The Twelve Year Fuse

:: by R. Frank

:: by R. Frank | R. Frank's bio |

After 12 long years of continual cease-fire violations, a pile of cheap U.N. Resolutions, a chaircountryship for Iraq on the U.N.’s Conference on Disarmament, unfathomable human rights atrocities, and a bunch of threats to use chemical weapons he says he doesn’t have, we’re rushing to war with Saddam Hussein. What an itchy trigger finger we have.

Much to the disdain of Old Europe, Nelson Mandela, the Communist, Socialist, and Green Parties of America, Clinton, Carter, Dan Rather, Fred Durst, the Dixie Chicks and most liberal Democrats, the President doesn’t rely on the U.N. to dictate his responsibilities to defend this country or to answer the cries of the Iraqi people who are being systematically raped, tortured, and murdered.

To some, it’s an insignificant and otherwise forgotten event, but the Security Council voted unanimously (15-0) on November 8 to demand full disclosure of disarmament proof from Saddam in conjunction with 1991’s U.N. Resolution 687. Saddam unequivocally failed to provide full disclosure of, uh, well - anything substantial, and U.N. weapons inspectors subsequently began finding a cache of material breaches. This White House now has the audacity to stop kicking this can down the road and confront this burgeoning threat to our existence. The warmongery!

The appeasement crowd wanted to acquiesce to insignificant veto-holders like France by demanding an 18th U.N. resolution. Shouldn’t action have been taken to enforce the 2nd Resolution on this matter? Or what about the 4th, the 8th, the 11th, the 13th, the 16th? These resolutions will eventually be used as wallpaper in the grandiose halls of the Security Council’s wing in the U.N. and the left-over supply of worthless resolutions will paper the walls of Bill Clinton’s future Secretary General’s office.

France, by the way, is now offering their skirt-clad soldiers to assist our military (LOL) in the rush to war if Saddam holds true to his promise to use chemical weapons on approaching troops. Our Marines need help from French “soldiers”. Yeah- and the Philadelphia Eagles need to fill a linebacker position with heavyweight Woody Allen.

Does “last” simply mean “another” when referring to U.N. chances given to Saddam to demonstrate faux compliance? Koffi Annan and Madeline Albright were talking about “Iraq’s last chance” FIVE YEARS AGO. By the way… “going it alone” and “unilateral” have now been defined as “without Chirac’s approval”. In the same vein, “moral resolve” now means “close-mindedness” and “liberation” means “colonization”.

The ironically dubbed “Peace Protesters” didn’t seem to mind the former White House occupant’s penchant for covering the globe with our military like syrup on a piece of freedom toast. I hate to plagiarize the artist currently known as Jeneane Garafalo, but it “wasn’t hip” to protest military action during the Clinton years. Let’s face reality: the “No War For Oil” crowd hates this Conservative Republican and God-Fearing President. If our President is moving in a direction that upsets the Communist Party, France, Minister Farrakhan, and the “animals are way more important than humans” crowd, I’m not losing a whole lot of sleep at night. There’s a reason the protesters aren’t waving “Saddam: Leave Now!” signs. Think about it.

Saddam has both chemical and biological weapons. These aren’t spin-bits from Rush Limbaugh’s website… these are admissions of Baghdad that have been over-validated by our intelligence and even verbalized tonight on O’Reilly’s show by Liberalman Lieberman. Such threats must be confronted by force. Except for a handful of Soldier of Fortune subscribers who are itching to go to war, none of us want to go to war… not even Bush. But those with steadfast moral resolve strong enough to take on the challenge of changing the U.N.’s diapers are going to do just that. These reluctant warriors find themselves in a position where inaction would be irresponsible beyond all measure.

The arguments against the war have been illogical and non-convincing. Here’s the best one: “There’s no proven link to Al-Queda”! For starters, there is proof that Iraq has harbored, trained, and enabled Al-Queda terrorists. Apparently the smoke from that gun isn’t thick enough for the intellectuals who demand a photograph of Saddam passing a wheel barrel of cash and a suitcase of smallpox to bin Laden. These same nay-Sayers seem to believe that Al-Queda and Saddam’s agendas (hate the West, kill Jews, kill Americans) would never and could never coincide with each other.

The Green Party doesn’t seem to mind Saddam’s habit of creating billowing black clouds of burning oil, but thinks I’m a terrorist for buying a bigger car. The Earth Store's table at our local organic fair had an interesting product spread that included (from left to right): organic lettuce, cucumber seeds, hemp shirts, PETA membership applications, “NO WAR FOR OIL” pins, and “NOT MY PRESIDENT” bumper stickers. Nice. “Excuse me, can I get a organic cookbook and a huge “Bush is a Baby-Killer” protest sign please?

Here’s a question for those who harbor a blanket disagreement with war: Was it really wrong of America to confront Adolf Hitler militarily? Was it evil of us to defend South Koreans from the horrors of Communism? What about the War of Independence – should we not have fought it? You’d be amazed at some of the answers you’ll receive from left-wingers when confronted with these mind-boggling questions.

If the anti-Bush and anti-war pacifists are wrong, millions may die. If Bush is wrong… at the very least we will have rescued the Iraqi people from a bloodthirsty killer and the world from a potential disaster.

God forbid.

< Back to Opinions

PreventTruthDecay home