LogFAQs > #961956409

Ozmose posted...

It's about self sufficiency. The government says they have the people's best interests at heart, but they could give a shit less the second you're not generating tax revenue. You think if the power grid went down tomorrow, and our already broken infrastructure completely collapsed, they would be focused on protecting you? Hell no. They would be 100% focused on making sure their own assets are secure. In the meantime, that whole not getting robbed and murdered by a bunch of desperate starving people is a you problem.

I get that people are insecure and think something like that is about to happen somehow. In practical terms I'm more convinced by the "more likely to hurt someone in your family than someone outside your family" statistics. We have problems, and certainly the big boys are out for themselves, but we're not close to complete "need a gun to protect from starving mobs" collapse. We might be close to needing a gun to protect ourselves from crazy ideologies, but that's a whole different thing.

Zeus posted...

I mean, the more ridiculous part is why they handed Crimea to Ukraine in the first place during the USSR days and then, when the USSR collapsed, they didn't take it back. Crimea is a historical Russian holding with a Russian-majority population. It should have stayed a part of Russia.

Yes, it was dumb of them to give a strategic location away in the first place. Khrushchev was a true communism believer & thought it would win over nationalism. Regardless, taking it back over after losing an election was a terrible optic if they wanted to pretend to be anything other than nationalistic brutes. But if the US was going to do anything about the Ukraine we clearly would have done it then. The rest of the country was effectively gone as soon as that went unchallenged...and no, I don't think we really could/should have challenged them then. It was all pretty inevitable.