4 more years..well maybe

magick

Just wondering what would be people opinions, of what changes / or effects on the world if Bush won the November election? What would his second term be like?

Sleipnir

Well it can't get any worse.
He did start a war in his first term of office after all.

arcadegame2004

If he is re-elected, then I suspect Iran and Syria will be next on his target list.

MeatProduct

We can look forward to more terrorist attacks in the US and Europe.

Nick

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If he is re-elected, then I suspect Iran and Syria will be next on his target list.

Knock the Sudan on to that list as well. Rumblings where the jungle meets the desert apparently.

Boston

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Well it can't get any worse.
He did start a war in his first term of office after all.

Just the one?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Boston
Just the one?

Oh yeah, the forgoten war!

swiss

I think it would be great! He would immediately implement the Kyoto protocols and drastically improve clean air standards. He would start looking for clean renewable energy sources instead of oil to power the country. He would pull his troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and allow the people to hold free and fair elections without trying to install a 'puppet' govenor.

Oh wait, this is reality we're talking about. Suffice it to say, if Bush were relected I would see it as a tacit endorsal of all the questionable actions that he has perpetrated during his tenure in office. My opinion of America would plummet accordingly.

BUMP!

Like swiss said exactly. Whats the saying? Fool me once shame on you - fool me twice shame on me... The american people should remember that (and stay away from his e-voting machines!!).

Seriously though - at least in his first term he was staying mild so that he could get reelected. What will happen when he no longer has to worry about public opinion as he cant get elected a 3rd time??? (twice is the maximum amount of times a president can get elected isn't it? Otherwise just ignore me!!)
:rolleyes:

Hobbes

Originally posted by BUMP!
What will happen when he no longer has to worry about public opinion as he cant get elected a 3rd time??? (twice is the maximum amount of times a president can get elected isn't it? Otherwise just ignore me!!)
:rolleyes:

He will pass a law to make it illegal to vote.

BUMP!

Aaahh! But sure why allow them vote? They're all fox news lemmings anyway... (only messn ... kinda!!)

sceptre

Originally posted by BUMP!
(twice is the maximum amount of times a president can get elected isn't it? Otherwise just ignore me!!)

Futurama fan?

Aye, you're right. 22nd amendment, passed in 1951 which kicks off with "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." (not "no body" like evil Nixon said in "A Head In The Polls"when Bender pawned his shiny metal ass)

leeroybrown

Given that every year of Bush's presidency so far has represented a 1.5 year reduction in the US social security fund, I reckon it would hasten the bankrupcy of the US by another 2 years (2016?).

He will pass a law to make it illegal to vote.

It would have to be a constitutional referendum. That said, if people vote him in again you'd never ...

sceptre

Originally posted by leeroybrown
It would have to be a constitutional referendum. That said, if people vote him in again you'd never ...

They don't have referendums over there. Constitutional amendments proposed by congress have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states within seven years and then they become law. The 27th amendment (holding back on pay rises till after an election) took about 200 years though (and it didn't really matter as they've fiddled the rules to increase cost of living expenses outside the rules)

leeroybrown

I stand corrected.

sceptre

Originally posted by leeroybrown
I stand corrected.

Ah, well that wasn't really my intention. In any case, a state could decide themselves to have a referendum prior to any ratification, which might or might not be binding on the state legislature. The main ratification process would still stand but the people might get a looksee.

(and this is an aside to the main question anyway)

BUMP!

Aaaah yes... if he got elected again??? We'd all be in it up to our ears. Naturally he'll go for iran or N.Korea next (oil in iran so that'll be the spot). Obviously seeing as he doesn't answer to geneva and cant be prosecuted for war crimes he'll avoid the problems encountered this time with a clever new tactic - gas! No troops, no american bodybags, no cost - just another liberated (empty) country where he can then source more oil for americans... Of course at this time he'll be putting into motion the machine to slowly strip away the rights of the american people (while fox news tells them its FOR THE FLAG) until he has established a firm, stable, happy ... dictatorship!.... with automatic death penalty for those who annoy him or actually ask whats going on?

