What should happen to the next president who lies to his country to go to war?

I have read a great many of the replies, I agree with some, I don't agree with others. I remember what one said about me posting this with torturous options. I personally was just curious to see what people thought or would pick. I don't always have the time to pick every scenario possible to suit EVERYONE in these threads. I'm upset that some would pick nothing because if you don't do anything then it continues to be allowed to happen as it has. If it were up to me, I agree with what one said about making him serve a sentence in prison then making him do community service that is chosen by the people for the remainder of his life. I, like many are upset that our presidents do the things they do. The question still stands since we are the little people: What are WE going to do if it happens AGAIN? What are WE going to DO if another president does similar things that Bush did? You can't simply just do nothing and allow it to happen again and again and again. The question had to be put out there.

 

This idea I do agree with full heartedly!

Alright then, what should happen to the members of congress as well? I furthermore agree and think that the members of the United States government should all be banished. They've made a business out of making weaponry! That makes me sick. I may have hate and anger inside of me but who in their right mind really thinks that making more dangerous weapons is a way of bringing peace?? Yes sometimes conflict brings fighting but to the extent of lethal weapons? Obviously someone isn't doing their job and I think the little people should start standing up instead of allowing someone else to dictate an unpleasant life for mankind.

 

Unfortunately, stuff like this will continue to happen if you have an economy obsessed with growth and a nation obsessed with strengthening its global position. America, like my country before it, wants influence far beyond its own borders, and very often there's no threat there to justify it so they have to lie to you. The public go for it because they want to reap the benefits, but they won't go for the truth because it would make them feel guilty. Unless we're buying that everyone just straight up believed what they were told, which I don't.

Have y'all considered just not having a president at all?

 

Wouldn't that only ban them from American politics? Aren't people like that better to have on side than, potentially, working against you?

 

hmm . . . just cut out their tongues

 

Ummm howzabout a daily regimen of waterboarding? After all, it's not really torture, you know...

 

Now that's usin' your ass! I LEIK I LEIK.

 

Hey you bunch of fuckin rude bucks. I fuckin love my president bush. so get off my property or ill call the cops.

 

Now you've given me this idea. We get Bush to go to work as a leader for the Taliban. This would be a definite plus to everyone working against them. He might have to learn the Koran, though.

​

 

Get well soon.

 

Nah, Cheney'd read it to him every night with his glass of warm milk.

 

The same torture death Mussolini got, hung upside down in a busy street in his own country, to be spat at and puked on by the town drunk.

 

Actually they shot Mussolini before they hung him on the meat hook. Then people played Capture the Flag with his body for a few years until it got too smelly to be fun anymore.

 

Is there any way to make someone into a human piñata without actually killing them?

 

yes what he (he=cheney and other crooks) was horrendous, but if we ever want some peace in this world we can't answer violence with more violence.

I'd say give him a fair trial and then sent to prison.

But you can't put all of this on Bush, in fact he was just the speaker for the liars. I agree with some of his moral values but I can't stand that he wouldn't produce his own speeches, let us have some insight into his mind.

evil, no

stupid and gullible, yes

so I think the people of the U.S. are to blame just a little bit for falling for all of this shit.

has dick cheney really had 4 heart attacks?

 

A little bit??? The vast majority of congress voted to invade Iraq AND to continue funding the invasion.

Each one of those members was likewise voted for by a majority of their constituency.

The majority of US citizens are just as guilty as Bush. But, people here should just keep pretending that it wasn't their fault. Let's blame George Bush. It's easier to place responsibility onto another's hands lest we have to look down and see the blood on our own.

Guess what: We have met the enemy, and they are still us.

 

What I find to be unfortunate about this sort of poll is that it is so slanted and skewed from the beginning. It was constructed as yet another anti-Bush rant, and to that end it has performed exactly to program. Naturally it solves nothing nor suggests any real or possible solution nor any effort to understand the issue from more than this single perspective.

OK, I'll buy that Bush is less than any president I would have wanted. But he's only 1 person propped up to be flypaper for this sort of attention. Why? Because the people pulling his strings want to go on pulling them for the next administration and the next and the next. See, while everyone is in their (usually childish) attack Bush mentality they are ignoring all the jerks and assholes behind him. Some have been around for a LONG time. Rumsfeld and Cheney worked for Nixon and Ford. So bitch about the president all you like, but don't make him a focal point or you will keep putting the REAL assholes back into positions of power for decades to come.

Also, try to consider the massive amount of information that was streaming in from the middle east before 9/11 before you assume it was ALL a lie. There is no way he would have had so much congressional backing if it was ALL a lie. Unless of course, ALL of congress is crooked. I don't buy that because we have not turned into Zimbabwe yet nor do we seem to be headed down such a road. If you research REAL dictators and fascists, learn what they were REALLY like, you realize how different times are now, not how similar.

Jal

 

No, it is not wrong to hold him and his buddies accountable for their actions. This is a bogus trumped up war and it was done for profit and to settle a grudge against Saddam. Yes, the whitehouse and congress if full of crooks. What political party they belong to is irrelevant as both are just as bad. They do not care about the people just fattening their own pockets. Like 9/11. That was known about well beforehand. There were reports made to the FBI and CIA trying to warn them to take action. I know for a fact because I and a gentleman who used to work for the CIA overheard some boasting about it several months before and we reported it. Francis and both were told thank you for being a good citizen and that was that. A couple of days after we ran into each other and he just shook his head ruefully and walked out to his car and drove off. Saddam of course had weapons of mass destruction. He had nukes and biologicals. The key word there is "had". He just got them outta the country or hid real good. You know where he got them. Us. Daddy Bush and Saddam were buddies at one time.

I think any politician who sends the people to war should be there on the frontlines for the duration. Just like in the old days the King would lead his warriors into battle and be there on the battlefield with them the entire war until it was done. They should go as soon as war is declared and the troops deployed. Not after their term as the poll says. It would make them more likely to chat and not fight. Same for the other leaders. Then they would not feel nearly so froggy. Or greedy.

Peace, cricketlind

 

Isn't that kind of an old-fashioned idea of warfare though? I mean, yes, fine if you regard soldiers as cannon-fodder, but if you believe there's some kind of skill involved in being a good soldier rather than a bad one, it seems kinda pointless. I'd agree that it'd be a good idea, although I dislike the idea of service in the military being used as a form of punishment, given that plenty of people do it voluntarily and for all the right reasons. All I'm saying is, I don't really see any practical value in putting a president on the front lines. It's likely he'd be a shit soldier and a liability (most presidents aren't exactly young), and I get the sense that most people who are advocating sending them to the front lines are doing so because they're too pussy to admit to wanting them to be executed.

 

We'll never take us alive...