Koreagate
Trump called Kim Jong Un bluff about Nuclear buttons, and Kim cooled down after that. The press/left lost it.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-01-04 |
Trump tweeted the truth (obnoxiously, as always), the left lost their minds. Just another day in the upside-down.
I have no problem thinking Trump is a big-mouthed bombast, that's going to respond to every provocation. But that's a duh! He's a realityTV star, with a NY-attention-hog personality. So not liking the style is fine... just remember, that's just style (not substance). But now let's use our thinking brains and dive into the realities of this.
Twitter War[edit | edit source]
Here's the tweet that outraged the left:
| North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works! @realDonaldTrump |
The moderate leftist response can be summed up by MattGertz as basically, "OMG, OMG, he's not appeasing mini-Mao like Obama and Clinton did, that means we're all going to die!":
| "Fox News is going to get us all killed." @MattGertz |
But now, instead of just doing the #nevertrump stuff, let's remember:
- All Presidents have voiced their opinions, and it's gotten to other countries. Bluster is nothing new.
- The closest we got to Nuclear war that could have destroyed us all, was JFK's ego pissing contest with Krushchev... they could have destroyed the world, instead of just a city or two. Fortunately, the Russians were more sane than JFK and backed down. THAT was reckless. If anyone can't admit that JFK's behavior was worse, then they're not up for a big-boy conversation on this topic yet.
- The reason Rocketman has Nuclear weapons is because Clinton tried appeasement (Bush and Obama followed).... and the more we appeased, the bolder the little dictator got, because each time North Korea blustered or threatened, we threw money at them. This is giving your dog a treat, every time he shits on the carpet, with the obvious consequence.
| To normal people, graciousness is an opportunity to reflect kindness in kind. To Sociopaths, weakness is an opportunity to be exploited. Graciousness never worked with Korea, so why is assuming they're sociopaths and the only understand the bigger stick, the wrong thing to do? |
Insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting a different result. So in some ways, I'm glad we're at least trying something new. When appeasement isn't working, try something else.
But.. but... Nukes[edit | edit source]
The size of your weapon doesn't change the realities of human nature or war. What are North Korea's real choices here?
(a) Rocketman has nothing, and calling his bluff teaches him to stand down, because he only looks dumb.[edit | edit source]
That's a win. Kim is already trying to reach out to South Korea on the olympics, because his bluster isn't working any more, and he has to try something else. Isn't that an improvement over perpetual threats?
(b) Kim feels he has to show force, and decides to test an ICBM (on a deserted island or something).[edit | edit source]
That's a win. Because doing that would turn the world against him (and China, if they didn't smack him down). It would prove what the conservatives have been saying for decades (and the Democrats have been ignoring) -- that North Korean is dangerous, and the longer you ignore/appease a despot, the worse it gets for your kids. So this would weaken mini-Mao's position, and it would strengthen the opposition to him. I think he knows that, which is why he won't do it.
(c) Kim has something and actually tries to use it[edit | edit source]
So the little despot decides to actually try to Nuke us.
We have about a 70% chance of intercepting it (assuming it can actually target and get to a city with enough accuracy to do serious damage, and it doesn't fail in flight)... and the consequences is we would erase him and the problem.
That's not good... But remember the alternative -- if he is a megalomaniac with hydrogen bomb equipped ICBM's (thanks to Bill and other Presidents not dealing with him sooner) AND he is willing to use them because someone "hurt his feelings" on twitter, then the worst thing you can do is give him time to build his arsenal' from one or a handful, to hundreds of missiles -- which is exactly where he'd be going if he was a megalomaniac that's willing to nuke the world and destroy himself over an ego trip.
So while I don't want these consequence (a risk of one city, and serious mayhem that ended his regime and reminded the world that starting wars is a bad idea). I think this path is absurdly unlikely -- and the consequences are still better than that alternative.
Ironically, if the Democrat/Left's vision of Kim as being willing to nuke us is true -- then Trump's actions of taunting him now, instead of waiting for his program to advance and get worse, is the absolute best thing you can do for our kids.
One city is better than hundreds, is it not?
When you're dealing with nut jobs, the longer you wait for them to build up, the worse it is. Remember WWII and Chamberlain... what did we learn about appeasement?
Remember, this isn't about North Korea, this is about a lesson to the world[edit | edit source]
Obama's actions towards Iran taught the world, if you try to get Nukes, America will appease you: and give you $1.5B in taxpayer cash + hostages + one-sided deals in your advantage... all for a deal that you can cheat on at any time, so you can come back to that well. Because they're deathly scared of Nukes.
Trump's standing up to a bully is a signal to everyone with dreams of becoming a nuclear power: America will just call you out, and dare you to use them.
- If you don't, you look like an idiot.
- If you do tests/threats/demonstrations, you just piss off the world.
- And if you try to use them, you'll be destroyed.
So what good are nukes, if they're no deterrent, and they no longer intimidate?'
Which do you honestly think is going to result in more Nuclear ambitions by tyrants and despots?
- (a) Getting everything they want because we cow-tow to them, or we make bad deals to slow them?
- (b) Or if we just mock, taunt or dare them, and don't change our policy in their favor, and in fact dig in against them?
So I might not like Trump's style -- but his instinct on this one (to stand up to Nuclear Bullies): that's the far better path than Obama-the-appeaser. IMHO, of course.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
We tried kicking the can down the road... and now this generation is paying for that with a ICBM armed N Korea with Fusion Bombs on ICBM's -- how did that work for us?
Arguing that we should learn to kick the can harder and pray that when he's on his deathbed, he decides NOT to go down in infamy by pushing the button? That just doesn't seem like a prudent bet for our kids.
I'm not a war-monger, and I certainly don't want a war, or nuclear war. But to me, the surest way to guarantee that eventuality is to keep appeasing tyrants with designs on terrorizing the world.
The point is when we have a megalomaniac threatening the world, your choice is to reward it, ignore it, or smack it.
We tried rewarding it, and that made it worse. And you can't ignore it because the media will sensationalize it and give him the attention he wants, no matter what the leadership wants. And that leaves what?
So you dare the bully to do something, or shut up.
If he fights, and you can take him -- you end the problem. Otherwise he backs down, and you win.
Either is a win over the alternative... which is wait for him to build a bigger arsenal and be a bigger threat for your kids.
🔗 More
| |
| |