Nah, couldn't happen - could it????

flogen

I think everyone is over looking the fact that Iran and N. Korea actually have WMD!!!

He wont touch N. Korea, far too dangerous, theres a pretty good chance the US would lose if he went there. Iran is a risk too..has nuclear capabilities, see the way america is negotiating with them?? that means they dont want to attack.

They wont hit Syria until Gaddaffi has destroyed all his WMD, if they do at all, I'd say Sudan too... maybe some African nation which Saddam got his Plutonium from...:p:D

Its safe to say there will be another big attack on the US, if not before the election, shortly after it... and thats likely even if Kerry wins.

flogen

Big Ears

Originally posted by sceptre
Futurama fan?

Aye, you're right. 22nd amendment, passed in 1951 which kicks off with "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." (not "no body" like evil Nixon said in "A Head In The Polls"when Bender pawned his shiny metal ass)

True but he could make the term of office longer than 4 years , say 20 . By then he will have found a way to form a proper dictatoership .

por

Originally posted by flogen


Its safe to say there will be another big attack on the US, if not before the election, shortly after it... and thats likely even if Kerry wins.

flogen

True, Bin Ladden et al. do not really care who is running the country, it's western, christian culture they are out to destroy.

grumpytrousers

when Bender pawned his shiny metal ass)

Erm...is this a new euphamism?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by por
True, Bin Ladden et al. do not really care who is running the country, it's western, christian culture they are out to destroy.

Not sure about that. My take on it is that these terrorists exist because the US and the UN created the environment for terrorism. For example putting Sadam in power, imposing unrealistic sanctions, kicking the sh*t out of everyone in that country......

If it were about western christian society then the US should have been attacked on a rather constant basis for the past 200 years.

Nick

claidheamh

If re-elected, I would double the contribution to my, "I'm Relocating" fund, and start looking abroad for employment. The dolt and his schemes to drill in Alaska, "selectively" cut trees to pave roads in National Forests, get oil on the cheap from the Middle East...are sickening to me. He won't be happy until the US is one big refinery. It is bad enough here (Gulf Coast TX). If you haven't seen it, there is one giant, polluted refinery after another-to Louisiana. You can get a Staph. infection and die from just swimming in the water. He's doing his level best to spread this wholesome goodness to the other 49 states, and any other nation in need of money.

Bush doesn't want to fight a country with WMP, and an organized military(ie., N. Korea). That fight would be a very, very, ugly one. As it is, he's started enough fighting to keep the US busy for some time.

I've seen these on two pickup trucks: on one side of the bumper it states: "Re Elect Bush for Pres"...on the other side of the bumper, "Bomb their soil, Take their oil." So, the mentality around here is generally a pretty scary one, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was re-elected.

Furthermore, why couldn't y'all have kept him a little longer?:D

bus77

Originally posted by BUMP!
Seriously though - at least in his first term he was staying mild so that he could get reelected. What will happen when he no longer has to worry about public opinion as he cant get elected a 3rd time??? (twice is the maximum amount of times a president can get elected isn't it? Otherwise just ignore me!!)

Ahh It's ok... he'll just get this fella to take over...

They think Hillary Clinton will be running against Jeb, pro bush sites are trying to sell books about "evil women who want to take power from men"(seriously)

Sand

If it were about western christian society then the US should have been attacked on a rather constant basis for the past 200 years.

Islam spread from the small city states of medina and mecca. It swept through the middle east, into North Africa and as far as southern France, in the east it deposed the Byzantine empire and invaded as far as Vienna as late as the 18th century!!!! The Ottoman Empire, the greatest of the muslim powers, was defeated at Vienna and it was forced into a headlong retreat from Vienna all the way back to Istanbul. It is fair to say the Islamic world has been in absolute shock at the relatively sudden reversal of their power ever since, leading to a variety of envy, fear, bitterness, admiration and hatred.

