NationStates Jolt Archive

If you can think of worse, let me know.

Uh, what?

Uh, what?

it took a sec to make the poll

cheney is bad lol!!!1!

Hail Lucifer!

Huh? Why is only one person and state on the poll?

The ABSOLUTE worst case I can think of?

Bush decides to stay in the White House for some idiot reason.
Decides to use the military to keep himself in power.
Military splits based on party lines/loyalty to state/president issues.
Civil war erupts, millions die. Some idiot decides to nuke DC or unleashes a bioweapon.
Terrorist attacks take advantage of the resulting chaos.
USA is removed from the map, at least as a world power.

Not exactly terribly plausible, but it COULD happen :P
And before anybody questions the US loss of power as a 'bad thing', this is from my perspective. I rather enjoy my nation being the top dog >_>

The ABSOLUTE worst case I can think of?

Bush decides to stay in the White House for some idiot reason.
Decides to use the military to keep himself in power.
Military splits based on party lines/loyalty to state/president issues.
Civil war erupts, millions die. Some idiot decides to nuke DC or unleashes a bioweapon.
Terrorist attacks take advantage of the resulting chaos.
USA is removed from the map, at least as a world power.

Not exactly terribly plausible, but it COULD happen :P
And before anybody questions the US loss of power as a 'bad thing', this is from my perspective. I rather enjoy my nation being the top dog >_>

Um yea....using the military to stay in power would violate the UCMJ and ANY soldier that follows such an order would be court martialed.

Um yea....using the military to stay in power would violate the UCMJ and ANY soldier that follows such an order would be court martialed.

Yeah, fear of court-martial would be the main reason a soldier wouldn't obey an order to overturn the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Um yea....using the military to stay in power would violate the UCMJ and ANY soldier that follows such an order would be court martialed.

...Yeah, and Bush staying in violates the law on it's own. The point is that Bush and any followers he can get try to override the law, and stay in power.

Yeah, fear of court-martial would be the main reason a soldier wouldn't obey an order to overturn the Constitution. :rolleyes:

I was coming at it from a legal/illegal order issue however, this is also indeed true.

...Yeah, and Bush staying in violates the law on it's own. The point is that Bush and any followers he can get try to override the law, and stay in power.

Which wouldn't occur anyway for the simple reason that the people themselves, along with the military, wouldn't stand for it. He would not last a week if he tried that.

My worst case scenario would be a meteor hitting earth and guaranteeing the destruction of all human life.

Depends on whether or not most of the Military is Republican, and, from those, how many would be willing to stage a coup.

The militaryis charged with defending the country from enemies foriegn and domestic and to uphold the Constition of this country. Their oath is not to any political party or to any person.

Which wouldn't occur anyway for the simple reason that the people themselves, along with the military, wouldn't stand for it. He would not last a week if he tried that.

Depends on whether or not most of the Military is Republican, and, from those, how many would be willing to stage a coup.

Which wouldn't occur anyway for the simple reason that the people themselves, along with the military, wouldn't stand for it. He would not last a week if he tried that.

Yeah, but people like you would be explaining it was necessary to fight the terrorists.

Just like all the other violations of the public trust by this administration.

My worst case scenario would be a meteor hitting earth and guaranteeing the destruction of all human life.

I think that is the polar bear's best case scenario.

Yeah, but people like you would be explaining it was necessary to fight the terrorists.

And I'll call bullshit on this. I would not support such an attempt by Bush to stay in power past his 8th year mark.

Just like all the other violations of the public trust by this administration.

I do not support everything this administration does. Please remember that.

The ABSOLUTE worst case I can think of?

Bush decides to stay in the White House for some idiot reason.
Decides to use the military to keep himself in power.
Military splits based on party lines/loyalty to state/president issues.
Civil war erupts, millions die. Some idiot decides to nuke DC or unleashes a bioweapon.
Terrorist attacks take advantage of the resulting chaos.
USA is removed from the map, at least as a world power.

