West sets new deadline for Iran: July 12
My question is: what does it matter? What is the Western world going to do? I never have understood Western “deadlines” or UN deadlines. (Understand I’m talking about the West as a whole, not necessarily just the U.S.) We have turned into a passive, reactive people. Okay, you set a deadline, they don’t come through, the deadline passes, so what are you going to do now? Nothing. What, set another deadline that again proves you will do nothing? Many oppose military force, so what else can you do? Impose economic restrictions? You think the Iranian leader cares? Surely not. This is why the U.S. winds up doing something about problems like this eventually because everyone else is just wringing their hands and passively sitting around in hopes the offending country comes around. But they never do. Dictators do not negotiate, unless you put military pressure on them. Even economic pressure doens’t work a lot of times. Have we not learned this lesson from history? (i.e. North Korea being a modern example, those people are starving and their leader could care less).
One thing the West doesn’t get is that the Islamic world-view is totally different than the Western world-view. I’m not at all saying we should not have gone to Iraq, but I do think that trying to push a Western world-view on an Islamic society is like trying to mix oil and vinegar into one substance. Muslims want Sharia law to rule the land, they want a theocracy. A Western world-view does not work well with a theocracy. In the context of negotiating though with leaders we are opposed to, the same concept applies. They do not negotiate as we do. When they set their mind to something, they want to carry it through to the end. Our policy-makers seem to not understand that the Islamic mindset will not compromise on their values the way the West does. They know we are a shifty people, saying one thing and doing another. We’ve proved that to be the case. (Again, understand I’m talking about the West as a whole, not necessarily just the U.S., Iraq proves the U.S. is still willing to take action). They stand their ground and they know we don’t. What they have learned from the West is that our “deadlines” mean absolutely nothing. They know we are simply trying to get them to the “table” and talk about the issues. But the Iranians have already made up their minds. Negotiating with these people is highly foolish on our part. Even if an agreement is made with them, they are so deceitful they will carry through with their plans anyway while we are deceived that we’re actually making progress.
So what’s the answer? Very simply, in order to take care of the problem quickly, military force is needed. I don’t think we have any other option. Negotiations don’t work with this world-view. I don’t like military action, we’re already in a war in Iraq, but has not history been a proving ground for people like Ahmadinejad, what eventually becomes of their dictatorial power? If we could have taken Hitler out before he gained the power he did in Europe, do you not think we would have done it before millions of people died? What’s to say we aren’t a decade away from an Islamic-initiated world war? Think it couldn’t happen? Who would have thought in 1933 that Hitler would have been expanding Nazi rule throughout Europe and North Africa less than a decade later? In order to gain long-term peace, sometimes it is necessary to go through short-term conflict. Iran is no exception. We do not want them to become North Korea (possessing nuclear weapons), but if we sit around wringing our hands, it is inevitable this will be the outcome. They want Israel to disappeaer and if they gain the military might to make it so, I have no doubt they will attempt to make it happen and surely the West will be a target after that (As if it already isn’t a target by extremists).
Now let me start off by saying that I am in no way disputing the data that has come out from this panel. I’m sure it’s accurate. What I do question though is whether these scientists have done long term data studies to see if this happened back several thousand years ago, like many other scientists have done; or are they simply ignoring all the long-term data that other scientists have already published? Sure okay, the Earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. But what about 2000, 4000, 6000, 10000 years ago? The data has already come out concerning this: we are in a natural warming phase of the Earth based on cyclical patterns analyzed by many other scientists besides this panel. And really, scientists are in agreement that the Earth is warming, but most agree that it is not caused by man-induced pollution. I mean come on, can you really conclude much from the past 400 years or even 1000 years? If you want to be logical about it, you need to take a step back and analyze data from several millenia to make an accurate assessment. This has already been done. And this is why I personaly conclude that this is just another political agenda thrown out by libs to try and win Capital Hill back from conservatives. They’re trying to look like the good-guys who are pro-environment, pro-nature, and the conservatives are the bad guys, destroying the forests, ruining the Earth, and thus (as many libs have hinted) conservatives are the cause of the hurricanes. This is non-sense. Most libs pollute just as much as conservatives. You can’t tell me all the hollywoodites don’t waste and consume products any less than their conservative counterparts, can you?
It’s interesting today how so many unbelievers will cite gnostic gospels to try and make their case against Christianity, and yet within the scriptures themselves, and more specifically coming from the letter of 2 John to “the elect lady and her children” (