02-26-2018, 11:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2018, 11:30 PM by Cynic Hero '86.)
(02-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(02-26-2018, 02:28 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are against implementing political economic and military reform. If the boomer view of not striking is correct we therefore we should continue sanctions which would avoid war with North Korea. Therefore if North Korea knows that there is no chance of the US striking first then there is no danger of a North Korean Attack if the boomer views are correct. But that is not the Correct view; in reality North Korea is building an arsenal to attack the US with nukes or at the very least sell nukes to terrorists and other rogue states. Therefore not striking NK is not a prudent or responsible decision it is an absolutely irresponsible decision. Regard events If boomers refused to strike or lauched a limited conventional cruise missile strike and NK responded with nukes, even if the nukes only targeted bases in the region. Then it would be the "not striking first" crowd that would be discredited. America did not continue listening to Lindbergh's advice after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war.
I'm pretty sure John was just saying that he thought the Boomer establishment would, in fact, strike first against North Korea, and that he agreed with that strategy.
The Boomer establishment has no intention whatsoever of striking North Korea first or on the flip side listening to the NORK demands either. The establishment's policy is to preserve the status quo as long as possible. Thus even attempting strategy of any kind or in any direction is regarded as a cardinal sin by establishment boomers. The globalists leaning of Trump's advisers are desperately trying to restrain Trump because Trump has correctly accessed that striking first is the least bad option.