Not exactly terribly plausible, but it COULD happen :P
And before anybody questions the US loss of power as a 'bad thing', this is from my perspective. I rather enjoy my nation being the top dog >_>

That's the best worst case you can do? :D
How about this: At 0:01 GMT on January 1, 2008, we "learn" that our current model of the universe is totally wrong when the Big Crunch suddenly happens and all matter and energy are compressed back into a gravitational singularity. The end of everything. (I say "learn", becasue we relly wouldn't be here to learn anything if that happened as posited.)

That's the worst case I can think of for 2008. ;) Let's see who tops that?

That's the best worst case you can do? :D
How about this: At 0:01 GMT on January 1, 2008, we "learn" that our current model of the universe is totally wrong when the Big Crunch suddenly happens and all matter and energy are compressed back into a gravitational singularity. The end of everything. (I say "learn", becasue we relly wouldn't be here to learn anything if that happened as posited.)

That's the worst case I can think of for 2008. ;) Let's see who tops that?

Well if you want to be cheap, what if two people simultaniously discovery the Ultimate Question and Ultimate Answer, thus triggering universal destruction? :P

Instead of dying, we persist for eternity in torturous agony, always desperately seeking release, but being thwarted again and again.

Whole Universe goes to Hell, eh?
Sounds fun :P

Let's see who tops that?

Instead of dying, we persist for eternity in torturous agony, always desperately seeking release, but being thwarted again and again.

The militaryis charged with defending the country from enemies foriegn and domestic and to uphold the Constition of this country. Their oath is not to any political party or to any person.

Bush could just create some "state of emergency" to remain in power. I have heard so many people argue how the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" that I have no problem visualizing Bush coming up with some flimsy reason of how an election where the course of the country could change would be "dangerous" and so should be prevented. Isn't this why the idea was floated around back in '04 to cancel the election and keep Bush in power? I'm sure in a swell of patriotic fervor, the military could be swayed to see things in the "proper" perspective on what is "best" for the country.

I see it as highly unlikely but given what these people have tried to do and actually done in the past I wouldn't put it past Bush & Co.

Isn't this why the idea was floated around back in '04 to cancel the election and keep Bush in power? I'm sure in a swell of patriotic fervor, the military could be swayed to see things in the "proper" perspective on what is "best" for the country.

That ideas been around for longer than Bush, it comes up every time theres a presidential switchover during some crises, real or imagined.

Depends on whether or not most of the Military is Republican, and, from those, how many would be willing to stage a coup.

Frankly, I think the Dems are more likely to stage a coup when whichever candidate they put up can't get past the Mcain/Bush ticket..

Instead of dying, we persist for eternity in torturous agony, always desperately seeking release, but being thwarted again and again.

There we go. I knew someone could do it. :D

There we go. I knew someone could do it. :D
I'm wondering if we should designate him as NS' Doomsayer. :p

I'm wondering if we should designate him as NS' Doomsayer. :p

Hmm, I have been in a rather pessimistic mood of late.

I'm wondering if we should designate him as NS' Doomsayer. :p

I suppose NS Doomsayer is better than "that crazy guy yelling shit on the street corner".

Hail Lucifer!

That depends. Who's easier to get rid of?

I suppose NS Doomsayer is better than "that crazy guy yelling shit on the street corner".
Doomsayer actually has a rather cool ring to it. :p

Makes me think of one of these:

http://www.gucomics.com/mythic/e3assets/6concept/ConceptArt-Wraith.jpg

I suppose NS Doomsayer is better than "that crazy guy yelling shit on the street corner".

No, that's actually got a bit of a ring to it.

The most realistic worst case scenario would likely be that the Republicans retake the House and Senate (unless I'm mistaken and the House and parts of the Senate don't come up for reelection in 2008), and McCain and whoever he's running with make into office, unless that other person is Giuliani.
If that happens we'll likely be in Iraq til the Rapure.

That depends. Who's easier to get rid of?

Cheney'll have a vice president. And Satan is immortal.

Doomsayer actually has a rather cool ring to it. :p

Makes me think of one of these:

http://www.gucomics.com/mythic/e3assets/6concept/ConceptArt-Wraith.jpg

No, that's actually got a bit of a ring to it.

