Mutually assured destruction??

Submitted by Larry B. (United States), Jun 28, 2008 at 20:44

Hi Dan,

Iran with nukes or any islamic country is a dangerous powder keg waiting to go up in flames. During the cold war, it was the balance of nukes that kept the peace through mutually assured destruction. This was with nations with a strong presence of the Judeo-Christian element in thier citizenry.

Not so with islamic states. They have VOWED to destroy Israel. This should be taken as salt, and not as an idle posturing threat. Mutually assured destruction would not work in this senario beacuse every muslims wish is to die in jihad to win thier place in heaven. Remove the threat before it becomes a reality.

A strong preemptive strike in Iran or any country that is developing weapons of mass destruction should be on the books. Russia and China must be prompted to do more to curb iran, and stop using usless sanctions that only buy them time. Time to plan more destruction..

On the other hand, I do respect your position . Keep posting, peace and dialog are a better alternative to war. BUT, when the enemy swears by his god that he will rule the world, one must choose sides. I choose to fight to preserve freedom. Dialog, sanctions and appeasements have been going on since the 2nd world war. NOTHING but heartache for Israel, and now the world has come from it. Blessed are the peacemakers, is a quote from our Christian Bible, it is powerful in dealing with other Christians, and peaceable Religions. It is meaningless to islam. So grant them thier wish, death by jihad.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".