WORTH THE PRICE? (Neal Boortz - 12/22/05 Good Read)

Yesterday we had a caller, I think his name was Hayden, who wanted to know if I thought that 1000 lost American lives was a price worth paying for deposing Saddam Hussein. Good question. Fair question. And its a question that many people would try to finesse. I didn't. The answer was "yes."

We've covered this before, but it bears repeating. Sometimes you make a decision based on the consequences of failure to act. Various types of insurance are an example. You don't buy car insurance because you expect to be in an accident. You buy car insurance because the consequences of getting in an accident without that insurance are something you don't want to deal with. Certainly Saddam Hussein could have been left in the seat of power in Iraq. One could say that the odds might have been pretty strong that no great calamity would have befallen the United States if Saddam had been left alone. We already know the cost of removing Saddam; over 1000 American lives and the deaths of many Iraqis. What, though, could have been the potential worst-case cost of leaving him in power?

We know that Saddam had chemical weapons. He used them to kills tens of thousands of Iranians and his own people. We know that Saddam had biological weapons. We also know that Saddam was working on developing a nuclear weapon. People have conveniently forgotten that Iraqi nuclear scientist who stepped forward and led coalition officials to the equipment Saddam had ordered buried in his back yard ... equipment used to develop weapons-grade uranium.

So let's say we leave Saddam alone. We're just not willing to pay the price to depose him. Almost certainly Iraqis would continue to die at his hands by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Saddam's grave diggers would have genuine job security. And, once Saddam figured out that the United States was not going to act against him, he most certainly would have cranked up his weapons programs again. How long would it have been before Saddam managed to build his first nuclear devise? Oh, you say we could have prevented that with UN inspectors and a policy of containment? Containment, you say? Like the oil-for-food program? Yeah, that worked, didn't it? And how many times did Saddam kick inspectors out of Iraq? The only time inspectors were allowed any freedom of operation in Iraq at all was during those periods when Saddam genuinely feared a US military strike. Remove that threat and inspectors are gone.

What might be the price we pay for failing remove Hussein? The 9/11 Commission made it clear that there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We also know that Saddam openly financed and rewarded terrorist attacks against Israel. Saddam showed every willingness to support terrorist causes, who's to say that he wouldn't have placed some of his chemical, biological or nuclear materials with Islamic terrorists? Could one of Saddam's bombs make it into a container on a ship bound for New York? Can you see that container being loaded on a truck bound for midtown Manhattan? What price would we pay then? What price would our 20-20 hindsight tell us was too much to pay to prevent the100,000 dead that would result from a terrorist nuclear attack in New York?

Saddam wasn't deposed just to avoid the negative consequences of his continuing in power. There were positive benefits to pursue also. Like it or not, admit it or not, but the world is experience yet another world war. This is the war against radical Islam. Islam was once the dominant cultural, military and political force in the world. Islam's slide to degenerate obscurity was partially brought about by its continued denial of even the most basic freedoms to its people. Today a powerful and capable Islamic fundamentalist movement is determined to reinstate Islam to what they believe its God-ordained role as the world's dominant and ruling religion. These Islamic radicals will use any tool, including murder on a scale unimaginatively massive, to achieve that goal.

In the short term the greatest weapon that can be brought to bear against Islamic terrorism is brute, unrelenting force. In the long term the greatest weapon would be freedom. If the United States and its coalition succeeds in Iraq -- and it must succeed -- in taking the largest and potentially wealthiest country in the Middle East and converting it into a showcase of freedom with a government freely elected by its people, the United States would have dealt a devastating blow to the cause of Taliban-type Islamic fundamentalism. The desire to be free is universal (except, perhaps, in the United States). Show the virtually enslaved people of the Middle East that freedom can be theirs and they'll do their part to defeat the cause of the Islamic terrorists who vow to attack and kill us.

If ... hopefully when ... the United States and its coalition partners succeed in creating in Iraq a government freely elected by the people and a government that recognizes and upholds the rights of those people history will show it to be one of the greatest accomplishments for the cause of true world peace and freedom ever achieved by any nation. Many of the men and women who have given their lives in Iraq recognized this. Too bad more American's don't.

Emotions ran strong after that attack on the mess tent in Mosul yesterday. One listener emailed his opinion that the United States just "cannot be the world's policeman."

