May God Bless Britain...

It is with a heavy heart that I mourn for those lost in London today. The terrorist believe acts like this will weaken the resolve of the United States, Britain and the rest of the allies in the war on terrorism. They could not be more wrong.

***UPDATE***

Independent Sources has a nice roundup of BFL reaction.

Comments

[Yolo Cowboy]

Amen.

[Paul]

Time to finally strat fighting terrorism I guess. I too am sad and angered Blair and Bush have waged war in Iraq instead of fighting terrorism.

[Miller's Time]

Paul:

Disagree with your sentiment more. We have been fighting terrorism since September 12, 2001. Does that mean that there will never be another attack? But it does mean that in Bush and Blair we have leaders who have taken the fight to the enemy in BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq. Through the “Bush Doctrine” countries like Pakistan has become our ally, Libya have foregone its weapons program, 50 million people have been liberated in the Middle East and al Quida is being dismantled.

If those of your ilk were in charge we would still be trying to talk our way out of this war.

[Paul]

Your beliefs are why this country gets attacked in the first place! Also, would your savior wage this war? We have not been fighting terrorism since September 11, 2001, we have been fighting it from the moment this country began 229 years ago! You are need of a serious history lesson and would suggest you stop by my class sometime. In Afghanistan the Taliban has regrouped, rearmed, and is well-funded. Heck, just recently Taliban insurgents claimed to have killed a U.S. commando. Now that is probably B.S., but the fact is that the war in Afghanistan has been nearly forgotten and the "War on Terrorism" a rhetorical tool of the Conservative Right to justify their actions in Iraq. When Sept. 11 happened Mr. Bush told me that his military aim was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle the Taliban. I agreed with him and so did men like Pat Tillman who signed up to fight in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and passed up a million dollar NFL contract. But Mr. Tillman died before he saw how that agenda had been displaced by Bush's other agenda to go to war in Iraq. Here we are nearly four years after the September 11, 2001 atrocities in the US and Osama bin Laden in no where to be found! Undeniably, the US-led war has dealt heavy blows to bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, but definitely has not wiped it out. There is no shortage of potential terrorist recruits in the Muslim world and the "war on terror" does nothing about the underlying causes and the war in Iraq only adds fuel to the fire and, to make it even worse, when war abuses are shown all over the Muslim world they get even more angry with the U.S.—maybe a little talk would have been better! The War on Terror doesn’t feature much in the media now, apart from some flare up such as another bombing atrocity somewhere. To say we are fighting terrorism in Iraq is like saying that Aliens shot JFK while hiding behind the grassy knoll. Indeed, even this administration has admitted that Saddam had no link to September 11 and there are more al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq today than there was before the war!

As for the Bush Doctrine let's call it what it is, the doctrine of pre-emption. The doctrine of preemption according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
The salient elements of the Bush Doctrine may be summarized as:
Preemption
• A policy of pre-emptive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction.
The right of self-defence should be extended in order to authorise pre-emptive attacks against potential aggresors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US. In the case of Iraq, American military action was preventive rather than pre-emptive.
Unilateralism
• The right of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multi-lateral solutions cannot be found.
Strength Beyond Challenge
• The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.
Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions
• A policy of actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. As Bush stated at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."
The new policy was fully delineated in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States issued on September 17, 2002.
Now see, without getting into the problems of unilateral action, in which talk has been thrown out the window, I will only focus on the preemption part. Preemption encourages arms build-up and an arms race. Even Nixon, whom I am sure you have a picture of framed over the fireplace, understood this fact when he signed the SALT treaty. Placing ceilings on arms production, particularly nuclear weapons, fosters an ease in tension in global affairs. When there are limitations on arms production, other countries, particularly "rogue countries" are not as threatened. However, when the U.S. pulls out of the Anti-ICBM treaty and begins to produce bunker busting bombs and then says (and does) it will attack any country, unilaterally, that appears threatening (such as Iraq which did not have any weapons you conservative idiots) then global peace and security for Americans is forgotten. Preemption encourages arms build-up. For the U.S. has shown that whether you have the weapons or not, it will attack under the doctrine of preemption. Thus, we get countries like Iran and Korea thinking nuclear! My goodness, preemption encourages those without weapons to arm themselves! Preemption even encourages those with arms to build up even more. What happened weeks after the U.S. pulled out of the Anti-ICBM treaty, the Russians and the Chinese signed a friendship treaty after they separated in 1963—in which you can read a particularly wonderful thesis written on this called A Wrinkle in the Curtain housed at the CSUS library, showing that the U.S. based policy on separating the two while Bush, in one stroke, brought them back together and ruined 30 years of U.S. policy. The Chinese and others now have to build up their ICBM and nuclear capabilities if they want to get past our AICBMs and need to do it quickly because we have shown that we will come in, unilaterally, without hard-core evidence! Any hope for Terrorists or those hostile to the U.S. way of life not arming themselves is a pipe-dream.
Finally, WWJD. I thought he turned the other check! Talking our way out of a war that is not justified is not a bad thing. Talking our way out of war period is the best for everyone. Are the 100,000 Iraqis dead a sacrifice to the glory of your Savior who advocates war?! I will never go to church again if this is what Christians believe in and support!
If those of your Ilk ran the country then we would be in a needless war, restricting personal freedom and rights, and launching a war against anything non-Christian in this society like Gay Marriage, abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and so much more---oh wait, you are in charge and that is what is happening! Crap, American democracy is on the attack!
To fight Terrorism you need to first define it and no one has!