Ok! I give! NS Doomsayer it is. :)

Which wouldn't occur anyway for the simple reason that the people themselves, along with the military, wouldn't stand for it. He would not last a week if he tried that.
Hahaha, that's a joke in very poor taste these days. The people wouldnt stand for it....sure, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

I see no reason to expect this particular travesty would be any more protested or 'risen up against' than the long line of travesties to date.

Get a grip the US people as a whole are slaves to their 'authorities' and would no more rise-up in response to tyranny or outrages commited against them, than they would sprout wings and fly.

Frankly, I think the Dems are more likely to stage a coup when whichever candidate they put up can't get past the Mcain/Bush ticket..
Have you checked into reality lately? As if! We've had ample proof over the years to reasonably conclude that those lambs wouldnt raise a bleat at their own slaughter, at least not if Bush were wielding the knife. A coup my arse, they dont even have the guts to impeach.

Ok absolute worse case scenerio ever

the singer "prince" runs for office and is elected then appoints Paris hilton Britney Spears Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie to his cabinet terrorists nuke miami and ww3 breaks out when mexico attempts to invade the USA but they're already doing that aren't they?...China falls into anarchy dragging much of the Asian economy down with it...global warming causes the ice caps to melt and massive flooding occurs..

The USSR is revitalized following a massive coup and quickly re-envelops central and easter europe a meteor strikes california..wait that wouldn't be so bad...and all of western europe falls into anarchy and returns to a fuedal socitity while America plunges into chaos and finally after defeating mexico goes on a spat of imperialism and conquors canada as well as most of central and southern america.

Isreal says to hell with the international community and invades and commits genocide against all arabs eventually the middle east becomes the "empire of Isreal" and the swiss acctually get involved in a conflict and a black hole sweeps through the milkly way pulling earth's orbit directly into the sun..that completes my rant...

Ok absolute worse case scenerio ever

the singer "prince" runs for office and is elected then appoints Paris hilton Britney Spears Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie to his cabinet terrorists nuke miami and ww3 breaks out when mexico attempts to invade the USA but they're already doing that aren't they?...China falls into anarchy dragging much of the Asian economy down with it...global warming causes the ice caps to melt and massive flooding occurs..

The USSR is revitalized following a massive coup and quickly re-envelops central and easter europe a meteor strikes california..wait that wouldn't be so bad...and all of western europe falls into anarchy and returns to a fuedal socitity while America plunges into chaos and finally after defeating mexico goes on a spat of imperialism and conquors canada as well as most of central and southern america.

Isreal says to hell with the international community and invades and commits genocide against all arabs eventually the middle east becomes the "empire of Isreal" and the swiss acctually get involved in a conflict and a black hole sweeps through the milkly way pulling earth's orbit directly into the sun..that completes my rant...



...your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

...your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'm avaliable mon-fri and sundays

OKAY! Absolute worst-case scenario:

Second Coming of Christ...God turns out to be a dick...and they're out of beers in Hell...

Either that or we all get consumed by a friggin' black hole.

better yet second coming..turns out we had it backwards and Satan is the "good" guy

Hildebeast...Clinton...

Which wouldn't occur anyway for the simple reason that the people themselves, along with the military, wouldn't stand for it. He would not last a week if he tried that.

Is it likely that Bush will try to stay in power past year 8? Probably not.

Could you put such a thing past him? Not this fucktard.

I was coming at it from a legal/illegal order issue however, this is also indeed true.Yea well, the soldiers involved in the invasion of Iraq were following illegal orders as well & could theoretically be tried for it.

Still, I have a sneaking suspicion the loyalty of the US armed forces is primarily to the population, not the central authority.

2008 worst case scenario: Terrorists based in Pakistan kill thousands in India. India bombs 'terrorist camps' in Pakistan, Pakistan sees this as a declaration of war and decides to compensate for military inferiority by a surprise all-out attack, including nukes. India neutralizes their military, China grabs the opportunity to neutralize India's. Hundreds of millions killed.

