Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.
Choose your weapon...
U.S. warns Israel against expelling Arafat
The United States has notified Israel it is opposed to the expulsion of Yasser Arafat even though "he is part of the problem and not part of the solution" in the tense standoff with the Palestinians. This story is from the Associated Press.
Matt's Chat: It's about time Arafat gets serious about peace or get out of the way. Otherwise Israel may make the decision for him regardless of consequences. And that would be bad for both sides of the issue. Arafat can't demand Israel to comply with the roadmap if he isn't willing to comply and stop the terrorist actions.
Mark's Remarks: Liberals should line up...I am about to disagree with the President. I guess I am not the sheep that some people out there think I am. I think the President should get behind the Israelis and we should quit kowtowing to a man who has been perpetrating his own Holocaust on Israelis for decades, but yet is hailed as a man of peace. Arafat must go. I am sure this is the state department wonks wanting to cover our butts with the Palestinians. The Palestinians should realize the detriment Arafat is and kick them out themselves. He is the biggest obstacle to the peace process, because he plays both ends. I am afraid I must stand against the President and say, let Israel do their thing.
Allies Line Up with U.S. to Set Iran Nuke Deadline
The United States has gathered more than two dozen allies to force the U.N. nuclear watchdog to set an October 31 deadline for Iran to demonstrate it is not secretly developing nuclear weapons, diplomats said. Iranian ambassador: "You can't impose deadlines on a sovereign country," This story is by Louis Charbonneau from Reuters.
Matt's Chat: Maybe we do need more troops in Iraq afterall... Unlike the North Korea situation, I don't see diplomacy working well at all with Iran.
Mark's Remarks: Wow, the synchopants of the world are just lining up for a smackdown, eh? Well, I think we need to shore up Iraq, finish Afghanistan, as they appear semi-ready to run their own affairs, and get to work on Iran. The best way to work Iran is to foment popular dissent. In recent months, the student movement has become more pro-Democracy than Pro-theocracy. We need to send people in to exploit that. Of course, if Gore or Clinton were in office we could not do that since they would not let us get intelligence and such unless the sources were "reputable" people. We need to encourage the young in Iran to cry out for more democracy, but then do not go away when they need protection or assistance (read Tianamen Sq.).
What Bush should tell United Nations
Since President Bush's TV address on Sunday night, polls show most people across the USA accepted most of what he said. If he addresses the United Nations as scheduled the week after next, he'll have to change both his message and his demeanor drastically to win approval there. This editorial is from USA Today.
Matt's Chat: I agree in principal, but not with all the details, to the points contained in the editorial. The president has no need to be tough with the UN at this time and I see no reason why he would do so. (So why mention it?) The meat of it is to say we were right about this (Saddam had to go) and wrong about that (intelligence regarding the immediate threat of WMDs)...that's all fine and good. I don't think the adminsitration is wrong about having the situation in Iraq being a magnet for foreign terrorists. I think that is brilliant. Instead of chasing them, let's bring them out where we can deal with them. And I do think the US can and will bring democracy to Iraq with or without the UN. The UN isn't interested in bringing democracy anywhere. I agree that UN assistance would be useful in Iraq, but then again, UN assistance would have been useful from the very beginning. And finally, the UN will be the last, best hope for peace in the world when they stop placating terrorists and start taking action.
Mark's Remarks: Of course, you talk to SOME people, and they will charge that our President and the US is at fault for the UN not standing with us in a unified manner; even though we begged the UN and drew up resolution after resolution to get them on board. However, because we actually saw the threat of Saddam's machinations and were tired of 12 years of backpedalling, we are naturally the badguy, of course. Always blame America, because we accept the blame. We like to be guilty of our strength. I say no more! I agree with my distinguished collegue that Bush should sell the good points of the Iraq conflict, that a maniacal dictator who defied every article in the UN charter of human rights is gone, and that maybe we should say, hey, we were not sure about the WMDs, but what we were sure about is that if he had them, Saddam would use them, and that is why we went in. I also think the magnet statement is pure genius.
On the democracy front, I agree. If the UN really wanted democracy, why is Cuba and Libya on the Human Rights council? These two are terrible violators of human rights. UN assistance would have been great in Iraq, but they refused, despite our pleas. And, the UN will only be useful when it wises up that allowing terrorist states and supporting states to roam free and be so controlling of the UN is a bad thing, and then, only then, will we start to see the UN become the last, best hope for peace. Right now, it is as useless and superfluous as the League of Nations. I hope we can help get the UN back to its mission of ensuring peace, instead of being a forum for how bad the US is.
Freak of the Week: Osama bin Ladin.
Quote of the Week: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
