Thursday, March 6, 2025

FIFY

h/t WRSA 

When you frame the question correctly,
it's amazing how much the answers change.


8 comments:

Max said...

The picture implies an implausible shortage of corrupt politicians in Russia, Irian, China, and North-Korea

Michael said...

Economic collapse from foolish war spending was effective enough to wipe out Rome.

Cities destroyed by food riots seems almost as effective as nukes.

Anonymous said...

You're overly optimistic thinking US politicians wouldn't nuke a US city. You think US politicians weren't behind 9/11? Or Ukraine?
I doubt the Russians would unless provoked but the other 3? As soon as they thought they could get away with it.

Tucanae Services said...

Well we know at least one US Pol that admits to it -- Eric Swalwell -- "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."

Alas it does not take a 'bombing' to destroy a city. Just look what has happened to SFO, LAX, CHI to acquire nearly the same results without a single air sortie.

Aesop said...

I'm no such optimistic. I didn't say they wouldn't.
I say they're not in the Top Four choices.

Corrupt US politicians are, indeed, a threat to liberty.
Nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to life.
You cannot have A, without B, so there are greater problems than one's liberty. The dead are free to do nothing.

Aesop said...

The latter is the greater problem domestically.
Swalwell should have a pole against a wall reserved in his name already.
But he likely won't be alone when it happens.

Aesop said...

You're correct, but see Tucanae's comment below. They are easier ways to destroy a nation from within, without firing a shot.
And their solution to horrid government is always more government.

Aesop said...

Look closer.
The picture implies an absolute shortage of nuclear-capable U.S. corrupt politicians in Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, sufficient to be a real threat.

Which is unassailably true.