to Gabriel

Submitted by Sidda (United States), Feb 15, 2006 at 17:11

Gabriel, I honestly don't mean to put you on the spot. But I am curious as to your answer to this. We all know now that if Europe had not wilfully turned a blind eye to the threat that Hitler posed, and had stopped the Nazis before they really got rolling, that over 56 million people would not have died in WW2. America lost over 400,000 soldiers bailing Europe out of that mess. Winston Churchill, who saw the gathering threat, was called a "war monger" but he turned out to be quite correct. The appeasers turned out to be wrong. Looking back on the situation, do you think that a little preemption might have been a better course of action?

Now we have Iran, run by a nihilistic, fanatical bunch of Mullahs keen on an Armaggedon scenario. They are most likely close to obtaining nuclear weapons which they will likely give or sell to terrorists. Since you are against the doctrine of preemption, what course of action do you suggest should be taken to stop them from obtaining these weapons? Do you think a letter or two from the U.N. will have them shaking in their boots? Maybe a blockade?

Things are very difficult today because no more do we have the luxury of waiting to see foreign troops in Panzers massing at the border. With WMD's, entire cities can be taken out at the push of a button.

---

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".