« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

OPEN THREAD: ‘Anti-Americanism + Nuclear Programs = Happy Dictators. Embracing America = Setting Yourself up to be Stabbed in the Back’

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  March 29th, 2011 at 02:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Courtesy of The Cold Equations, here is a handy cheat sheet for dictatorial longevity.

Country Prior relations with the US Nuclear weapons program US treatment of country Status of leader
Egypt Allied Not significant Pressured ally to step down Permanent vacation
Libya Moderately warm lately, despite past difficulties Abandoned under US pressure Bombs away Probably on his way out
Syria Strained to hostile Not a lot of info, probably has some program Mild economic sanctions Life is sweet
Iran “America is the Great Satan” Probably going to join the nuclear club soon Ineffectual, intermittent saber-rattling Happy as a clam
North Korea Hostile Has some nukes, ICBMs are in the works Ineffectual sanctions, endless talks, unkind portrayal in 2004 movie “Team America: World Police” You know what sucks about being Kim Il-Jong? Nothing.

Also via TCF, North Korea is pointing to the US/NATO/al Qaeda action in Libya as a reason why it will never, ever, ever give up its nuclear weapons or reduce the size of its million-man army of Lilliputians. How’s that for a proliferation-prevention FAIL?

Let’s make this an Open Thread.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • andystone

    GWB’s foreign policy is now revealed to have been well balanced and very astute. My personal suspicion is that Obama’s extreme antagonism towards Qaddafi stems from the very fact that recent relations with Libya had proved the Bush Doctrine right. Here was one non-democratic regime that was persuaded by Bush’s non-appeasing ways to give up their WMDs and to help in the global War on Terror instead. Such proof that neo-conservative foreign policy works could not be allowed to survive, or to be replicated by the next Republican administration.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Obama’s policy for the Middle East makes sense if it is his goal to radicalize the region, to overthrow the more moderate dictators, and to empower Islamic terrorism.

    Mr. Obama supported the rebels in Egypt and Libya because the represented radical Islam. Therefore, Mubarak and Qaddafi had to go.

    Mr. Obama ignores the potential rebels in Syria and Iran because the radicals are already in control and a rebellion in those countries would lead to moderation.

  • spainishirish

    I cannot allow mysef actually to believe that an American president would deliberately undermine our national security interests. Regardless of motive, though, this project is well underway. There is no way to explain why Obama pushed out ally Mubarak, a foe of Islamists, and wants to do the same to Gaffafi, a neutered dictator the target of Islamists, and yet has embraced Syria and Iran, both of which routinely kill Americans and either have or seek WMD. So where we see jihadis beheading innocents and seeking our extermination, Obama sees potential allies. This is kinetic liberal foreign policy on steroids.

    If I were an evil little tinpot dictator in some fly-infested, Third World hellhole, I would divert all national resources to the development of nuclear weapons. Korea’s Mr. Kim is crazy as a fox, and he’s shown genocidal maniacs the world over the way to Western approval.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Syria’s Nuclear program:
    “Not a lot of info, probably has some program”
    shouldn’t that be:
    “Future nuclear facility bombed to bits by Israel.”
    ?