Atomics, Terrorism, Israel, and Society

Chuck Colson has another great article up at Townhall, about what "could be"; I just hope his vision never comes true.

The sad part about the article is that I could see it happening some day if Congress doesn't unite behind the GWOT and what our Armed Forces are accomplishing in Iraq. I can't imagine how demoralizing it must be for our troops to hear reports of how the MSM treats the war over here in America, while they are fighting and dying for a cause they believe in, one that all of America should believe in: the spread of demoracy and freedom. For this situation we have liberal democrats in Congress to thank; sometimes I honestly wonder if they want our country to fall apart and bow it's knee in submission to the rest of the world...

Iran continues to be an issue on the word stage with their desire to continue "enrichment research"

Seriously, does Iran think she can fool the entire planet into thinking they don't want to have nuclear weapons? If she thinks she can, then the anti-Israel rhetoric that is spewing out of the mouth of Iran's new president sure is not helping. In the least, the deals that Iran is brokering with Russia make the whole situation look real shady. I am sure that the author of "The Ezekiel Option", Joel Rosenberg, is following this with great interest.

The way Israel makes it's decisions in reguards to fighting terror is someting I find rather facinating

I find myself agreeing with most of this article, but there is one thing that give me pause:

1. The "International Test" - it is here that "International Moral Standards" are considered; what are these standards and do they change? After 9/11, the international community was all too eager to assist the USA in hunting down and killing those responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers, mainly the Al Queda network and their protectors, the Taliban (thanks to Article 5 of the document that governs NATO, saying that an attack on one ally is an attack on all and they had no choice but to honor that). By their actions in support of the US, one would gather that the "International Moral Standard was met, even if it is unknown, because this was (and still is) a war on terrorists, and if that standard was not met, no action would have been taken.

However, in the spring of 2003, when the rumblings and wispers of war with Iraq finally materialized into something tangible and the USA went to war, there was a large section of the international community that would not join with us, (for whatever reason, politically motivated or whatever else) in effect saying that this part of the GWOT did not meet the "international moral standard". What were the "international moral standards" at this time in history, and did they change, were they somehow altered, as to be different than they were on 9/12 when the world rallied around the USA and said "we're with you"?

Today in Iraq an arm of that same evil and deadly network, Al Queda, still operates and yet the USA is condemmed by many on the international stage as being unilateralist, having gone into a war they "should not have" and members of the US Congress even serve up condemnation on a regular basis while the organization that the world "so agressivly" wanted to stamp out after 9/11 still works against them in a country crying for freedom, freedom that the US and our "coalition of the willing" gladly and sucessfully have imparted.

So again I ask, "what were the standards, and did they change; as to serve up condemnation against those comitted to doing what was right?"

The "PyrE curve"...very interesting...

I find it interesting that Pinkerton puts forth as the solution to the "PyrE Curve" (but does not appear to condone) a "all-knowing and all-powerful government" in which yes, the greatest casuality to the "Curve" would be freedom. Someday, maybe sooner than we think, a government molded after that idea may indeed rise. The fact that it is being tossed around now by bright minds is frightening.