Humans aren't that bad, surely? It's a really unlikely scenario, but I tried to pick one with the worst death-of-innocents outcome.

If we're talking personal scenarios, I suppose my whole family could die and I could spend 2008 unsure if the (hypothetical) malignant cancer from my left small toe was responding to chemotherapy. And my dick could fall off from excessive stimulation.

Yea well, the soldiers involved in the invasion of Iraq were following illegal orders as well & could theoretically be tried for it.

Still, I have a sneaking suspicion the loyalty of the US armed forces is primarily to the population, not the central authority.The loyalty of the US armed forces is primarily to the constitution, which currently prohibits Bush from seeking a third term in office. And as AC2 just showed, support for a 3rd term would probably not be split down party lines.

Hahaha, that's a joke in very poor taste these days. The people wouldnt stand for it....sure, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

I see no reason to expect this particular travesty would be any more protested or 'risen up against' than the long line of travesties to date.

Get a grip the US people as a whole are slaves to their 'authorities' and would no more rise-up in response to tyranny or outrages commited against them, than they would sprout wings and fly.

Then apparently you underestimate the power of the American People.

Have you checked into reality lately? As if! We've had ample proof over the years to reasonably conclude that those lambs wouldnt raise a bleat at their own slaughter, at least not if Bush were wielding the knife. A coup my arse, they dont even have the guts to impeach.

That's because there is nothing to impeach him. I doubt once evidence is collected that it won't get out of committee and you can rest assured that the Senate won't convict. It is pointless to even try.

I think you'd all be pretty fucked if I got into office.

Is it likely that Bush will try to stay in power past year 8? Probably not.

Could you put such a thing past him? Not this fucktard.

Yes I can put it past him. He won't do it. Period.

Yea well, the soldiers involved in the invasion of Iraq were following illegal orders as well & could theoretically be tried for it.

Actually, those that disobeyed those orders were getting court-martialed for disobeying the LAWFUL order of the President. Invading Iraq was lawful but ording troops to keep the president in power is an illegal order.

Still, I have a sneaking suspicion the loyalty of the US armed forces is primarily to the population, not the central authority.

BINGO!!! It is to the Constitution and the rule of law.

The loyalty of the US armed forces is primarily to the constitution, which currently prohibits Bush from seeking a third term in office. And as AC2 just showed, support for a 3rd term would probably not be split down party lines.

Indeed. Even I would not support a Bush third term.

What would be worse would be for THIS (http://777.nventure.com/2020.htm) guy to become the president.

What would be worse would be for THIS (http://777.nventure.com/2020.htm) guy to become the president.

I smell a joke in there somewhere.

What would be worse would be for THIS (http://777.nventure.com/2020.htm) guy to become the president.

Too bad his guestbook doesn't seem to work in firefox.

Just remember, if the world does cease to exist in the year 2008...

Jesus saves. A bit. Unless you're a Papist or Jewish.

Yes I can put it past him. He won't do it. Period.

BUT, if he thought he could get away with it, would he?

I woud not care, cuz I don't live in america. This makes me glad Poland does not have 2-party system. Still, I can't believe so many people voted for the country's new potato (Kaczyński). Really, I'm sure if trying to spread his anti-free speech nonsense to other countries, and appointing his twin brother as prime minister.

Just remember, if the world does cease to exist in the year 2008...

Jesus saves. A bit. Unless you're a Papist or Jewish.

Do the rest of us take full damage?

Also, while there is no way in hell that Bush would seek a third term in office, and keep it, if Cheney runs by some stretch of reality wins, I think we're all pretty fucked anyway.

It would take some pretty unlikely events for Dick Cheney to win in 2008, considering that he isn't even running.

A more realistic worst-case scenario? A repeat, in some form, of the Florida debacle of 2000, leading to one or more states unable to declare a winner, which would result in no candidate getting sufficient electoral votes for victory. The election then goes into the House of Representatives, and the process there is, in a word, unworkable.

