Bush makes secret changes to Dictator Plans

skeptigirl said:
The percentage of profit is not the issue. Supporting oppressive dictators to maintain cheap labor pools and mine other nation's resources without regard to environmental damage is the definition of excess greed.
Click to expand...

You mean kind of like how Total signed contracts with Saddam even as he drained vast swamplands to punish their inhabitants, right? Oh, but that was France, so it's OK.
 
Kerberos said:
Trust and scruples don't enter into it. Let's say that Bush is actually planning to invade Iran and suspend the elections. OK Congress won't give him an authorisation of force, so he declares it an emergency and appoints himself dictator. Congress votes to impeach him. Bush orders the armed forces to disband Congress. The armed forces say "no". Bush is arrested. Moreover Bush almost certainly knows this, so even if he was inclined to try to become dictator he would not try because he knew it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
I picture another scenario here than this.

There is another major terrorist event in the US. Bush implements whatever unconstitutional scheme is in the directive and no one in Congress has the guts to object because the American sheep are all wrapped in American flags shouting nuke Iran, nuke Fallujah, nuke Syria. And while it might sound good at the time, it ends up worse than the mess the incompetent fool has already got us into.

I don't see this as clever Bush trying to become some dictator. I see it as incompetent Bush screwing things up even more in his self-serving egotistical version of reality. After all, he's "a war president", you know.
 
Ziggurat said:
You mean kind of like how Total signed contracts with Saddam even as he drained vast swamplands to punish their inhabitants, right? Oh, but that was France, so it's OK.
Click to expand...
First, the discussion was about Central America and my personal experiences.

And second, go back a few more years in Iraq.
saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg
 
Darth Rotor said:
...
Question for you: do you hold the recent GOP presidential debates to be a smoke screen, covering for a behind the scenes attempt to suspend the elections in 2008? From your "dictator" line, it would seem to follow, yet if the executive were to be strengthened by statute, any executive -- Dem, GOP, or, God willing but unlikely, a third party -- would be likewise further empowered. (Not a fan of that, personally.) If you do not think the GOP process is a fraud (for all that it was a bit of a farce) then "your" party would benefit from a strengthened Pres if Al Gore, Barak, Hillary, John, or Dennis were to be elected.

I find the combination of your positions inconsistent, and thus puzzling.

DR
Click to expand...
Do you view Bush as rational? See him as engaged in reality? Think the neocons in Bush's inner circle aren't full of their own self importance?

The Republican Party is actually quite disorganized for the moment. No telling what the neocons think of their future. I picture an administration that cannot see beyond Bush's term. I suspect Bush in signing this directive, and in continuing to repeat over and over, "9/11 9/11 9/11", is so engrossed in his version of reality that he isn't even thinking beyond the end of 07. Bush has this view as he has stated many times, that history will prove him right and he'll leave a famous legacy instead of the infamous one he already has.

Bush may very well believe we'll be at war with Iran before he leaves office, not because Bush caused it, but because Bush was right all along and that majority against him right now will see he was right. It's seems to be human nature for many to think that way. Both the Christian and Islamic religious traditions are to get revenge for the disbelievers in the end. I think that is Bush's world. He's right and we just don't know it but we'll see.

So it's in that short term context I see Bush enacting this little scheme. Mr Big Shot plans to show his macho leadership skills and lead the country to power and victory. It's his imagined world.

The danger is having whatever is in the directive put this country in even more peril if there is any reason for Bush to put the directive into action. Who will stop him from launching the nukes?
 
Darth Rotor said:
"The pond would be good for you." -=Ty Webb=- ;)

DR
Click to expand...
"When I have been pushed... I think it's about time somebody teach these varmints a little bit about morality, and about what it's like to be a decent, upstanding member OF A SOCIETY!"
 
skeptigirl said:
And second, go back a few more years in Iraq.
[qimg]http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Hey, why stop there? Why not go back even further?
250px-Chirac_nuclear_reactor.jpg


Recognize the second man from the right? That's Monsieur Chirac. Next to him is Saddam. And they are standing inside what was supposed to be a nuclear reactor that the French were building for Saddam, that Chirac helped seal the deal on. It was destroyed, by unilateral and illegal agression against a sovereign state. And thank goodness it was.
 
