*Sigh*
As a Dane, this comic made me smile. One can only wonder how long this will last though..

As for nukes, contrary to US opinion, the french do not have a yellow streak, and they do make their own . And they’ve got a rather short fuse, since they haven’t got plenty of miles of ocean between the hotbeds of fanaticism andthemselves.

Bottom line is that the fanatics involved, or rather the quite intelligent leaders, of the mobs now running wild, would use any excuse to whip up their crowds. The frenzy has always been there, and is now used by quite unscrupulous people.
The only question is whether these cartoons lanced the boil, or whether things have only started festering.

————————————

Pardon me, Escobar, but you’re fucking high. The US is hardly “desperate.” Our economy and our technology are the envy of the world. Shit, the computer you typed that on was made with US research, and the internet was completely created by the US.

As for nukes, we used nuclear weapons to forestall the need for an invasion on the Japanese mainland, with an estimated millions dead. And we wouldn’t have used the second one if they’d surrendered.

As for oil, we’re already researching substitutes. It’s simple supply and demand. When the price is high enough, it’s worth money to create substitutes. We’ll use our technological knowhow to make substitutes. As for the middle east, it’ll be even worse off when its economy collapses for lack of a saleable product. But the US will be doing just fine.

>>>If a nuclear war does break out, i think the US will most likely start it. They are the only country to have already used nuclear weapons, and when oil starts to run out, everyone is going to be pretty desperate

What does that gain a country? Not a damn thing.

And, as for your political statement in regards to DJ, you have to understand, American nuclear weapon dismantling is not a common issue in US Politics, especially not on the level of presidential campaigning. And since there is never a platform based or affiliated with national nuclear holdings, you can’t say something like that. I mean, that’s the thing about a Republic, yes, we elect officials, but we can only elect those that run.

And on the note of who run, only a presidential level, we don’t so much choose the candidates as the Democrat and Republican parties do. They choose who to back, who to support for office, and it’s left to us to choose between the two. For, while we have independant parties, let’s be real, they aren’t going to get elected president, at least not for a long time, so it’s really a “lesser of the evils” decision, and our nuclear weapons don’t enter into that debate, because all involved choose not to let it.

And even then, let’s say you examine the candidates respective voting histories, etc etc, and find that the one you were going to vote for has supported nuclear weapons and been against dismantling our current stock. But, he has a good plan to reform Medicare, Social Security, etc etc, a better one than the other candidate, who may be neutral or even against nuclear weapons and have lobbied for dismantlement in his history.

What would you choose then? Should you vote for the person who is anti-nuclear, and might, I repeat, MIGHT, turn it into an issue during their presidency, or the person who has run on a platform of reforming our broken systems?