Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.
Choose your weapon...
US CONSIDERS A UN FORCE FOR IRAQ
A top State Department official says Washington is exploring the idea of a multinational force in Iraq that would be led by U.N. officers serving under an American commander. This story is by VOANews
Mark's Remarks: I am not a big fan of the UN, but as long as it is an American commanding officer, I do not see the harm of a multi-national force. I am sure the French will be upset, but hey, remember D-Day, fellas? It was an American commander who led forces to free your liberal cheese and wine country, and never forget that!!!! While your army was goosestepping or cowering in fear with white flags for everyone, American commanders took back your country for you. However, I believe the multinationals should be used as support, not as front-line. American soldiers proved we, more than any other army, know what we are doing and can get the job done. I would hate to see another Yugoslavia or something happen, with our boys under UN control. If the UN balks at having an American Commander, I say tell them Thanks but No Thanks, go back to kowtowing to terrorists; because we will find out and there will be hell to pay. Have some cheese and wine and watch REAL liberators at work.
Matt's Chat: I have be strongly against involving the UN in Iraq. But at some point, Iraq is going to have to rejoin the rest of the world and that includes the UN. It wouldn't hurt for the UN to deploy some sort of protection for themselves at least. It will be the Americans fault no matter what happens anyway...at least to the media. There is nothing wrong in reinforcing our troops with additional, fresh men and women of our armed forces. I would rather see that than UN involvement at this time. We need to finish what we started. Or we'll never hear the end of it.
Iraq is battlefield for war vs. terror
Among the more comical moments of a grim week was the sight of the president of the Security Council expressing his condemnation of the terrorist attack on the UN. He was the representative of Syria. Syria is a terrorist state. Syrians have flooded across the border into Iraq to take up arms with their beleaguered Baathist brethren. This article is by MARK STEYN of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Mark's Remarks: I love it. The UN is nothing more than a free hiding place for many terror states. The idiocy of their choices for leadership boggle the mind. They put Cuba in charge of human rights. Cuba! A totalitarian communist state. Lovely. I think if the UN really wants to help they should Censure themselves and especially France and stay the hell out of our way. The UN is an anachronism. The fact that they only condemn an act of terrorism when it strikes their own roost shows their callousness. They did not condemn when terrorists were killing Americans. What the UN needs to do is clean its own house up and join the US in weeding out terror. The UN should depose nations that support terror, like Syria. It is a shame that we allow such hypocrisy of a Syrian decrying acts of terror that his own nation probably helped support. That is why the UN is nothing more than a joke. They have never had a successful mission without US involvement. Now, they want to jump in where we have done something on our own and claim credit. Just like the French who claim they did more to liberate their country than Eisenhower. If it was not for America, the French would be speaking German.
Matt's Chat: I am extremely gratified to see this article! A few days ago on my personal blog, I expressed my views on the UN's condemnation and the strong irony contained therein. For me, it comes back to the simple question of where and when the UN supported us and our efforts. Now they are just itching to get in to Iraq and reclaim what they lost...a purpose for existence.
