Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...


The deaths brought to 64 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action, according to the latest Pentagon figures, since Bush declared major combat over on May 1. - This story By Andrew Marshall of Reuters.

Mark's Remarks: This whole thing of saying more killed at end of hostilities than during war is nothing more than an attempt by the left to make Bush sound like a moron. It does not matter that the casualties are tens of thousands less than the democrats thought there would be, because they do not want us to remember how they hoped and prayed Iraq would be another Vietnam. I grieve for all our fallen heroes, but if we immediately pull out, ala Bill Clinton in Somalia, then we are not doing these fallen heroes justice, and are spitting in their faces. Much the same way Clinton did to the fallen from the Blackhawk Down crew. Remember that body dragged through the streets? We never got justice for that. Let's not let that happen to our fallen heroes in Iraq. Stay until the job is done.

Matt's Chat: Why is this news? I grieve for all of our fallen heroes. Don't get me wrong, this is still tragic. But what difference does it make if these guys died during "peace" or "war?" They have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation and I'll not see that politicized. And THAT is what the article is really about.

None of Bush's options in Iraq looks good (?)

For President Bush, suddenly every option in Iraq looks bad. To simply stay the course locks him onto a trajectory that virtually guarantees steady US casualties and rising violence against international and Iraqi targets. This story is by Ronald Brownstein of the LA Times.

Mark's Remarks: Of course, the liberal times is going to say that no option looks good. If we want no sacrifices, of course this is the case. However, if we back down now, the world will think of us again as the wimps only interested in ourselves that we were portrayed as under the Clinton Regime. The ONLY option is to continue the fight until we have Iraq set up as an ally in the Middle East. The papers do not tell you that only in the isolated area around Tikrit are we mainly seeing violence. NO, they would have us believe it is rampant all over. Simply not true. Keep up the good fight.

Matt's Chat: There were a few good points cleverly disguised in this article to make me wonder where this one was going. In the end, the President will continue to do what is right for the country, for Iraq, and the world. And THAT is all that matters.


NASA: Do we really need this agency? If so, for what? Those questions lurk between the lines of a tough report on the Columbia space shuttle disaster. This story by Investor's Business Daily.

Mark's Remarks: Whoever asks what do we need nasa for should never use a plastic cup! They should never get an MRI or chemotherapy. Without the space program, these and other developments might never have happened. The author of this article, to be blunt, has no clue. We need NASA. Maybe some modifications, but we need it. We, as a society, need a frontier and a big question to answer. The society that quits striving for discovery not only stagnates, but dies. We need to continue the space program. Now, I will grant that we need some changes in administration and structure, but to say shelve the agency is not only ludicrous, it is plain stupid.

Matt's Chat: Let me answer the question business boy, YES...HELL YES. We need NASA more than ever before. The manned space program is a "peaceful" way for the United States to display its power and might. Even liberals should have no problem figuring that out. I believe that the space program should set a new goal for a new era. China is playing "hare and the tortoise" with us...let's get back in the game.

U.S. Opens Hearing on Alleged Iraqi Abuse

The U.S. military opened a hearing Wednesday into allegations that four U.S. Army reservists abused Iraqi prisoners of war at a camp in this southern port city. - This story is by Tarek Al-Issawi of the Associated Press.

Mark's Remarks: Unlike Iraqi courts under Saddam, or even the L.A. Jury during the OJ case, I am sure justice will be served. If the soldiers did indeed abuse Iraqi POWs, then they should have to pay a consequence. We have to maintain, not only for ourselves, but for the Iraqi people, the highest standards. If we ignore abuses, they will equate us with the rapes and murders under Saddam; and they will turn on us. Now, watch your papers, because I am sure the Liberal Press is going to turn this into a My Lai massacre thing or they are going to attempt to denigrate our soldiers. If this occurs in your papers, write the editors and tell them to go to Hell.

Matt's Chat: The United States military has to live up to, and surpass, the highest standards of conduct. As a component of our "superpower," our military must always show the world what we are capable of both in war and in peace. It is imperative that our military conduct themselves with honor and integrity at ALL TIMES and in all situations. Abuse of prisoners is not acceptable. If it happened, I would expect that the soldiers who committed such an act to be apporiately punished in accordance with military law.