Who led the drive in the Untied Nations to ban napalm? Find that person and you find one of the key players in the Global War of Terror on the Free World.

Today we again are shocked to discover that a relatively small group of fanatic extremists (I don't care if that is redundant) was planning on using incendiary chemicals stored in their carry-on luggage to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

Simultaneously, Israeli soldiers are attempting to root out Hezbollah terrorists hidden in caves, tunnels and bunkers but the UN would prefer the job be done without using one of the most effective weapons for that purpose -- napalm fueled flame throwers.

The Untied Nations Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a typically high sounding elitist title that effectively offsets technological advancements made by the western nations and their militaries, banned the use of napalm, specifically against civilian populations. They said use of napalm is inhumane. The United States never signed the protocol but all US stocks of napalm were ordered destroyed during the Clinton administration.

Unfortunately, since terrorists typically hide among civilians, the protocol effectively ends the use of napalm since in most modern conflicts you can't separate the players from the playees.

Know what I think is an inhumane weapon? A Russian made rocket that flies into a city that has no military value, and hurls thousands of flesh ripping ball bearings into nearby humans when it explodes. I wonder why the Untied Nations didn't ban Katyusha rockets, or ball bearings?

There still is debate over the allied firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo in WWII, meant to hasten the end of the war, pay back the Germans and Japanese for their attacks on civilian populations, demoralize the affected countries, and reduce allied casualties. Since the end of WWII most modern military and civilian leaders have opposed intentionally killing civilians as a tool of war.

But we aren't fighting most military and civilian leaders. We certainly aren't fighting civilized forces. We are fighting barbarians, extremist barbarians whose tactics are reminiscent of oh, let's say Attila the Hun. (Thought I was going to mention Genghis Khan didn't you?)

Their tactic of deliberately mingling with civilians to increase casualties is evidence that they have no qualms about using any form of weapon to achieve their ends, and if millions of innocents are killed in the process, well, it's God's will.

Why does the free world, the advanced world, the civilized world, continue to let the less educated, less erudite, less sophisticated terrorists tie the hands of the very people they intend to subjugate and annihilate? What mindset leads the Untied Nations to repeatedly conclude that if we just give up all we have accomplished and lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists who are trying to kill us, they suddenly will lose their extremist fervor and go home happy and content?

Every time we give up a weapons system or development that was intended to help us maintain and improve on our way of life we give an unnecessary advantage to the Stone Age combatants from societies that want only to destroy all that is not them.

Consider for a moment what the mood would have been in the Muslim world today if the Al-Qaeda plot to blow up airliners and kill thousands of travelers had been successful. As cowardly and heinous as that act would have been Muslim extremists and their supporters would have taken to the streets in dozens of cities across the globe, dancing, chanting and laughing, considering it a major victory for their forces.

Then consider what we actually are doing in this war. We are attempting to destroy the fighters, destroy the financial infrastructure and neutralize the leaders who advocate terrorism as a means to advance their viewpoint. We are working and fighting to save and spread democracy, to give everyone a fair chance to live free and prosper.

They deliberately put civilians in harms way, or fight next to them in hopes of getting them killed, and then celebrate when they are successful. We are horrified when the innocent are harmed.

Everything you need to know about the two sides in this conflict can be learned from that one example.

We definitely are NOT attempting to kill or subjugate their populations. We are trying to prevent them from doing that to us. But in the Untied Nations, people who are supposed to be working for world peace take every opportunity to make the job of spreading terror easier for the terrorists, and the job of promoting peace and democracy more difficult for us.

So once again, why do we belong to this organization? Why do we give a rat's rear end what kind of resolution that organization passes since the most insistent of all such resolutions seem to never proceed to enforcement. Except of course the Book of Resolutions Concerning Iraq which the US, Great Britain and the coalition partners enforced to the extreme discomfort of most of the countries that voted for it in the first place.

Israel is now engaged in an operation which if successful will set terrorism in the Middle East back decades. We should not be tying Israel's hands, thus increasing the number of Israeli casualties. Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and their backers in Russia and China started this latest conflict.

Our side can and should be the ones to end it -- on our terms, at our discretion using whatever weapons are necessary to get the job done.