It is legally defined like this: Each state gets a single vote in the House, and a candidate must win at least 26 states to declare victory. So how are the state votes decided? The Congressional delegations from each state vote among themselves, and the candidate who gets a majority of the congressional votes for a state winds that state. But - and this is the key point - if a state's congressional delegation is evenly divided, then nobody wins that state, making it possible for nobody to win in the House also.

Guess what happens then? Well, while this is going on, the Senate is supposed to be selecting the Vice President, and if they accomplish that, then that Vice President becomes President (and the Senate then has to select another VP.) If the Senate can't select a VP to become the President, then the Speaker of the House becomes President. That's right, President Pelosi.

The Senate has a much more reasonable process for selecting a VP - each Senator gets a single vote. But if the Senate is evenly divided - well, it's not clear who would cast the deciding vote; possibly the sitting VP, who is President of the Senate and who normally breaks tie votes in the Senate. That's right, Deadeye Dick casts the deciding vote. And the Senate isn't limited to candidates who were running for President or VP; they can vote for whomever they want. So, it's possible that, in an evenly split Senate, the Republicans might vote for Cheney as their candidate, and then Cheney would cast the tiebreaker vote for himself, giving himself another term as VP - and then he'd automatically become President if the House couldn't select a President.

If this sounds incredibly complicated, that's because it is.

It would take some pretty unlikely events for Dick Cheney to win in 2008, considering that he isn't even running.

A more realistic worst-case scenario? A repeat, in some form, of the Florida debacle of 2000, leading to one or more states unable to declare a winner, which would result in no candidate getting sufficient electoral votes for victory. The election then goes into the House of Representatives, and the process there is, in a word, unworkable.

It is legally defined like this: Each state gets a single vote in the House, and a candidate must win at least 26 states to declare victory. So how are the state votes decided? The Congressional delegations from each state vote among themselves, and the candidate who gets a majority of the congressional votes for a state winds that state. But - and this is the key point - if a state's congressional delegation is evenly divided, then nobody wins that state, making it possible for nobody to win in the House also.

Guess what happens then? Well, while this is going on, the Senate is supposed to be selecting the Vice President, and if they accomplish that, then that Vice President becomes President (and the Senate then has to select another VP.) If the Senate can't select a VP to become the President, then the Speaker of the House becomes President. That's right, President Pelosi.

Actually no. That depends on what happens in the Congressional Election. If the Democrats lose control of the House, then she will not be President legally because she will have to step down as Speaker if she is not re-elected as Speaker of the House.

The Senate has a much more reasonable process for selecting a VP - each Senator gets a single vote. But if the Senate is evenly divided - well, it's not clear who would cast the deciding vote; possibly the sitting VP, who is President of the Senate and who normally breaks tie votes in the Senate. That's right, Deadeye Dick casts the deciding vote. And the Senate isn't limited to candidates who were running for President or VP; they can vote for whomever they want. So, it's possible that, in an evenly split Senate, the Republicans might vote for Cheney as their candidate, and then Cheney would cast the tiebreaker vote for himself, giving himself another term as VP - and then he'd automatically become President if the House couldn't select a President.

If this sounds incredibly complicated, that's because it is.

Indeed but if you want an example of how this works, look back throughout the history of the American Presidency. We've had this happen before. Its not a massive crisis but done within the Constitutional framework.

Actually, those that disobeyed those orders were getting court-martialed for disobeying the LAWFUL order of the President. Invading Iraq was lawful but ording troops to keep the president in power is an illegal order.I was talking about the invasion, not current deployment. The order was a clear violation of international law. Though it's never going to happen, every soldier who obeyed that order could be tried & convicted for it, regardless of the fact that the order wasn't a violation of US law. Ironicly, US military personel are taught which orders they're obliged to obey & disobey, as I'm sure Celtlund will be happy to confirm.BINGO!!! It is to the Constitution and the rule of law.It was entirely speculative. I'm under no illusion the US armed forces would support a domestic coup d'etat by anyone. However, to claim your armed forces are loyal to the constitution in particular or the rule of law in general, contradicts reality.

The ABSOLUTE worst case I can think of?

