My Response to Kim_Jong_Nitwit

We won’t describe what action we might take in response to your latest provocation. The free world abhors your acting like a deranged child playing with the lives the of people of North Korea, indeed, of the entire Korean peninsula. But, rest assured, our response to a new provocation from you will result in the taking away of your toys. (Those of us familiar with our military capability know full-well what I mean. The media would like to picture our nation as a paper tiger but that does not apply to our current leadership or the tools at our disposal.)

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/07/05/my-response-to-kim_jong_nitwit/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

11 comments on “My Response to Kim_Jong_Nitwit

  1. [I follow Pat Buchanan’s recent advice to leave Korea to the Koreans – especially the South: Whether to develop its own nuclear deterrent against the North and/or accept our THAAD anti-missile defense system there, or as the current ROK President Moon (no relation to “Moonie” Moon) desires, to negotiate with the PRK (the country as well as what that acronym read as a word applies to its “Great Leader) and scale back American military presence including THAAD]

    An America First Korea Policy

    http://buchanan.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/An-America-First-Korea-Policy-2-700x245.jpg

    June 30, 2017

    “The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with, and probably dealt with rapidly.”

    So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.

    But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.

    North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose, and died within days.

    Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong Un is determined to do.

    Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.

    Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?

    First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.

    Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.

    Asked by Congressman Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”

    Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.

    We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.

    What about sanctions?

    The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime, and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.

    What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong Un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”

    Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.

    As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.

    China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.

    Where does this leave us?

    We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.

    As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.

    What would be an America First Korean policy?

    The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.

    “The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”

    But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.

    No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.

    If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?

    The question answers itself.

    • The idea that we should leave it up to South Korea to defend US interests is laughable and the idiot in North Korea knows that the US is the only threat to him – not China, not Russia and definitely not South Korea. And no one is advocating a return to full scale war with that idiot egomaniac. Just take away his toys when and if he chooses to direct them at the US.

      • I said (echoing Pat Buchana’s sentiment), ” Leave Korea to the Koreans – especially the South” to defend its own interests and not ours.

        I agree with your on what we should do if whatever Krazy Kim is in power decides for no sane reason to send a few of his missiles our way.

        Nonetheless, I agree with Pat Buchanan that South Korea (and Japan) should be allowed develop their own nuclear deterrents so that whoever is the PRK dictator also perceives those countries as threats to that PRK country (“PRK” is used as a double entendre).

  2. Americans spend millions of dollars on Kias and Hyandais instead of purchasing American cars to keep Americans working, and South Korea has barriers to the sale of American cars. Let South Korea use those dollars to provide for their own defense. As Trump promised, let’s stop Nation Building. Bring all American troops home to include those in South Korea! We created ISIS by our meddling. What are we still doing in Afghanistan?

  3. I believe we must defend our interests in the South China Sea and I also believe China is the instigator in any disputes we have with countries in that area. What if China was to say the waters are now their territorial waters and the US must get out? They have altready built islands and declare them as their “property.” Putting our heads in the sand is not the answer IMO.

    • What are OUR interests in the South China Sea except to defend someone’s else’s?

      Who is that “someone else? Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China on Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam? All of them have made some claim to that area? Let them develop their own capacity to defend their interests.

      • Freedom of the seas and international commerce are rights to all humans regardless of their political persuasion. We have those same rights as well as a moral obligation to defend Taiwan. But, in the final analysis, it’s a matter of not being bullied by communist dictators or their henchmen.

  4. [How will the Great Leader Kim_Jong_Nitwit answer this call?]

    US, European bishops join in call for nuclear disarmament

    Catholic World News – July 06, 2017

    Catholic bishops in the US and Europe have joined in a statement calling for the systematic elimination of nuclear weapons throughout the world.

    The statement—entitled “Nuclear Disarmament: Seeking Human Security” and released on July 6—calls upon world leaders to devise a “credible, verifiable, and enforceable strategy” for global disarmament. The bishops urge European and American leaders especially to recognize the urgency of the cause—“an urgency intensified by the prospect of nuclear terrorism and proliferation.” They note the impatience of non-nuclear states with the lack of progress in efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weaponry.

    “The indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of nuclear weapons, compel the world to move beyond nuclear deterrence,” the statement says.

    The joint statement was released by the justice-and-peace commissions of the US and European bishops’ conferences. It was signed by Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, New Mexico and Archbishop Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, the heads of those two bodies.

    • Kim the Nitwit will ignore the Bishops just like most people . Bishops are like male peacocks running lose at a zoo. They strut around a lot , squawk a lot, make a lot of noise, show off their feathers, and accomplish nothing, people only care for the tigers 🐯! They are the powerful. One thing for sure though, I have never seen a gay peacock. The same cannot be said for Bishops. At least peacocks know who they are or should be.

  5. We must confront Evil wherever it appears; to tolerate it merely means it will grow and eventually take over. It’s like weeds in the grass, folks, do nothing about the weeds, like attack their roots, and eventually the grass will be gone. This is a lesson from Nature that apparently the new church has not learned. God bless you all.

    • After posting the above comment I thought: “Yeah, but what is Evil?” Well, to me ,it is breaking either the Divine Law, the Natural Law, the properly enacted Civil Law, and the Laws of Holy Mother Church formulated from the 2000 yr old Magisterium. Of course there will be those who counter with: “Yeah, but what is the meaning or intent of the law.” So, I must say that only the Ultimate Judge can decide that issue.

Leave a Reply