I just listened to political strategist/operative Jason Miller utter the words in this thread's title on a program called "Trump One Year Later." Miller uttered those words in attempting to discount the imbecilic and bellicose tweet Trump today made. First: While U.S. farmers have things to do in the winter, what the hell "agricultural duty" can there be for soldiers in "food starved" DPRK (read: non-capitalist economy workers) to do now and in 15° weather that non-soldier farmers haven't already done? Huddle up with livestock to help keep both the soldiers and livestock warm (and perhaps keep some soldiers "warm" in a more figurative sense)? How Kim Jong Il Starved North Korea The Rise and Demise of Industrial Agriculture in North Korea North Korea's poverty is so dire that farmers reportedly steal each other's feces to fertilize crops [Note I think the article's headline is inapt insofar as in the DPRK, nobody other than the absolute monarch, KJU, actually owns anything, so from whom are they stealing. It's not as though people steal sh*t and abscond with it.] Preparing for the Possibility of a North Korean Collapse Second: While Miller is an accomplished political analyst, his remark raises serious questions about nature and extent of his knowledge about the DPRK, his legitimacy as a policy analyst, his extemporaneous debate acumen/adroitness (see also/instead: Extemporaneous Debate Activity), and, most importantly, his integrity. Because he included a specious premise in his "defense" of Trump's tweet, he destroyed the whatever value the ideas depend upon that premise. Now, I don't really care that the man isn't a "world class" debater. What I care about is that he apparently hasn't the gumption to simply not say things about which he has not verified their verity. Third: Whatever the hell a head of state might care to communicate as goes diplomacy and foreign policy, 240 characters is not enough "room" to do so and Twitter is not the vehicle for doing so. On the other hand, Twitter is about as good as any other venue for simply "declaring war" on a nation or individual. Trump's tweet that Miller attempted to defend is, quite frankly, coming from the POTUS is indefensible. Taunts are not apropos for world leaders to make, idly or otherwise; bombast and belligerence are rhetorical devices suited to "pretenders to the throne." On the world stage, the U.S. is no "pretender to the throne," everyone on the planet knows that. There is no question about the U.S.' ability to literally annihilate any nation it wills to; thus no POTUS should affect the rhetoric of a "wanna be" for doing so debases the Office of the President and the stature of the U.S. A POTUS should never grant legitimacy to despots by deigning to engage with them in what amounts to playground bullying writ large. While Trump's life is a sordid tale of one person's question for legitimacy and acceptance and apparently he cannot help but remark so. The man has not in seventy odd years learned the barest shred of the concepts found in Roosevelt's famous remark, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Self-confident and perspicacious observers and commentators will not treat his utterances as though they are condign. Why Miller attempted to defend that tweet transcends sound reasoning.