Bush decides to stay in the White House for some idiot reason.
Decides to use the military to keep himself in power.
Military splits based on party lines/loyalty to state/president issues.
Civil war erupts, millions die. Some idiot decides to nuke DC or unleashes a bioweapon.
Terrorist attacks take advantage of the resulting chaos.
USA is removed from the map, at least as a world power.

Not exactly terribly plausible, but it COULD happen :P
And before anybody questions the US loss of power as a 'bad thing', this is from my perspective. I rather enjoy my nation being the top dog >_>

There are three possibilities with regard to Bush refusing to step aside - regardless of his reason. Maybe he wants to extend his time on top. Maybe he wants to throw out election results that are unfavorable. Maybe his top men are advising that he do so. In any case, I would put the chances that he refuses to step aside at 1 in 20. Most likely, he won't bother, and his administration will retire in 2009 with a 20-something-percent approval rating, with even some conservatives deciding that he's an idiot. However, I break the situation into three scenarios:

Bush refuses to step aside, tries to extend his term, and fails - pledging the support of the military, George W. Bush announces after the election that he is not giving up the Presidency and that the winner in 2008 will not be allowed to take the White House. He states that the American people will understand his suspension of the 22nd Amendment and all electoral measures, since they are in the name of curbing terrorism and fighting the Iraq War. In all likelihood, this scenario is the most likely, especially if he has low approval ratings and Iraq turns out worse than it already is. He retracts his statement a few days after making it, pledges support to the President-elect, and avoids impeachment. That or he stands by it, and on the 20th of January, he is removed by force. All in all, democracy is hailed, Bush is seen as a criminal, and the next president starts off running the executive office normally. Bush is never tried for any crimes, and some small pockets of people consider him a hero.

Bush refuses to step aside, tries to extend his term, and pulls it off - again, Bush pledges the military's support, but unlike in a failed scenario, he actually has it. It turns out that the military has been ordered, though not publicly, to swear oath to Bush himself recently, not to the Constitution. The military, largely, reveres Bush at this point, and many of those who are not in Iraq and Afghanistan are brought home to enforce Bush's rule. It becomes far more taboo to say anything disparaging about the military. Also, instead of campaigning for the 2008 nominee from the GOP, Bush and Co. have been secretly rigging Congressional elections, ensuring wide GOP margins in both Houses. These new Houses begin impeachment proceedings on the more "liberal" Supreme Court justices, and new ones are swiftly appointed in their places. Also, some key governor's races are rigged for GOP candidates so that, in four years or so, all loud dissenting voices in Congress are silenced via expulsion on trumped-up charges, and state governors replace the dissenters (many of whom are imprisoned or killed in "accidents") with toe-the-line GOP members or quiet, quiescent Democratic yes-men. The process will be gradual so as to allow dissenters to be heard but shouted down.

The Democratic Party will be destroyed and driven toward gaining only the moderate vote, thus alienating itsl iberal base and driving its membership toward third parties that are underfunded but a threat. That lack of funding will be used to suffocate third parties such that, instead of banning them outright, they will never be allowed to contend for any major seat anywhere. Parts of the Constitution will be eroded - the First Amendment will be a thing of the past, states will be encouraged to make gun ownership unfavorable, trials will become Soviet-style shams, defense lawyers will be paid to ensure specific outcomes, prisons will become even more overcrowded until the government starts using the death penalty more often, state governments will be mere federal puppets, with even the most progressive states becoming authoritarian, no Presidential elections will take place, and if they do, the President will be below Bush and his Cabinet, slavery will take new forms, racism will be tolerated, albeit mainly against Hispanics and Arabs, taxes will go up, but so will loopholes for the wealthy and big business, and there will be virtually no limit, especially not on term length, to the President's power.

Another factor that could affect the nation - church power. Using a faith-based system, many mainstream religions will be stamped out, large churches will control several states at once, and some states will actually make them the official state churches. Tax money may go to churches, and people will be required to tithe. People will be unable to escape the state due to mobility restrictions; people will not be allowed to leave the U.S. except via military clearance. Religions will be used to drum up fear of Muslims, and an all-out war will be planned against the Muslim world and the parts of Europe that refuse to cooperate with it. If America wins, it will dominate that part of the world and create a Christian theocracy where a Muslim theocracy once stood. If it loses, it will collapse into a former shell of itself and likely break out in civil war. America will be every bit as dangerous to live in as Iraq, maybe moreso.

