N. Korea Threatens Guam, Trump (Media) Goes Ape-Sh*t
By John Corry
Photo from Cyber Arms
Aug 9, 2017, 12:12 pm eastern
North Korean leader/Satan/bubblehead Kim Jong Un said Wednesday that his country is ‘seriously considering’ hitting South Asian U.S. territory Guam with a nuclear weapon following some expected pumped-up shit-talking from American President Trump on Tuesday. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” said Trump in Jersey amidst his light, constitution-giving seventeen-day vacation (GODDAMNED OBAMA!!!). “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
The speech came following a report that N. Korea has developed a miniaturized nuclear warhead (a nuke that could fit on a missile). The standoff between North Korea and the U.S. has been brewing for decades, and what’s worse is the famine and borderline holocaust scenarios the North Korean people have been going through since the country’s first inception in 1948.
Now, I’m not here to pretend that I’m an expert on the situation going on over there (the options look very complicated, their implications even more so), but I do have an idea of what’s going on in America. “Trump is a Nazi”, “SJWs are the REAL fascists”, “EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A NAZI/FASCIST AND DESERVES TO BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY (or at the very least mercilessly ridiculed throughout all the rest of eternity), these are the quotes most symbolic of America’s foray into the new age (or at least as the media would like to tell me). But what does this have to do with North Korea?
“They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
Liberals (mainstream media) are of course freaking tha’ fuck out over this quote, and I’ll admit that it is pretty rough. I was ‘hurt’ when I first read it :’(. But, ONCE AGAIN, the situation is very complicated (I repeat this, because it would seem that some people (mostly on twitter) have a hard time grasping it). Meanwhile, conservatives are making the liberals’ freak-out the primary target for their disdain, although at least they’re trying (generally speaking) to understand the situation a little better in the process.
And that last point was the kicker: they’re trying to understand, and not only talk shit where they are justifiably in the right to do so. There is certainly a point in recognizing that Trump has proven on a number of occasions his incompetency in his ability to handle a situation like the one currently coming to a head in North Korea, but that cannot be the only point you have, unless there’s a recognition that your argument (that the first thing to do about North Korea is to impeach Trump) is fatally flawed. Whatever your feelings on Trump may be, what to do about North Korea is far (at least theoretically #HaveYouReadTheConstitution(Trump)? ) from his alone.
Yes, Trump is a bumbling fucking retard, inferred from his hair to be incompetent even at picking a rug, but his rhetoric may be doing something on a deeper scale than what it may look like on the surface. For example, the longer the U.S. waits to hit North Korea, the more Pacific countries (like Japan and South Korea, for example), they may be able to threaten with nukes, so escalating the conflict now, and in a way that get the North Korean regime to blindly make stupid decisions, may be in the interest of everyone involved (except, of course, the idiots running North Korea).
This is a country whose government is killing thousands of its own citizens on a daily basis, who is hell-bent on destroying the U.S. (and letting it know what its intentions are), and who is run by a maniacal madman whom its citizens have been systematically brainwashed into believing is a god–and who now has nuclear weapons, and is very publicly inching towards using them. The world woke up today feeling closer to war than it has in decades. This is not the time for 'domestic normalcy in rhetoric' as regards a new recognition of progress towards nuclear war, as this is something new, and goes beyond normal rhetoric. This is a time for understanding, not outrage.
Outrage might be an instrument in the act of understanding–it’s certainly a fact of life (people get outraged, you’re not going to stop someone from being outraged by saying, “you’re stupid,” or simply, “stop being outraged” (that'll probably only make it worse))–but nothing can come from the idea that personal relationships with people with whom one disagrees with are started by assuming that one party has more of a right to be outraged than the other.
We’re all humans–we breathe, we eat, we fuck (hopefully)–and we all have reasons to be outraged (yes, some factually ‘more than’ others, but that’s still relegating ‘humans’ into subcategories in what I’m trying to say here), it’s how you go about expressing those reasons that prevent idiocy–