Friday, April 28, 2017
Terrible Tots In Nuclear Standoff
And our tiny-thumbed orange brat finds benefit in fear-mongering and exaggerating the North Korean nuclear threat. Yes, Lil Kim has nuclear weapon capability. Has had for some time. Their missile systems are a bit shaky, but yeah, they could probably lob a nuke at some place nearby. Again, nothing new about that. What's new is Trump's determination to be a military blowhard. It distracts from other issues, plays well to his base and seems to be good for his poll numbers. Clearly, he intends to sabre-rattle his way into better approval numbers.
Today, Trump called for nuclear disarmament by Kim and said that without it, there's a chance the U.S. could have "a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely."
He sent the Secretary of State, Rex the Wonder Diplomat, to the U.N. with the same message. Tillerson called for more and more economic sanctions against North Korea. He asked China to stop sending them coal, and said "all options remain on the table, including military action."
Is North Korea really worth this sort of bellicose rhetoric? Is it wise for America to start making pointed threats like these? I think not. This whole issue is Trumped-up, and Donnie Destructo is playing a very dangerous game.
I heard some pundit this morning put it this way:
Let's say you told your child to clean up the toys in his room and he didn't do it. So you told him, "If you don't pick up all these toys right now, I will pick them up and throw them all in the trash! No more toys for you!" That's a big-ass threat with dire consequences, but what if he still didn't do it? Would you really follow through and throw out all his toys? And what message would it send if you didn't follow through? That your threats are hollow and meaningless, just a bunch of belligerent hot air? You've painted yourself into a corner, genius!
I prefer the "strategic patience" of previous administrations from both parties.