"BETTER A MILLION DEAD NORTH KOREANS..."

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

09.05.2017:Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:WHAT IS THE MORALITY OF A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE BY THE U.S. ?"BETTER A MILLION DEAD NORTH KOREANS THAN A THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS" ?IS "THE MORAL ANSWER TO NORTH KOREA'S THREATS TO TAKE THEM OUT" ?IS THIS A 2017 RE-PACKAGING OF OPERATION NORTHWOODS ?REMEMBER, I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT WAR DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS CORRECT, ONLY WHO IS LEFT.IN A LARGER SENSE, IS IT THE DUTY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY TO DETERMINE THAT "We the People..." ARE THE SURVIVORS, EVEN IF WE ARE WRONG, RATHER THAN BEING MORALLY CORRECT, AND DEAD ? (09.05.2017, BB).The moral answer to North Korea threats: Take them out!By Ralph Peters September 4, 2017 | 8:43pm | UpdatedModal Trigger The moral answer to North Korea threats: Take them out!Better a million dead North Koreans than a thousand dead Americans. The fundamental reason our government exists is to protect our people and our territory. Everything else is a grace note. And the words we never should hear in regard to North Korea’s nuclear threats are “We should’ve done something.”Instead, we should do something. Pyongyang’s Sunday test of a hydrogen bomb of devastating power begs for decisive action. Must we wait until Americans die?A preemptive strike against Kim Jong-un’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs would be a terrible thing, demanding a vast military effort (if done properly) and leaving broad destruction in its wake. But that terrible option increasingly appears to be the least bad option. The question is whether we’ll delay action until it’s too late to save American lives.When we’re threatened with nuclear destruction by North Korea, a military response is not unethical. Rather, inviting a North Korean attack by hesitating endlessly then witnessing the slaughter of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of our citizens would be unethical and immoral.We do not want war. That much could not be more obvious. But we cannot sacrifice American lives to shield the consciences of intellectual elites who, from protected positions of immense privilege, insist that all human life is precious, not just our “deplorable” American lives.If there is any real hope of a peaceful solution, of course that would be preferable. But we cannot rely on miracles or mirages. A generation of talks has done nothing but protect North Korea’s weapons programs. Sanctions haven’t restrained North Korea, either, since China, Russia, India and other states undercut them.Japan planning possible mass evacuation amid North Korea threat: reportUS and South Korea agree to end missile payload limitsSwitzerland offers to help resolve North Korea nuclear crisisHaley urges 'strongest possible measures' against North Korea.Nor have our displays of force in the region done anything to deter a regime conditioned to our empty pageantry.North Korea doesn’t believe we will act. Because we never have acted.Those wildly misnamed Washington institutions labeled “think tanks” find themselves stumped: Conditioned to group-think and addicted to that supreme intellectual opiate, negotiations, we hear — even from conservative voices — that there’s no military solution, while the left repeats that “war never changes anything.”As to the latter claim, warfare has been humanity’s ultimate means of resolving intractable issues since the first cave-dwellers went at the gang from the cave down yonder with rocks. We may not like it — I don’t — but to insist that war isn’t humanity’s sometimes-necessary default means of survival is to ignore all of human history.As for the irresponsible claim that there’s no military solution, it’s transparently false. Of course there’s a military solution. It’s horrible, but pulling triggers may be the only option feckless diplomats and prevaricating administrations have left us to protect our people and territory.North Korea claims it successfully tested a hydrogen bomb.Again, the primary rationale for our government’s existence is to protect us from physical harm at the hands of foreign powers. That’s why we have a military. We are promised “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” not a spineless calculus that protects our enemies rather than ourselves.If someone screams that they’re going to kill us and points a gun toward us, we have the legal and ethical right to draw and fire first. And if the attacker also threatens to kill our wives and children, it would be immoral not to shoot first.Our North Korea problem comes down to just that.I realize this column will leave liberals aghast, while even conservatives cling to lullaby chatter. I do not relish death or human suffering. But it would be immoral to allow North Korea to develop an arsenal capable of attacking our military, our cities and our allies.How could it be ethically superior and morally correct to permit a self-declared and virulent enemy to destroy Honolulu, San Diego and Seattle?We cannot allow moral relativism to butcher Americans. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And in the real world, the greatest immorality in war is not killing the enemy. The greatest immorality would be for our country to lose.Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst.© 2017 NYP HOLDINGS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY | YOUR AD CHOICES | SITEMAP Powered by WordPress.com VIP As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFKResearchers who may not be as well versed as you.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.

[Slav]

http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag ... a7ff4.html