Lastly, there's The Jade Star's scenario. The military splits down the middle, and Bush loyalists spring up throughout the South and Midwest while Bush-haters occupy the coasts. It will accomplish the unthinkable feat of making soldiers happy to be stuck in Iraq. Most likely, the American military will flee the scene after it becomes clear that there is no more America. Small, regional government prop up around the country, and some of them call their troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere. Also, sensing that America is not prepared to stop them, terrorist groups attack troop compounds in the Middle East. In the chaos, Fred Phelps continues to cheer the destruction of America; he is shot to death, his followers are kidnapped and murdered, and his church is burnt to the ground. It ends up that about ten nations, some consisting of many smaller, largely autonomous nations, fill what used to be America. Hawaii and Alaska become independent, with parts of Alaska seceding to Canada. The entire west coast, along with some areas inland of it, become a nation. Most of the Midwest forms a confederation of states. Tecas stays independent of a new Confederate States of America. The nations have to work together and start over from a situation that's even more bleak than what the Founding Fathers faced after the Revolutionary War.

I was talking about the invasion, not current deployment. The order was a clear violation of international law. Though it's never going to happen, every soldier who obeyed that order could be tried & convicted for it, regardless of the fact that the order wasn't a violation of US law.

Wrong. They can't be convicted of anything as the orders were lawful orders given by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Since the orders were 100% lawful, there is nothing to prosecute regardless if you think it violated international law or not.

Ironicly, US military personel are taught which orders they're obliged to obey & disobey, as I'm sure Celtlund will be happy to confirm.

I don't need him to confirm it. Both of my parents were in the military as was most of my father's side of the family and I still have relatives in the service. They know what a lawful order is and was not a lawful order. Invading Iraq was a lawful order. Keeping someone out of the White House if they do not like the person is an unlawful order.

It was entirely speculative. I'm under no illusion the US armed forces would support a domestic coup d'etat by anyone. However, to claim your armed forces are loyal to the constitution in particular or the rule of law in general, contradicts reality.

:rolleyes: Im not even going to bother with this because it will be pointless and no matter what I say, you won't believe anyway so we'll just agree to disagree on this point.

Wrong. They can't be convicted of anything as the orders were lawful orders given by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Since the orders were 100% lawful, there is nothing to prosecute regardless if you think it violated international law or not. They can in theory, because the order was not lawful. If America wasn't effectively above international law, following that order would result in trial & conviction. The order was not, however, a violation of US law, thus refusals to follow it resulted in court martials. This doesn't mean there was anything legal about it, it just means it was a catch 22 situation for the military personel.I don't need him to confirm it.Then I suggest you ask some of them if what I'm saying is correct. Alternatively, you can check the UNs site or Wikipedia. It's perfectly straightforward.Im not even going to bother with this because it will be pointless and no matter what I say, you won't believe anyway so we'll just agree to disagree on this point.What is it I won't believe? Your assertion that the US isn't subject to international law? I believe it, partially. See the US is subject to international law. Your country just happens to be in a position to ignore it as it sees fit.

They can in theory, because the order was not lawful.

According to whom? The only people that count when it comes to lawful orders is J.A.G. This falls under the UCMJ and NOT under an International Court. The order was 100% lawful under UCMJ and US Law. That is all that matters.

If America wasn't effectively above international law, following that order would result in trial & conviction. The order was not, however, a violation of US law, thus refusals to follow it resulted in court martials.

As it should as it was NOT an ILLEGAL ORDER. Dot. Period. End of story. Does not matter if you want it to be illegal or not. What matters is that, under the Uniform Code of MILITARY JUSTICE, it was a completely LEGAL and LAWFUL ORDER. That is all that guides the US Military Actions. If it violated it, then they should be prosecuted but since it did not violate it, any and all people who violate the orders to go, should, will, and are being prosecuted whereas those that did follow it, are not.