OK ... fine. Let's go with that. We just have to stop being the world's policeman. Your next job is to pick a replacement. Like it or not, some nation or some entity is going to assume the role of enforcing its version of a world view on the rest of us. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the intensity with which political nature abhors a power vacuum is something to behold. There has never in the history of civilization been any society where someone or something did not dominate and rule, sometimes benignly, often not, over the others. Where this is true for societies and cultural enclaves, it is doubly true for the community of nations. Throughout the history of the world there has always been one nation-state that dominated world affairs. Again, sometimes benignly, sometimes not. This world has been blessed for the past 100+ years by the fact that the dominate nation, the big dog, the 800-pound gorilla has been the United States. There were options. Nazi Germany comes to mind, or the Japanese Empire. Then, of course, there was Soviet Union and its determination to bring about one world living under communism.

Think about this. In almost every war, save two*, in which the United States has been involved the country we were at war with was rebuilt following the conflict and its people were left to chose and elect their own government. Can you name another powerful nation with such a history? Following World War II the Soviet Union robbed the people of how many nations their freedom? I lost count somewhere. Some of those nations are still fighting to this day to regain their independence.

There are people, Americans included, who hate the United States for its strength. These people harbor the naive world view that no nation should be stronger than another, and that no one nation should ever be allowed to dominate world affairs. Somehow, in their convoluted logic-starved minds, these people have forgotten that someone, somewhere, is going to be the top dog. Or, in the alternative, they fully realize that every wolf pack has it's dominant male, and they just want that dominant male to be someone else. And just who would that be? The United Nations? Is that what they're after? They recognize that someone is inevitably going to fill the role of "the world's policeman," and they want that someone to be the hopelessly corrupt and blatantly anti-American United Nations?

There has never been any nation in this history of man's time on earth that has done so much good for so many people as has the United States. There has never been any nation that has done so much to spread the cause of freedom and self-government then has the United States. These accomplishments have come about because the United States is both benevolent and powerful. Take away either element and the positive influence of the United States on the affairs of the world and the lives of people everywhere will be all but gone.

So, for those of you who believe that the United States cannot be the world's policeman, fine. You pick the replacement, because a replacement there will be. Let me know who you think can do a better job.

*The two exceptions are what is commonly called the "Civil War," and the Vietnam War. Some people despised the fact that in Vietnam Americans were killed in a war that the politicians were not dedicated to winning. Today people despise the fact that we're in a war that our leaders are determined to win. You just can't please everyone.

The death toll has been revised downward from yesterday's Islamic terrorist attack in Mosul. Among the dead were 14 American soldiers, 4 U.S. contractors and 3 Iraqi security personnel. Another 72 people were wounded, including 51 soldiers. So what happened?

At about Noon local time (4am Eastern time,) the GIs sat down to lunch in their mess tent at Forward Operating Base Marez. It was at that time that bloodthirsty, hate-filled, jihadist Muslims (or as the media prefers, "insurgents") raised their rocket launchers onto their shoulders and fired four rockets at the mess tent. One rocket hit its intended target, one exploded outside, and two missed the target entirely. Supposedly they recorded video of the attack on the mess tent. If that's the case, you can bet Al-Jazeera will be showing it over and over again.

The Islamic terrorist group Jaish Ansar Al-Sunna claimed responsibility on a website for the murders. These are same vicious bastards that have also taken responsibility for other attacks, including the beheadings of a Turkish truck driver, a Kurdish official and the killings of 12 Nepalese hostages. This group advocates rule by an strict Islamic theocracy, like the Taliban. In short, they hate freedom and liberty. That's what this is about....and what's it's always been about. The terrorists hate us because of our freedom.

Some will look at this terrorist attack and call for the United States to leave Iraq. On the contrary, it's time to dig in and annihilate these S.O.B.'s once and for all. We've been being too nice, and we're paying for it with American lives. These Islamo-fascist thugs won't stop attacking our troops until they start to fear retribution. It's about time we provide it.

There is still one unresolved election that's been too close to call since November 2nd: the Washington state's governor's race. It's become quite the little drama, with the Democratic candidate taking a page from Al Gore's 2000 Florida. The story is the same: the Republican won the initial count and has won the recount. Now the Democrats are trying to steal the election.

Republican Dino Rossi won the first count by 261 votes. He won a machine recount by 42 votes. Refusing to concede, Democrat Christine Gregoire demanded a hand recount. That's right...a hand recount of 2.9 million votes. The results of that hand recount are in, and naturally, Gregoire won. Her margin of victory?

8 votes. That's right, 8 votes. But that's not all....once the latest recount was underway, election workers "found" another 700 ballots in (surprise!) heavily Democratic King County. Rossi didn't stand a chance....the left rigged the recount from the start.

