Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger recently writes in The Washington Examiner: The North Korean threat is real, but the (our) hysteria is unnecessary
"Today, right now, North Korea is the number-one threat facing the United States and our allies in the Pacific. While Russia continues to be a threat to our democracy and our security, the nuclear proliferation and escalated accuracy of the threats coming from the unhinged Kim regime have pushed this to the very top of our national security concerns."
What are the determinants for an assessment of Korea as an "unhinged Kim regime"? Or, is it simply okay to disparage any 'other' as we see fit?
If the foregoing first two sentences alone, are not the height of being hysterically unhinged, then what is? He is comparing the actual global nuclear proliferation potential that emanates from within the US, at all times - this possible apocalyptic nuclear annihilation threat to the entire planet, to a state fully within its international sovereign right to stand up to this behemoth in potential nuclear destructive capacity. The only hysterical in this ad-hominem type of argument is the sick humor contained in its details.
Why not leave 'our allies' in the Pacific altogether out of the equation, none of whom have any nuclear deterrence against US hegemony. They are allies, only in that they do kowtow to US dictates. Those nations wanting to steer their own independent course, such as the Philippines, for example, become questionable -- teetering on being regarded as unhinged by the hegemon.
So long as the dictator and fascist Marcos reigned, he was 'our' man and 'we' did not interfere. He was carte-blanche, permitted to get away with any atrocity; not so for Duterte, the elected President. He is not a 'yes' man. But they can't defend themselves; therefore, the US once again interferes. According to the tenets of US 'diplomacy' this is unilaterally permissible, given the Philippines are not even close to "the number-one" threat.
Why does this comment of the Congressman, in his Op Ed piece, about an "unhinged Kim regime" made in The Washington Examiner, not apply equally and reciprocally, to the US, as it is implied of North Korea's Kim?: "The threat from (the US) is very real... To underestimate our enemies is foolish, (but to not have our own comparable nuclear deterrent military strength and capability) is detrimental and will cause long-term damage."
At this precarious moment in history is it not more unhinged making a not empty threat that "we are locked and loaded"?