Regarding North Korea, as I said that is mostly about China. Yes, it is saber-rattling. North Korea is not much of a threat to anyone except for South Korea and Japan--and if the saber-rattling actually got worrisome the U.S. could deliver a few tactical nukes to South Korea and Japan to even up the odds and give them an excellent deterrent. China is not going to let that happen and they will pull the leash on North Korea LONG before it ever came to that.
Regarding Jimmy Carter, I mean in principle and not in anything that he actually did. Carter may have been the most honorable of any of the Postwar U.S. Presidents. He was a good diplomat but he wasn't as keen in statecraft as he thought he was. For example, I think Carter totally dropped the ball dealing with Iran invading our embassy and taking Americans hostage in 1979-80. The Iranians needed to be punished HARD--but that is not really relevant here. And Carter, like most Liberal intellectuals, was far too obsessed about nuclear weapons and arms-control treaties.
The point is that traditional Western leaders have adopted this kind of Soy-Boy missionary attitude about peace in the abstract that not every non-Western nation finds endearing, let alone trustworthy. Sometimes less is more.
Been-There, I might need to read it again and I'm starting to get sleepy so I concede in advance that I might not have understood properly, but I disagree with most everything that you said about the Korean War.
We defended the South Koreans honorably like we were obligated to do, and when General MacArthur was about to liberate North Korea the Chinese intervened with a million troops. He still slogged to the finish line but Truman fired him for covert air-interdiction attacks on the bridges at the Yalu River. A pity, because that was the time to double-down and finish the Communist threat for good--although contrary to Truman and his shrieking pinko advisors, that is not at all what MacArthur was doing. He was winning a war as he was trained to do.
A fine movie is the 1977 MacArthur
with Gregory Peck. Douglas MacArthur could be a reactionary SOB, and Gregory Peck was a notorious Hollywood Liberal, but he played the general respectfully and it is a pretty accurate movie in my opinion. The same could not be said by Peter Boyle's portrayal in the 1977 film Tailgunner Joe
. Boyle did a very convincing job acting, but the script was Liberal hogwash based on the 1959 character assassination book Senator Joe McCarthy
by Richard Rovere. McCarthy has since been vindicated by the Venona signals intercepts that have been declassified.
Anyway, if going after the Communist threat directly had been the U.S. policy, the Soviets and the Chinese would have blinked. Of course they were being fed information from Liberals and Communists in the State Department and elsewhere in the Truman Administration, so the Communists knew how far they could push and get away with it.
And China probably never would have gone Communist in the first place without American/Liberal/Communist "Brain Trust" meddling during and after WWII. Interventionism almost always makes things much worse. The fact is that the USA helped make the world Communist as a result of WWII. Senator Joe McCarthy's America's Retreat From Victory
, a paper delivered on the Senate floor in 1951 criticizing General George C. Marshall's political competence is a must-read.
I suppose we could have just ran from Korea in 1950 when the North Koreans attacked. They did so with Stalin's permission, of course, and he was mostly just testing our limits. The risks, if any, would be borne by the Maoists in China--which probably pleased Uncle Joe greatly. Later, when the Soviets had a credible nuclear deterrent, Kennedy saw it as a great relief when the Berlin Wall went up. With friends like these ...
North Korea today gives the Chinese some plausible deniability to push a little without being too overt--but they are absolutely not going to kill the golden goose by pushing too hard.
So far they have not come close to pushing our limits, assuming that we have any. The 9/11 attack and crisis could have been handled by controlling our open borders and keeping track of Jihadis and any other enemy agents more closely (including the Kosher ones). This was not the first Jihadi attack against the United States, nor even upon the World Trade Center. This would have saved many, many lives and several TRILLIONS of dollars that could have been better spent.
Regarding Dresden, I am not disagreeing so much on that.
But some of the comments about the USA being the most Genocidal country or race on Earth beggar description. I suppose it is tempting to see Germanophobia everywhere because the Holocaust has not been universally discredited yet. But "bringing history into accord with the facts," may not, in fact, happen in our lifetimes. To fret too much over this only undermines our own Revisionist arguments about the Holocaust being a Hoax. And with half of the Americans of European extraction actually of GERMAN stock, the Germanophobia angle is pretty weak.
Outside of Jews and Hollywood, Americans were never excited about fighting Germany during World War II. Nobody liked the Japs after Pearl Harbor, though.
Yes, the USA came under alien influence during the last century, but so has the entirety of Western Civilization in our lifetimes. Both Germans and English for sure are susceptible to a certain kind of universalism and pathological altruism that makes them particularly vulnerable to internal subversion, which can be exploited.
I suppose Hitler was a Germanophobe too because he once observed of the Germans at the end of the First World War the inescapable truth that "every third German is a traitor." And they reverted back to type after World War II. The Anglosphere is getting there at light-speed now but it took longer to get going. Fate chose us to bear the Burdens of Empire and we should have seen it coming long before but did not. Each generation is blameworthy to a degree.
The Holocaust is actually not so much an attack upon Germans at all but people who advocate for Western Culture or White interests, and against an international-multicultural babylon. Germany's leaders know this, of course, since they are nothing more than chic postmodern Communists. Being some of the first ones to implement Orwellian Thoughtcrimes laws, that is (amongst other things) what still gives the Big-H electromotive force 73 years after the end of the war.
I am talking here about outright subversion and treason and not constructive criticism. I am certainly not shy about being anti-American--that has never bothered me about Fritz. We as a people do have a lot to answer for. But we are not the only ones. And the Germans are no angels either anymore than anyone else.
The Holocaust (whatever that is) does NOT in reality make Jews morally superior to Gentiles, and likewise the Holocaust HOAX (whatever that is) does NOT make Germans morally superior either. Hitler might have said that Victims don't make History. Bismarck probably would have understood that too.