Is America Morally Paralyzed by Iran?

Thomas Sowell asks an interesting question with his recent article:

Is America Today the France of Yesterday?

[...] At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them. [...]

Thomas goes on to describe how Hitler made many of the best anti-war statements of the 1930's, knowing it was what the Western Democracies wanted to hear; knowing it would perpetuate and extend their moral paralysis, giving Hitler time to build up his massive war machine.



The Iranian leadership is doing much the same, talking about peace to the West while preparing their people for war and martyrdom. But they also have their eye on something Hitler didn't have: nuclear weapons capability, and missiles to deliver them.

Even without the nukes, Hitler nearly won the war. Add nukes to the equation, with an enemy that has no concerns about M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) to restrain them, and... dare we play this game again?

I recommend reading the whole thing, Thomas makes a very compelling case. The parallels are chilling.

Here is a compilation page of this and my other previous posts about Iran and nuclear capability. See for yourself how the Iranian leadership is preparing it's people for martyrdom.