Muslim and Arab extremists have traditionally seen the West, be it the Byzantine empire, or the Franks, or the British Empire, or finally the Americans as their traditional rival and enemy. They have historically cosied up to the Nazis ( the baath party being the arab "nationalist socialist workers party" - Saddams uncle was a Nazi enthusiast ) and the Communists - not because they belive in the Aryan master race or godless collectivisation but because both these idealogies are enemies of the West. The enemy of my enemy.

The point im trying to make is that Bin Laden is not fighting for the Kyoto Treaty to be fully implemented or for labour standards to be improved as a part of globalisation - hes fighting because the Spanish kicked the Moors out of spain in the 15th century! Hes fighting because westerners are in Saudia Arabia and the Prophet commanded in the 8th century that no non-muslim should be suffered in SA. Hes fighting because Sharia law isnt imposed across the world. It doesnt matter if Kerry is in power next year. It didnt matter to Bin laden that the first time he tried to bring down the WTC that Clinton was in power.

Keep dreaming that Kerry will suddenly about face on everything if he comes into power. He wont. He cant. The situation wont change and the solution wont change either. The US is simply the dominant Western State and as such is the enemy of the fundamentalist Islam.

sceptre

Originally posted by grumpytrousers
Erm...is this a new euphamism?

No. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I can't think of a funny putdown. Sorry about tha'

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand

The point im trying to make is that Bin Laden is not fighting for the Kyoto Treaty to be fully implemented or for labour standards to be improved as a part of globalisation -

I don't remember anyone suggesting that either. Your welcome to point it out if I'm wrong.

hes fighting because the Spanish kicked the Moors out of spain in the 15th century! Hes fighting because westerners are in Saudia Arabia and the Prophet commanded in the 8th century that no non-muslim should be suffered in SA. Hes fighting because Sharia law isnt imposed across the world. It doesnt matter if Kerry is in power next year. It didnt matter to Bin laden that the first time he tried to bring down the WTC that Clinton was in power.

Actually what he has actually said is that the rulers of SA are allowing foreign troops in their holy land as well as oppressing the people as a whole, which probably garners alot of support in SA. Then he goes on to mention America's support for Israel's occupation of Palestine and the snafu in Iraq. All of which gains support...as he has a point...in many Muslim countries.
He didn't start with Bush (although some of Bush's friends armed and trained him) as well as American intervention in the Middle East didn't either.
Should the time come that America makes some amends in that region (and the west in general) it would seem, based on historical precedent, that he would loose most support should his supposed goal of imposing Islam on the world be his true aim.

Keep dreaming that Kerry will suddenly about face on everything if he comes into power. He wont. He cant. The situation wont change and the solution wont change either. The US is simply the dominant Western State and as such is the enemy of the fundamentalist Islam.

Ah right...so I guess everythings ok then and I can just sit back and watch Eastenders.
Exaclt right that Kerry isn't going to do an about face on things, although as a competent politician (and without a majority of fundamentalists in his cabinet) he might regress some of the most fanatical and disastrous of Bush's policies.
Oh and what you said is why I'm going to vote for Nader.

shinzon

Done forget according to john titor that there wil be an american civil war in the year 2005 which will spread globally by 2006

Shin

Sand

I don't remember anyone suggesting that either. Your welcome to point it out if I'm wrong.

Meatproduct suggested it was more to do with Bush, when he noted early in the thread that if Bush was elected again there would be more attacks in the US and Europe. That doesnt make sense. If Kerry is elected, there will still be more attacks in the US and Europe.

You know, if anything all you can say is that since 9/11 Bushs administration has prevented another attack on US soil. Thats almost 3 years of fairly open war against extremist groups, despite his critics claiming hes doing all the wrong things.

Meatproduct also reinforced that view when he disagreed with Por ( I think) who argued that Bin Ladens cause had more to do with his fundamentalist views on the Christian West than on who was in the White House.

