:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

:: Monday, April 14, 2003 ::

It is a source of constant amazement to me that so many educated people in this nation, and elsewhere, can be so blind to simple logic. Post 11 September 2001, President George W. Bush stated, with no qualifiers whatsoever, that we, as a nation, would identify and remove the roots of terrorism that posed a threat to U.S. interests anywhere and everywhere they could be found. We have pursued that mission since that time. Our first target was UBL and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that provided him support and protection. We lent a helping hand to the Philippines and others as they confronted al Qaeda sympathizers in their own countries. Next came Saddam Hussein, who has been a vocal and active opponent of the U.S. for more than a decade and a known supporter and financier of terrorist organizations. His regimes penchant for violence and proven willingness to use horrific means to infilct harm on their enemies, foreign and domestic, moved him to the next spot on the list. If confrontation with Syria, or some other nation escalates to armed conflict, this will not signal some grand new plan for world domination. This has been, and will continue to be, part of the same effort. Namely, to minimize or eliminate known threats to U.S. interests by whatever means necessary. Frank, undiluted statements of position are the norm, not diplomatic double-talk. If this offends the sensibilities of the international diplomatic corps, so be it. We will state our position clearly, and pursue all reasonable measures to reach an accord peacefully. But if that fails to elicit the response that we are seeking, more forceful measures will be employed. This will continue until those forces desiring the destruction of our nation and society are deprived of the means, and if possible, the will, to carry out such designs.

If there is honest disagreement with this policy, let it be heard, but let's not look at each situation as an isolated case. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, DPRK, et al are each dealt with based on this policy, not the whimsy of the moment. So, let's stop the posturing over each new situation, and decide whether the policy is sound or not. But agree that, once a determination is made that it is, the only decision left is whether or not a nation or group warrants classification with those already mentioned. If it is determined that this is not a sound policy to follow, then there had better be some viable alternative identified that can achieve the aforementioned goal.

:: Mark 2:00 PM [+] ::
...