what if?

[Brain]

we all know what is going to happen if the US manages to find WMD in Iraq. (the war will look slightly better in the eyes of the global community)  my question is what will happen if we DON'T find any WMD?

feel free to discuss. i'll chip in later after a few opinions are presented

[(SEALs) one]

well, brain if we find those weapons of mass destruction, than well the world will know the truth and that'd be good sort of.
If we found them, I bet some countries would be afraid deep down inside...

on a side note..........
We might have war with Syria,Russia, and North Korea!

[bronto]

I would just like to say that "weapons of mass destruction" is politically incorrect, in the sense that any weapon can cause mass destruction, if used to it's full extent and efficiently.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

bronto, are you worried about hurting the other weapon's feeling for not considering them of mass destruction?

Anyway, if we do find them it will make the US perhaps a bit better off, but it certainly won't free them of problems.

If they don't...I suppose it will make it worse, but the Bush Administration has shifted reasoning for the war so often that they can just claim that their real reason was to stop Saddam from doing awful things to his people, something that isn't really in question.  This hodgepodging of reason is one of the primary weaknesses in the Bush administrations war reasoning and why so many countries objected, but after the fact the same hodgepodging is a benefit in that if one reason falls through the cracks you still have the others.  It is why, regardless of what happens I don't think it has a significant impact on the opinion of the war, you either thought it was justified, and nothing will make it seem not to be, or you think it wasn't justified and nothing will make it seem to be.

[Casper]

I think if they don't find any, The bush adminastration will bring some in and act like they found it.

[Brain]

actually my first reaction to this question was similar to casper's. if they need to, the Gov. will fake it. they have staked too much to have it blow up in their face now

on a side note, syria(i think that that's the right country) apears to be next in bush's sights having been accused of having chemical weapons. do you think we are going after syria next? If so, what do you think will happen (personally i hope bush gets his ass impeached if it does happen. it would manage to save alot of face with the international community as well. sort of an oops, we goofed)

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Considering what Bush has done already to prove Iraq has WMD, I wouldn't put it past him to fake it (he'll probably forget to remove the U.S. Property stamp on it )

Yes, sadly it does look like Bush wants to overthrow Syria's regime as well.  I assume he'd do it while the troops are there.  It wouldn't take long, it is like 1/3 the size and the terrain isn't quite as bad.  I don't anticipate Lebenon or Jordan appreciating it much though (why not just attack all three?).  If it weren't for the fact that the troops are there I would say not until after the election.  I don't think even US opinion would support another war.  But if he waits until after the election he is free to fight as many wars as he wants, and as long as he finishes them in 90 days he doesn't even need Congress's ok.

You mention him being impeached...I thought that was if he broke the law, not because he lost favor.  Is there any means that we can get him out of office?

[tasty]

Well, Bush has broken numerous international laws which are technically supposed to supercede domestic laws. However, whether or not he is impeachable on an illegal war is dicey at best. There would need to be a sea change in this country's attitude before congress would think about going after Bush on anything they had unless it was really juicy.

[kami]

Going for Syria would be a terrible mistake imo because they wouldn't be seen as liberators anymore, they'd be seen as occupiers, just like Israel. The allegation that they could have chemical weapons could also just be seen as a bad excuse for expanding the 'empire'. I kind of hope they don't find any WMDs in Iraq, that would be fun.

[tasty]

If the US doesn't find WMD in Iraq, they'll probably claim that Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton are hiding them in Paris and Hollywood.

But honestly, the white house threw out so many possible reasons for this war that they will claim it was just even if this reason (supposedly the main reason) falls through. I really think that if it did happen, our international reputation would go from immoral to just plain foolhardy. The only logical plan were this to happen IMO would be to apologize to the world, withdraw all other mideast plans, and turn Iraq over to the UN. And Bush should take bukkake from Schroder, Chirac, and Putin.

[Brain]

well, i suppose that we could either impeach bush, but then we're treading on the same legal grounds when we impeached clinton(i.e. not to solid)
or we might be able to get a recall election, but that might only be for local and state government.

other than those 2 options, i dont know any way to legally get bush out of office. there are other ways, but let's not discuss those

[Ace]

well, i suppose that we could either impeach bush, but then we're treading on the same legal grounds when we impeached clinton(i.e. not to solid)
or we might be able to get a recall election, but that might only be for local and state government.

other than those 2 options, i dont know any way to legally get bush out of office. there are other ways, but let's not discuss those

Unless Bush really fucks up, there is no way to legally get him out of office early. And by really fucks up, I mean something like lying under oath.

On a totally unrelated note, Brain, they had very solid grounds on which to impeach Clinton. He was just too popular for the country to realize that he was a liar.

[abe]

tasty

international law DOES NOT supercede national laws, neither in theory nor in practice.
besides, international law is a pretty fluid and 'in-progress' thing and the same action can be seen as illegal or legal depending on how you interpret things.
btw, why do you have such a high opinion of putin, chirac and schroeder?
also,  bush hasent done anything unconstituional or illegal, so any talk of 'impeachement' is ridiculous. the worst part about all the clinton BS is that ppl now think you can impeach the president for anything.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Ace, I don't care about the laws, I'd rather have a President lying about his private life than a President lying in order to wage an illegal war.

Brain, here in Colorado Springs they had a recall election petition going but it fell though...don't know if that works for President because technically we didn't elect him (the public doesn't actually elect the president, the electoral college does).

[jn.loudnotes]

There's no provision in the Constitution for a recall election, but an amendment might pass.

Tasty, that bukkake idea was the sickest thing I've ever heard.  Frankly, that's more disturbing to me than the prospect of murdering thousands of innocent Arab civilians throughout the Middle East.  It scares me more than a lying president.

Again, laws be damned - why should the president of the US ever be questioned about his personal life under oath?

[tasty]

ahahaha take a joke guys. i dont think that chirac, schroder, or especially putin are very good leaders either. after all, its just bukkake everyone does it right?

abe, i know in practice no one seriously puts international laws ahead of domestic laws but in the agreements under which we set up internationally apply on a larger scale and therefore supercede domestic laws. my international relations prof talks about it all the time. and the things you said about international law could be said for domestic law too: no system of laws ever stays completely static, they are always changing. domestic laws can be interpreted two ways as well.

and i agree, barring some information i don't know bush is not impeachable, no one thus far has brought up what he has done that makes him impeachable and i wasnt the one that started the topic.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, Clinton was under oath on a trial about sexual crimes I thought...although I've very suspicious of women who accuse people of sexual assault well after the fact, especially if the man has become famous.  That is just attention grubbing whoring.  If a woman was raped, she knows it the day of and damned well better get to the hospital to get the tests done and report it.  Otherwise she wasn't raped.  Either way, I also don't think Clinton did anything morally wrong in terms of the lying about personal issues, if he did anything legally wrong is another issue that doesn't concern me, whether he did anything morally wrong other than the issue also doesn't concern me.  What I do know is that Bush had taken actions that have killed thousands of innocent people, and that is morally wrong, and is very likely legally wrong.

As for bukkake, it sounds funny, who cares if it is nasty.

[Brain]

ok, enough about clinton. he was supposed to be an example and it turned out to be a bad one. i'll apologize for it. but the comment stands, unless we find something incriminating, or we so some really fuzzy law, we are stuck with bush for the remainder of his term, and if he starts another war(barring exceptional circumstances) i doubt that he will see another