Zig, is there a point in your post? Because I'm not sure what it is. No one is arguing anything about Saddam being a bad guy.

There are lots of 'em. Should we go after them all? How many are we still supporting?
 
skeptigirl said:
Zig, is there a point in your post? Because I'm not sure what it is. No one is arguing anything about Saddam being a bad guy.

There are lots of 'em. Should we go after them all? How many are we still supporting?
Click to expand...

My point is that you're not consistent with the application of your own professed values. We cannot, as a practical matter, go after all dictators. But is that really the basis on which you oppose the Iraq war? I doubt it, nor does it make any sense because even if you can't topple every dictator that doesn't mean you shouldn't topple some. And your condemnation of support for dictators is, to put it charitably, narrowly focused.
 
There is nothing wrong with the governmant having contingency plans in the case of a massive disaster. This includes a devestating terror attack, a large meteor strike, a tsunami, or a violent insurrection. Would people prefer we have no plan in place and chaos insue after a disaster?
 
skeptigirl said:
First, the discussion was about Central America and my personal experiences.

And second, go back a few more years in Iraq.
[qimg]http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

ooh! Can i play pictures of people with other people who aren't very nice? I see your saddam, and I raise you Joseph Stalin

933846575387a2d9f.jpg


That's Truman and Churchill alongside.....
 
I'm sure the authors of the article are sad they can't have shocking, intence incidental music as you read it.

"President Bush signed a new executive order in case of emergency." (Cue scary music with lots of deep bass.) (end of article and info)
 
parky76 said:
There is nothing wrong with the governmant having contingency plans in the case of a massive disaster. This includes a devestating terror attack, a large meteor strike, a tsunami, or a violent insurrection. Would people prefer we have no plan in place and chaos insue after a disaster?
Click to expand...

Can you spell FEMA?
Heck of a job.
 
Ziggurat said:
My point is that you're not consistent with the application of your own professed values. We cannot, as a practical matter, go after all dictators. But is that really the basis on which you oppose the Iraq war? I doubt it, nor does it make any sense because even if you can't topple every dictator that doesn't mean you shouldn't topple some. And your condemnation of support for dictators is, to put it charitably, narrowly focused.
Click to expand...
I noticed you totally sidestepped my entire post on what makes a corporation greedy. Now you're off on the subject of was the Iraq war justified? What's the matter? Couldn't respond to the actual issues?

You're full of it that I'm not consistent. I said we as a country shouldn't have been supporting brutal oppressive dictators in the name of corporate profits. I didn't say we should be out there toppling those dictators with military force.
 
parky76 said:
There is nothing wrong with the governmant having contingency plans in the case of a massive disaster. This includes a devestating terror attack, a large meteor strike, a tsunami, or a violent insurrection. Would people prefer we have no plan in place and chaos insue after a disaster?
Click to expand...
Beerina said:
I'm sure the authors of the article are sad they can't have shocking, intence incidental music as you read it.

"President Bush signed a new executive order in case of emergency." (Cue scary music with lots of deep bass.) (end of article and info)
Click to expand...

Of course there is nothing wrong with the concept of contingency plans. Has this particular administration shown it is responsible and trustworthy so no one need be concerned about these particular secret plans?

Let me give you a hint:

Secret renditions, ignoring the laws against spying on US citizens without warrants, abolishing the writ of habeas corpus, Guantanamo where people are held without any semblance of a fair trial, invading a country that didn't attack us.....
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
ooh! Can i play pictures of people with other people who aren't very nice? I see your saddam, and I raise you Joseph Stalin

...

That's Truman and Churchill alongside.....
Click to expand...
The post with Cheney and Saddam was a specific reply to Ziggy touting the evils of Saddam. This game of distorting what my post was about is just that, distorting what I posted. You all are actually making my point. We support these oppressive ba$t@rd$ then wonder why some people don't view the US as the world's savior and hero of democracy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom