What about that anti-war propaganda?

MSNBC, CNN, and the other Democrat media are pushing an anti-war propaganda reminiscent of their propaganda against Bush pere's war on Iraq.

At that time we were warned that Iraq's was the third or fourth most formidable military in the world and an attack on that country would involve massive casualties and material losses on our side at best and bog us down like Vietnam in prolonged warfare ending in failure at worst.

When Bush pulled the trigger, Schwarzkopf crushed the Iraqi forces in less than two weeks.

This time we are being told we cannot do anything at all of a military nature about North Korea because of two things.

First, the NKs would launch a massive artillery attack on Seoul generating hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian deaths right off the bat.

Second, the NKs would respond by launching a general war for the peninsula, a war that would be even more horrific in its results than the historic Korean War.

Though dreadful, neither of these results would involve a North Korean nuke hitting a US city.

Would they not be preferable to that, for the US, if not for anyone living on the peninsula?

But in any case is it so sure those two things would happen?

So the US military would not or could not preemptively destroy the NK artillery threatening Seoul?

So the NKs really are stupid enough to put the survival of their regime in gravest danger and put at risk massive numbers of their own civilian population merely out of pique that we had destroyed their nuclear program or taken limited action to coerce them to abandon it?

So the economically starved NK regime can field conventional forces more potent and dangerous to our own - our own combined with the SK forces and (if the war lasted long enough) forces from Japan or other East Asian allies - than could Iraq, back in the day, an Iraq we were told by the antiwar propaganda of that time would possibly even defeat our forces?

Well . . . .

None of which is to say The Duce should roll the dice.

But if he doesn't will America at last seriously consider abandoning our military commitments to defend SK and perhaps Japan against NK?

Or will we claim to be willing to defend SK and Japan even at the price of an NK nuke attack on our cities, even though we were so obviously unwilling to risk anything to keep defense of those countries safe for our cities?

If you were a South Korean or a Japanese, would you believe such assurances?

That's different from the question would you pretend to believe such assurances?

And, by the way, did appeasement convince Hitler he ought not to fight everybody else in Europe?

Or did it only allow him to better prepare for a war he intended to fight, all along?