Does Kaddafi serve as an anti-incentive for Akmadinajad and Kim Jong-Il?

I swear I tried to understand this one, to no avail – and are you calling Nuclear weapons “hunks”?

Do you really think that the U.S. might have been afraid of Kaddafi using his “nukes.” That would have been suicide. Same with Iran and Pakistan. And India. The U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in battle. These minor players know that if they were to launch a preemptive strike on anyone, and the U.S., France or Israel? A preemptive nuclear strike on any of those countries? Not going to happen. Akmadinajad and Kim Jong-Il may be nut cases, but they are not nut cases who are quite happy in their positions and won’t risk that by launching preemptive nuclear strikes on any of the aforementioned countries, IMHO. I am more worried about the nut cases in my own country and government who the view the rapture, the end of days, the end of the world as positive thing, as something to look forward to.

Anyway, one thing the U.S. might consider, at some point, someday, is picking a side and sticking with it. Pakistan and India have their nukes pointed at each other and we are supporting them both and allied with them both in one way or another. What gives us the right to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons and who doesn’t? Look at map of the MIddle East and check out Iran. They are sandwiched in between a U.S. invasion of Iraq on their western border and an U.S. invasion of Afghanistan on their eastern border. No wonder they’re feeling a little defensive lately. If the Chinese were waging simultaneous wars of aggression in Canada and Mexico and threatening and waving their sabers at us, we would would be talking tough too, to say the least.

It has pretty much always been assured that neither of these guys will “play nice” until it thoroughly benefits them—through international aid or more likely, personal benefits.

The U.S. didn’t go into Libya until Gadhafi had already threatened genocide, started attacking people, and rampaged around in there for a while, iirc. They did it to prevent an imminent genocide. So I don’t think there was any “breaking their word” going on—the genocides in the 90s and everything going on in the Sudan etc. have been lessons to the West that you can’t just sit around forever or masses of people will die.

So the bottom line is that I don’t think either of them will give up any tactical advantage anyway, without a really, really good reason like their own advancing age (risk reduction) or because of being forced by their own people. What happened in Libya doesn’t change anything when you’re an authoritarian and/or a crackpot.

The lesson to be learned is that if you torture and abuse your own people then one day they will drag you under a bridge and shoot you.

@lillycoyote The U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in battle. What gives us the right to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons and who doesn’t? That is a very good question! To allow the people that used it, created it, and have the most to decide who should have it and who shouldn’t, is like letting the MOB decide who or who shouldn’t pay ”protection money”.

Akmadinajad and Kim Jong-Il may be nut cases, but they are not nut cases who are quite happy in their positions and won’t risk that by launching preemptive nuclear strikes on any of the aforementioned countries, IMHO. I am sure they won’t attack anyone with nukes unprovoked. But when Peter Jennings traveled to N. Korea and asked him about if his country has nukes, and if so would they give them up for favor in the West. He said he wouldn’t, that as long as he has even a few, Uncle Sam won’t have the spine to attack if it meant S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan will pay a heavy price for it.

Had Gaddafi had a crystal ball to see the ”frienemies” he gave his nukes to would repay the favor by injecting themselves in a civil war on the side of those trying to topple the government.

I am more worried about the nut cases in my own country and government who the view the rapture, the end of days, the end of the world as positive thing, as something to look forward to. I won’t dignify that right now, to keep the thread on the rails, but, I will address that later.

@Yanaba The U.S. didn’t go into Libya until Gadhafi had already threatened genocide, started attacking people, and rampaged around in there for a while, iirc. They did it to prevent an imminent genocide. You think that was the criteria for Uncle Sam injecting himself into the mix? Excuse me a moment…. BAHAHAHAHA BAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHA…… OK I am done. If THAT were the criteria they would have been in the Darfur region of the Congo years ago. There was way more wholesale slaughter and rapes going on, and it was not against an armed insurgency but defenseless refugees. To say the US felt compelled to go in there to save lives is almost an insult. It was oil, influence and to give their masters in Israel more clout in the area.

Kim Jong il… no. He fancies himself a god. Besides, NK has no oil.

But when Peter Jennings traveled to N. Korea and asked him about if his country has nukes, and if so would they give them up for favor in the West. He said he wouldn’t, that as long as he has even a few, Uncle Sam won’t have the spine to attack if it meant S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan will pay a heavy price for it.

Saber rattling.

I am more worried about the nut cases in my own country and government who the view the rapture, the end of days, the end of the world as positive thing, as something to look forward to.

I won’t dignify that right now, to keep the thread on the rails, but, I will address that later.

I look forward to it, my friend!

I’ve had a feeling that you, for some reason, may have been going a little easy on me lately, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe it’s just my perception, but I’m ready to take you on! I’ve kind of missed butting heads with you.

:-)

A few things:

1. Libya never had any nuclear armaments to give up

2. The USA didn’t lead the effort to get rid of the previous regime. France and the United Kingdom were the main instigators of the NATO action.

Your main premise, however, that countries need nuclear weapons to resist the imperial ambitions of the USA, is sound, although this lesson has been available for all to absorb for some time.

Kaddafi was an infamous nut-job. Getting rid of him was a good thing.
That said, the United States may have “led from behind” on this, but it was started by the people of Libya, and the Arab Spring movement. The United States certainly wasn’t “hands on” here.
Kaddafi was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring uprising. His decision to hold on to power, despite the increasing odds against him surviving, was fatal. That may be the true message to the other dictators.