VodkaPundit

An Open Letter to War Protestors

“Nothing new…” “I’m not convinced…” “Powell’s heart isn’t really in it…”

These familiar refrains, plus, as the ads say, many, many more are all over the no-war side of the blogosphere today.

For you idiots — and I won’t supply any links because I like some of you idiots — no amount of proof is compelling, the bar can never be set too high, and no amount of reason can ever convince.

So much for the great bulk of thoughtful anti-war sentiment. There’s no thought here, just the laziest sort of knee-jerk “not in my name” reaction. War is always bad, Iraq is never dangerous (or at least always “contained”), and America is racing headlong towards fascism.

Get with it, catch a clue, get a new catchphrase. Iraq is not only dangerous (as proven by two wars of aggression and undeniable terror weapons programs), but Iraq is in complete non-compliance with the demands of that war-hater’s wet-dream-made-real, the United Nations.

The UN Charter doesn’t outlaw war, (nor do the Geneva Conventions, for that matter). What the UN charter does, in part, is set ground rules for war that the signatory nations have agreed to. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is a member of the UN, and is therefore bound by the, well, binding decisions of the Security Council.

Iraq is in material breach of every single binding decision against it. No wishful thinking, no chant, no mantra, no march, no slogan, not one single verifiable fact can deny it.

Does the liberal mind want its baby to go the way of the League of Nations? Is it the liberal attitude that it’s OK for an entire vital region be dominated by a tyrant with a penchant for terror and brutality? Is it the liberal stance that it’s OK for civilians to be slaughtered on purpose by their own government, and their NGO buddies in the terror business?

The liberal mind, it is claimed, is ruled by reason. By what reason is Iraq absolved of its obvious guilt? By what reason is a global coalition required to ask for little and accept less? By what reason are our hands to remain tied?

This should be a liberal’s war. By what reason is it not?

In today’s speech to the UN, Colin Powell made an impassioned, documented, reasonable argument that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is a threat to the United States, the United Nations, his region, and his people. The facts he presented are incontrovertible and far from inconsequential.

You might argue that the al Qaeda connection evidence failed to meet the standards of American courtrooms. You’d be wrong, but you could at least make the case. But it doesn’t matter. With or without an explicit connection to al Qaeda, Iraq is in noncompliance with a unanimous resolution threatening the direst consequences. Iraq was given a final chance, supposedly ending on January 27, but now extended until next Friday.

How many more chances does Saddam get? How many more risks to our interests, to our prestige, and to our people are we to take? How long must your beloved UN be made to look like fools?

Really, though, there’s no point in me continuing to re-hash all these old arguments. Powell — your dove! — laid down the line this morning and, baring some miracle, the war will begin in earnest sometime in the next three to five weeks.

You lost. We — the US, the UN, the Iraqi people — are soon to win.

Stick a sock in it; you’re done.