[Miller's Time]

Paul:

I will respond in more detail to you comment later, maybe in another post, but for now I have just a few comments.

1. I don't know that we have been fighting militant Islamists for 229 years. Take a look at this post (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006396.php) that argues that they have been fighting the Western world since 1947.

2. It is difficult for us to argue when you see the War of Terrorism and the War in Iraq as two seperate things. I see then as the same war on two different fronts.

3. Quoting the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I hope you don't use that for your college classes. ANYONE can post to the site. BTW - I am aware that Wizbang (above) uses the same source, but he does not quote from it.

4. You are wrong when you say that I have a Nixon picture over my fireplace. My wife is a Dem and would never allow it. He was, however, good friends with my grandfather who is pictured at the top left of this site and I do keep his autograph in my den.

5. You ask WWJD. As a Christian I do everything to turn the other cheek in my personal life. This is different. The fight was brought to us, and our nation is threatened. To turn that back on you, WWJ(have done) with the Axis powers in WWII?

6. Give me ONE example where YOUR personal freedoms and rights have been restricted. Has your door been beaten down by jack-booted thugs, has your library card been confiscated? ANYTHING!

OK, more later.

[Paul]

I'll comment later too, but to compare terrorism to Axis powers of WWII! It's hard to reason with a mind like that! 11 million people died in the Holocaust for crying out loud. To use an Axis, and thus a Hitler reference by logical inference, demeans me, lowers your stance and anything you have to say, and, quite rankly, insults the evils of the Axis Powers and Hiltler himself who did too many evil things to be compared to some Islamic Fundamentalists! Shame on you.

Note: Don't take the tone or the occasional wise crack too seriously. I enjoy our exchanges and your willingness to allow and leave my posts on your blog. Don't lose a sense of humor or you will be just like those you declare to fight!

Finally, quoting an encyclopedia for factual information is great! Do I use that in class, no, but I also don't rely on other people's sources or words to serve as an authority on what has transpired in history.

Your wife must be very understanding (see that's a joke!).

[Paul]

Check out http://toejamthoughts.blogspot.com/ for arguements, thoughts, and fun. He has some things for Miller Time.

[Paul]

My Freedoms Have Been Violated, More Than One, Yes More Than One, Example:

Okay, I'll discuss the violation of my rights more than once! Here I will keep it to just the First Amendment and my privacy rights, and just in case you didn’t know, and I am sure, I the Amendment down for you.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This countries endorsement of Christianity violates my rights everyday because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is basically known as "separation of church and state." Indeed our glorious 3d president and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, believed the necessity of this article to protect the state from the church, not vice-versa (Thomas Jefferson, Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779, Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950], vol. 2, 545-47.). "In God we Trust" securely fastened to every coin and on the back of the very few greenbacks I have, to have to say "One Nation Under God," with my hand over my chest everyday from kindergarten to fifth grade, to have to read the 10 commandments on the lawn outside a courthouse, and to see my president (all of them) place his hand on the Christian bible, as well as most elected officials, when taking oath of office, violates my rights to keep church (any church, no matter how you interpret what god is being discussed) and state separated. Take your religious slogans off my money and don't force me to say "God" when I want to pledge loyalty to my country! Let me go to a courthouse, a pantheon of law, and not read the 10 commandments! Keep God out of my face! Don't even try the whole national Christian heritage thing, you were a history major, you know that is a lie!

Second, my rights of the first amendment are violated because yesterday, while watching Live 8, Pink Floyd performed, and in the middle of their great song "Money" I heard "Don't give me any of that goody good (BLEEP)." In case you didn't know Floyd said "bullshit." Why is the FCC restricting and censoring what I can hear and impinging on my first amendment freedom of speech rights. I may not have been the one doing the speech, but why was it censored for me! It's my right to hear that our not!

Oh, freedom of press! What a joke, in the latest "Worldwide Press Freedom Index" (http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Eur_index_Eng_2004.pdf) the United States is ranked in a tie for 22—with Belgium!)! Way to go Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Love that Patriot Act. Love the restrictions the Administration has placed on people's right to assemble. Love all the president's news conferences! Love the Administration's allowance of access to the media. Love that coverage of Iraq! You should be disgusted if you’re an American that we have the 22d ranked Free Press! It's our first freakin' Amendment right for crying out loud!

Look, I'll be candid with my next point; the Right to Privacy is not in the Bill of Rights. It is not in the other Amendments or in the Constitution itself. The US Supreme Court says the Right to Privacy is a penumbra right. That means its source is all the other rights taken together.
Some conservatives laugh at the Supreme Court for this position; for making law and for not following a strict construction of the Constitution. Such a criticism, however, is short-sighted, to say the least. And it forgets that the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted individuals by the Government. It is a list of restrictions on government powers. Reread the Ninth Amendment if you have doubts. The Right to Privacy is a fundamental affirmation of the rights of the individual over the rights of Government. The right to be let alone. The right to make one's own choices, without Big Brother snooping into those decisions. All advocates of liberty should be thankful that Courts give at least lip-service to such a right.
Look, the constitution does not say it will make "no unreasonable laws" or " no laws except when we need them," or "no laws except for a few exceptions no one could object to and a few restrictions that don't hurt anyone who has nothing to hide."
My privacy is my privacy, take away your Patriot Act and leave me alone.
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty
nor security." –Benjamin Franklin

[Paul]

Shall we discuss all the other amendments (we'll I guess some don't really apply!), huh?!