So grow up and shut up because this does NOT concern international law but US law which is what governs our Armed Forces. If you cannot understand that then back out of this debate now because now you are just showing ignorance.

I do not care that you think International Law applies here because it does not when it comes to ANY nation's fighting soldier. They are governed by their own laws and Code of Conduct just like our soldiers are governed by US Law and Code of Conduct.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t258/gobears1987/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

This about says it

According to whom? The only people that count when it comes to lawful orders is J.A.G. This falls under the UCMJ and NOT under an International Court. The order was 100% lawful under UCMJ and US Law. That is all that matters....

Actually, the UCMJ cannot decide on the legality of the war, as shown by the case of Lt. Watada (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith).
On July 5 the US Army brought charges against First Lieut. Ehren Watada, an infantry officer stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, who has refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit because he believes the war there is illegal. Watada faces up to eight years in jail and a dishonorable discharge. But in trying the 28-year-old officer, the Army is really putting itself, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration on trial.

Here is how it turned out. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1587056,00.html)

The highly anticipated court-martial of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq ended in a mistrial on Wednesday, a surprising development that left military prosecutors clearly frustrated, observers stunned and defense attorneys claiming that the military had blown its only chance at a conviction.

Consequently, it is impossible to say whether or not the invasion of Iraq was legal or not according to the UCMJ.

If it was legal, Watada would have been charged.

If it was illegal, Watada would have been acquitted.

Since it was a mistrial, the legality of deploying troops to Iraq is still up in the air, and this may be due to the fact that the war's legality can not be decided by the UCMJ:
The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel.

Is this clear?

As for the OP, I do not believe Bush will try to stay in the White House. I think Bush Sr. has more subtle plans with respect to consolidating and expanding his power base. Yes, I typed that correctly.

That's because there is nothing to impeach him. I doubt once evidence is collected that it won't get out of committee and you can rest assured that the Senate won't convict. It is pointless to even try.

Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He violated the Constitution with his illegal wiretaps. He broke his oath. He violated the very principles of his job. There's solid ground for impeachment proceedings. You just refuse to see it.

*snip*

The legality of war is indeed above the UCMJ. I never stated that the UCMJ covered that. I'm stating that the UCMJ covers the legality of orders. That is far different than actually stating that the war is illegal or not. The prosecutors were stupid to bring that into the equation. If I was the prosecutor, I would not have brought that up. However, whats done is done.

One cannot disobey a lawful order from the President of the United States or from the proper chain of command. However, one is obligated to disobey an illegal order from the samething. Since the Iraq War was authorized by Congress, all orders of deployment to Iraq are legal.

Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He violated the Constitution with his illegal wiretaps. He broke his oath. He violated the very principles of his job. There's solid ground for impeachment proceedings. You just refuse to see it.

And yet, the Congressional INtell committees were kept fully informed of what was going on and said absolutely nothing about it at that time. The onus of proof is on them to prove that what he did was indeed illegal. Of course, they want to hang him for doing this, then they'll have no choice but to dig through past presidents and see what they did. If they did that, the case will be tossed out as the precedent is there for the President to do so.

I am not refusing to see anything. I am stating that if they target Bush about this, then they will have no choice but to hang all other presidents for doing the samething. Do not get me started on the Nixon Administration or the Reagan and Clinton Administrations. Even the Kennedy Administration did the samething.

It will not be worth the Democrats while to pursue it for they know it as does everyone else does that the President of the United States has been doing this constently. Legal or not is up to interpretation.

How about a realistic nightmare:


Hillary and Obama vs. Jeb Bush and John Ashcroft.

There's a nightmare for every voter and every citizen of the world.

Sam Brownback from Kansas wins and immediately institutes forced religion into schools. Begins pressuring the supreme court to overturn Roe V Wade. Starts a war with Iran (assuming Bush hadn't done it already trying to mess up the next administration.)

He'll turn the entire United States into Kansas, and Kansas into a place resembling Dr. Suess' worst nightmare on PCP, Bad shrooms, and LSD.