam, and leave us out of it so we can root from the sidelines. I pray for the sould of every American who has given their lives, and for every family who has lost a loved one, in this damned war, but their sacrifice was required as the price of freedom, and freedom isn't free. The situation we find ourseolves in, like it or not, is "live free, or die a slave."

Put it in perspective. We were lucky if we came out 5 to 1 against the Imperial Japanese in successful campaigns in the pacific in World War II. The Soviet Union won the war against Nazi Germany, but more Soviets probably died, if the true numbers could be obtained, than Nazis. "Thousands of Westerners" have alredy been "slaughtered", over and over, including the 3000 dead and many more injured in a couple of hours on 9-11, and in the subway and train bombings in England and Spain, and from suicide bombings in Indonesia and Israel, and millions of Buddhists being slaughtered by Muslims to prove the futility of pacifism, all while the West was busy making believe there wasn't a global jihad going on.

We're in a global jihad, mainly because Muslims can't agree with each other about anything except (sometimes) uniting against non-Muslims, and because jihad is obgligatory in the Quran and in sharia, so lots of people are going to die no matter what we do. You may want to role over on your back, or bend over, and take whatever the bad guys serve up, Octavio, but don't expect me to do the same thing, and don't ask my nation to do the same thing.

Point 3: In case you haven't noticed, "coalition countries" are already "targets". They are targets by virtue of not having accepted sharia, not having surrendered to Allah, and not having accepted the status of dhimmis. If coalition countries are passive, they are targets on the grounds of "oppressing Muslims", meaning they haven't built Muslims enough free mosques, and they haven't given Muslims enough welfare money, and they haven't accepted the imposition of Islamic Law in their non-Muslim countries. If coalition countries aren't passive, and resist being destroyed, they are targets because the Muslims are "offended" and "outraged". Even if we submitted and became a completely Muslim world, there would still be endless war, because Islam is a religion of conflict, and because Islam is inextricably intertwined with Arab language and culture (you're not supposed to recite the Quran in any language except Arabic, and the cultural traits go along with the language), and people would be endlessly fighting over who had the "true Islam".

Point 4: What do you suppose was "the cost to the tax-payers", who collectively shouldered the burden of the American economic collapse after 9-11? Have you forgotten that everybody was so scared, and so afraid to be afraid, that nobody bought anything except necessities? The stores were almost empty. There were few deliveries, and delayed deliveries. Trucking almost stopped. Planes were grounded. Highways were completely clogged when they weren't vacated due to fear. Trains were completely overwhelmed.

Our economy is a consumer economy, based on everybody spending money on stuff they don't really need, and everybody stopped consuming. The stock markets were devalued by almost one half. State treasuries were plunged into debt, all over the country, because the securities their funds were held in became devalued by about 50%, or more.

Even now, some states haven't recovered, and the rest have sacrificed. We are in a war, and it will cost us money even if we don't actively fight it. It will probably cost us more to not actively fight the war, if you figure in direct and indirect costs and losses. We might as well fight back, and get more bang for our bucks. Our annual national budget, and annual GNP, dwarfs the "cost to the taxpayers" of prosecuting our national defense actively.

If you're worried about the money, we could always break even on the war by just witholding every penny we pour into the United Nations, directly and indirectly. As far as I can tell, all we get from the UN these days is the privilege of giving people who hate us piles of money that never goes where we want it to anyway.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.