One of the many reasons why I should really try to break the bad habit of just firing off comments to peoples’ blogs without proofreading, or at least looking somewhere in the general direction of the screen once in a while.

I suppose that if the US were a client state initially created by business interests of that close ally, and maintained basically as a military base for the close ally’s convenience in seizing natural resources in the US and surrounding region from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and accomplishing all the accompanying wetwork necessary to achieve that end in addition to ensuring an ever-widening revenue stream for the close ally’s weapons industry, and if it had been well demonstrated and established that any nation who had ever dared to disobey the US gets bombed and/or converted into a military base for the close ally, and the close ally had made it known that as a matter of policy, it would henceforth be their prerogative to seize and variously perpetually imprison, maim, and/or exterminate any individual they wished at any time, thus effectively declaring themselves as having dominion over the earth and all it contained, I suppose that the US regime – just like that of any other nation – would not really have much choice in terms of official policy, but to “go along to get along,” in the hope that at least some of its remaining population would be able to avoid being variously kidnapped, maimed or exterminated.

Naturally, in light of the inevitable “wild card factor” presented by the extremely large and ever-growing number of private individuals impacted by the policies of the close ally, as well as the “go along to get along” official responses of the US and other nations, and given the logistical impracticality of keeping over five and a half billion such private individuals chained to metal floors in sensory deprivation hoods 24 & 7, the resulting circumstances would involve both a very limited sustainability, as well as a certain level of risk for the population of the close ally.

In an interview sometime in the 80s, then North Korean President Kim Il-sung was asked if he had concerns about the resulting isolation and risks to his own subjects that resulted from his policies. He replied that he had figured that to maintain the security of himself and his strategic assets, he only required around 30% of his current population.

In a situation such as the one posed by your hypothetical question, we can only presume that the close ally will have employed the same accounting firm.

never believe anything said by the USA or ISRAEL government.
They are incapable of telling the truth.