Thats the view that I was disagreeing with. Bin Laden only cares that there are westeners in the Holy Land, that the Middle East regimes are fairly pro- western ( and thus close to modernising, secular, liberal influences that would undermine Islams position ). So long as the West remains an influence on the Middle East - even if only culturally - then Bin Laden will have a cause to violently resist the Islamics worlds "corruption" by the Wests evil of modernity and liberalism. How does Bin laden feel about the French oppressing his Muslim brethern with their laws against symbols of the faith? How does that play to devout muslims? All you need is a cause, and a handful of fanatics.

Who exactly is in the White House doesnt matter. So long as the world needs oil, the West will have an interest in the Middle East. So Mahatma Ghandi could be elected President and hed still have to get involved in the Middle East. *You* could be elected President and youd still have to ensure that the oil flowed from the Middle East or preside over a 2nd Great Depression and the fastest lynching in US presidential history.

Oh and what you said is why I'm going to vote for Nader.

Great, Im delighted. It wouldnt make any difference if he was elected either.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You know, if anything all you can say is that since 9/11 Bushs administration has prevented another attack on US soil. Thats almost 3 years of fairly open war against extremist groups, despite his critics claiming hes doing all the wrong things.

More correctly, you can say that there hasn't been another attack, not that one has been prevented.

Alternately, if you wish to maintain that it has indeed been prevented, one must also acknowledge that he has - through the same actions - brought terrorism to Iraq. "We shall fight them abroad so we don't have to fight them at home" has so many levels when you look at it like that. Its not just about defeating them , its just as equally about making sure that they make their attacks against the US away from US soil.

So yeah. Bush may have prevented attacks on America's own soil, and maybe thats enough of a reason for people to vote for him come the election, but I would hope that some of them would stop to ask who is paying the price for this prevention.

Oh, I forgot...its those Iraqi's who are glad to be free of Saddam. They'll happily suffer a bit of old terrorism in the name of keeping the terrorists away from the US mainland.

Meatproduct also reinforced that view when he disagreed with Por ( I think) who argued that Bin Ladens cause had more to do with his fundamentalist views on the Christian West than on who was in the White House.

True, but there is a point of view which would hold that Bush's choices are only exacerbating the situation, which is often coupled with a belief (of questionable grounding, I'll admit) that Kerry will - at the very least - not be as bad.

All you need is a cause, and a handful of fanatics.

One should point out that this is most definitely not limited to the fundamentalist Muslims, nor even to religious groupings at all. A cause and enough people who believe in it is a very, very dangerous thing.

Who exactly is in the White House doesnt matter.

Yes, it does. It matters how they manage the problem, whether they make it better (overall) or worse, whether they have brought us one step closer to someday finding a solution, or one step further away.

So long as the world needs oil, the West will have an interest in the Middle East.

But do you not at least recognise that how we present ourselves while fulfilling that interest can be of significant importance?

If we look for the McFix, then sure....its irrelevant whether we talk of Bush or Kerry. Neither is a McDonalds wizard of high enough powers to provide a mcFix for the entire Middle Eastern set of problems.

However, if we look at the real problem (which is exactly what you're pointing out), then surely it is disingenious to also talk about a McFix. Should we not look rather at the long term....and thats when differences in Presidents and policies do become important once more.

jc

treefingers

Originally posted by por
True, Bin Ladden et al. do not really care who is running the country, it's western, christian culture they are out to destroy.

i don't buy into this theory at all. these people in terrorist organisations are rebelling against what they believe has been unjust western interference into their affairs - like interest in iraqi oil, or support of the israeli state no matter what crimes it commits.

it is unfair to say that they are all out to destroy all cultures other than their own - i think they would be happy to live side by side with other cultures if they were treated fairly. this is pretty unrealistic in the short/medium term though considering whats happened recently - sep 11, afghanistan, iraq, madrid bombs, etc etc.....
(although there are some people who are just plain evil and probably do want to destroy every culture but their own - like bin laden)


although it is true to say that no matter who is the next president of america is, the current situation is such that more terrorist attacks on the west are inevitable. the damage is not likely to be repaired in any 1 presidential term....