The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear case involving the 700 "missing" ballots. It used to be that what liberals couldn't win at the ballot box, they tried to legislate from the bench. Now it seems they are resorting to cutting out the middle man and stuffing the ballot box.

So now the Democratic party is trying to steal the election for governor in Washington state. Keep an eye on this one. Meanwhile ... which Democrat do you believe is now in the dog house in Florida for failing to "find" the "missing" ballot box there?

Let's see .. current unemployment figures would be described as "low" --- if there was a Democrat in the White House. We have record home ownership. Minority incomes are rising faster than the incomes of evil white folks. Home ownership is at a record high. More Americans are working right now than at any time in the entire history of our country, and now we read that the DOW is at a 3 1/2 year high. Why? Because American businesses are reporting better-then-expected earnings. The DOW closed yesterday at 10,737.70 ... the highest close since before 9/11. In spite of all of this you will still see talking heads on television talking about how bad the American economy is. I even heard the word "dismal" yesterday. These, my friends, are the people we rely on for news. Aren't you glad you have a hate-filled right-wing, neo-con, reactionary, pseudo-libertarian, bald-headed and overbearing talk show host like me to let you know what's really going on?

No one has forgotten anything except how to win an actual war. You do not play to the cameras, ask for a consensus from the "world community" (motley crew of profiteering scumbags that they are), and hope that the little people grow to love you, like the people running this war are doing.

You win wars by burning down mosques where weapons caches are found. You do it by breaking fingers and asking questions with a mean voice and a promise to break other things if cooperation is not given. You do it by killing people (not 'arresting' and 'detaining' them). You assassinate leading clerical rabble-rousers, terrorist recruiters, and financiers, inside and outside of Iraq. You don't ask permission or forgiveness, ever, for anything; not from the French, the Germans, the Canadians, the UN, or whoever else has appointed themselves this week as the world's conscience. And most of all, you don't give a damn what the media and the 'muslim street' has to say about what you're doing--because they hate you already, and nothing will ever change that.

But this will never happen. The US government is playing candy-ass with these scum because CNN and Al-Jazeera are just drooling with anticipation for the next 'atrocity.' And good men are dying, all because some rear-echelon motherfraggers think war is about honor, good PR, and having every last stinking European anti-lectual convinced that you are the hero.

My ten year-old Starcraft-playing nephew could win this war. How? The same way you win any other game (if war can be grossly simplified as such). You deny an enemy his resources. You kill his leaders, then you kill his leader's replacements. You constantly harass and hound him (not just during made-for-TV "offenses" with cute operational names). You take advantage of his every weakness (shoot him at his 'prayers'; hell, he's there five times a day!).

Sure, the US government wants to 'win the war'. But it doesn't want to do what it takes to win it, especially not when the cameras are rolling. Take me seriously here-watch the news coverage of the 'operations' and ask yourself, "are they really trying to win, or are they just trying to avoid looking like 'bad guys' or complete doofuses?"

It's unforgiveable, the way they have wasted the lives of 1000+ soldiers, all in the name of being the 'good guy'. Sure, the press will piss and moan about 'atrocities'; that's their job. But in the end, the only thing that will be remembered was who won.

Are you willing to give up your life to be a good PR spot, Senior Chief? You may not be ready, but someone higher up on the food chain is more than willing to give up your life for you. Just make sure to smile real pretty for the camera while you still have a face left.

I'm tired of being labelled as the 'next Chamberlain' every time I state the obvious. The whole 'Chamberlain' thing always comes up whenever someone mentions that maybe, just maybe, the war isn't exactly going the way it should, maybe it could be done better another way. Toe the party line, if ya know what's good for ya...

If you gotta go to war (as I believe we did, at that time), by all means, go all the way--don't half-ass it, like the US government is doing.

My tombstone will definitely NOT read "Here lies AG, killed while spoonfeeding crippled Iraqi orphans for the camera WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLING TERRORIST SCUMBAGS."

I think we are agreeing using different words. I AGREE it is senseless to send men to war and tie their collective hands behind thier backs whilst smiling for the camera (as you so elloquently prhased). I AGREE the proper approach is to "unleash the hounds" of war. A AGREE with General Patton that our military's job is to (paraphrased) "make the other guy die for his country".

Now, rather than attempt to disparage me, I invite you to take a look at my "about me" page. I gave 20 years of my life for this country. I didn't "select" Senior Chief, I EARNED it!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.