For many years after starting this blog I wrote "seriously," that is, sincerely and as if I was the decision-maker and could make my considered, serious, sincere view, reality. Writing from that point of view concentrated the mind wonderfully. It also tuckered me the hell out and I decided to lighten up and write about more "fun" stuff and to write more entertainingly about even the serious stuff. Not to put too fine a point on it, I decided to be an idiot blogger sometimes, to write from my gut and my funny bone as well as from my head. I would still write from the point of view of a decision-maker but not ALL. THE. TIME. "War with North Korea: Let it Be Now" was not a goof, it was a serious post seriously written during a period when I was also writing as a goof.
I did not remember the DPRK canceling the Korean Armistice. I would not have written that then unless it came from an authoritative place. That is, was and continues to be, ominous.
I thought until just a few minutes ago when reading 38 North that China would come to the DPRK's aid, as I did in March, 2013. I do hope 38 North is correct that they will not.
I remember now the anecdote of Obama advising Hu that he would take out DPRK missiles that could hit the U.S. Another "red line" Obama ignored: to his credit, I believe now, not in 2013, but I still believe that Obama should not have drawn it for Hu if he was not sincere. Real presidents have to be sincere. Anyone, bloggers included, writing seriously from a president's pov have to be sincere. (The current fake president should be speaking, writing/tweeting, as if he were a real president.) One can imagine, therefore, that I was made to blush when reading these lines from March, 2013, blushingly similar to Trump's last month:
"North Korea must be destroyed."
Blush.
I hold to everything I wrote about a declaration of war instead of the War Powers Act.
Now, on preemption. I do NOT know WHERE I got that distinction of "responsive" from "preemptive." If I ever read of such a distinction I do not know where and I looked up the doctrine of preemption about a month ago. There's "preventive war" also, preemption, preventive, but no "responsive. It may be I got it outta my own head. A declaration of war would make a succeeding first strike by the U.S. "responsive" and all constitutionally copasetic and a first strike without congressional authorization, i.e. under the WPA, would, as I understand it, be an act of preventive war. If not "Now," when? Well, how about right before they launch? That is what I am fixated upon now, but not when I wrote "Now."
I hold to what I wrote yesterday that if America 2.0 strikes first "the world will never be the same" and to be crystal clear, worse.
So, as I said, I was on 38 North an hour or so ago and, there are a lot of parameters to the estimates and they use a goddamned bar graph that makes it difficult for me to tell, but it looks like the DEATHS in SEOUL from ONE poor quality pipsqueak ATOMIC BOMB would be ~10,000, ~15,000-GOD I HATE bar graphs!-up to 1,800,000 for a high quality big 'un. If the DPRK nuked Tokyo, about the same 10,000-15,000 DEAD up to ~1,700,000. Go ahead, look for yourselves, those cocksuckers, and make your own estimates from their fucking bar graphs. http://www.38north.org/2017/10/mzagurek100417/
I throw those "technicalities" on South Korean and Japanese deaths out there for your consideration because I know under "America First" the only thing that counts is projected deaths of 'Muricans but also because Original America technically had like treaties and shit with South Korea and Japan to like protect them, which O.A. did for 63 years and which America 2.0 like technically inherited and has not abrogated and 10,000-1,800,000 soulless Seoulites, 10,000-1,700,000 totaled Tokyoites are not "technicalities" to South Korea and Japan.
I did not remember the DPRK canceling the Korean Armistice. I would not have written that then unless it came from an authoritative place. That is, was and continues to be, ominous.
I thought until just a few minutes ago when reading 38 North that China would come to the DPRK's aid, as I did in March, 2013. I do hope 38 North is correct that they will not.
I remember now the anecdote of Obama advising Hu that he would take out DPRK missiles that could hit the U.S. Another "red line" Obama ignored: to his credit, I believe now, not in 2013, but I still believe that Obama should not have drawn it for Hu if he was not sincere. Real presidents have to be sincere. Anyone, bloggers included, writing seriously from a president's pov have to be sincere. (The current fake president should be speaking, writing/tweeting, as if he were a real president.) One can imagine, therefore, that I was made to blush when reading these lines from March, 2013, blushingly similar to Trump's last month:
"North Korea must be destroyed."
Blush.
I hold to everything I wrote about a declaration of war instead of the War Powers Act.
Now, on preemption. I do NOT know WHERE I got that distinction of "responsive" from "preemptive." If I ever read of such a distinction I do not know where and I looked up the doctrine of preemption about a month ago. There's "preventive war" also, preemption, preventive, but no "responsive. It may be I got it outta my own head. A declaration of war would make a succeeding first strike by the U.S. "responsive" and all constitutionally copasetic and a first strike without congressional authorization, i.e. under the WPA, would, as I understand it, be an act of preventive war. If not "Now," when? Well, how about right before they launch? That is what I am fixated upon now, but not when I wrote "Now."
I hold to what I wrote yesterday that if America 2.0 strikes first "the world will never be the same" and to be crystal clear, worse.
So, as I said, I was on 38 North an hour or so ago and, there are a lot of parameters to the estimates and they use a goddamned bar graph that makes it difficult for me to tell, but it looks like the DEATHS in SEOUL from ONE poor quality pipsqueak ATOMIC BOMB would be ~10,000, ~15,000-GOD I HATE bar graphs!-up to 1,800,000 for a high quality big 'un. If the DPRK nuked Tokyo, about the same 10,000-15,000 DEAD up to ~1,700,000. Go ahead, look for yourselves, those cocksuckers, and make your own estimates from their fucking bar graphs. http://www.38north.org/2017/10/mzagurek100417/
I throw those "technicalities" on South Korean and Japanese deaths out there for your consideration because I know under "America First" the only thing that counts is projected deaths of 'Muricans but also because Original America technically had like treaties and shit with South Korea and Japan to like protect them, which O.A. did for 63 years and which America 2.0 like technically inherited and has not abrogated and 10,000-1,800,000 soulless Seoulites, 10,000-1,700,000 totaled Tokyoites are not "technicalities" to South Korea and Japan.
