Hypothetical: should George W. Bush have been left in power?

[0rganism]

Poll question: Hypothetical: should George W. Bush have been left in power?

Here's the hypothetical situation: In 2005, after George W. Bush steals the election and key members of the political opposition are assasinated, a coalition of foreign powers decides the Bush administration is insufficiently responsive and/or profitable, and invade the USA. They topple the Bush government. In the process, they slaughter hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and civilians, reduce major urban centers to rubble, lay siege to numerous townships in the resisting "Republican Triangle", shut down any press which they perceive as "advocating violence against the occupational government", install an interim government whose main job is to outsource all infrastructure reconstruction to foreign corporations, redesign our flag, and write us a new constitution more in keeping with their democratic principles.

Do you believe George W. Bush should have been left in power?

cf http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1491138&mesg_id=1491138

[Union Thug]

1. I voted yes...

Because we wouldn't need a foreign power to take his ass out of office. I'm sure the revolution would come from within.

[0rganism]

2. What, no one thinks the Bushies are a source of regional stability?

Haha! This will be an interesting poll to watch.

[jbm]

3. Whoa!!

This is a good idea! I haven't voted yet cause I'm going to have to think about this one for awhile. I would think a 'no' vote would imply that the invasion of Iraq was also justified,and I don't believe that's true. At the same time,I'm not certain if we would be able to remove him without some outside influence and assistance.

I'm going to go with the 'yes'(I've been sitting out here thinking about it),but I'm hoping that there would be some 'covert' type aid and influence coming from the outside to help us out.

[Dirk39]

4. Organism, I love you

although I might have provoked this poll, you saved my day. This is so incredible funny and true.

Controversial German oil and services group Dirk39 has said that its contracts in the USA had helped boost its turnover by about 80% in the first three months of the year 2005.

"we are committed to honour our contracts and I am extremely proud of the tenacity, the courage and sacrifice of our employees in the USA. In the face of a hostile environment, Dirk39 performs well."

"I am disappointed that the allegations, by politicians and in the republican driven media, have increased security risks for my employees," Dirk39 said.

But liberating you, was worth all the risks,
Dirk

[0rganism]

12. Haha! Check out the differences in poll responses!

Many of the "No" responses in this poll picked the invaders as liberating us from a regime we couldn't overthrow. No one has selected that as a reason to invade Iraq. :wow:

"We deplore the unholy occupation by the tools of atheistic Dirk39, and the lawless corruption he has brought upon our people," said native insurgent spiritualist Pat Robertson, a leader of Crusade for the Liberation of American Whites (CLAW). Earlier in the week, his pirate television station had been shut down for "making inaccurate, false, wrong reports", according to occupational authorities.

Representatives of the Dirk39 interem government have also posted a bounty of $1000000 Canadian dollars for information leading to the capture of Mr. Robertson.

[Martin Eden]

5. Other

As it turns out in your hypothetical situation, the coalition of foreign powers didn't invade us because they'd "had enough," they invaded us because their ruling coalition saw an opportunity to exert global military domination and sieze the wealth of our country.

You did, after all, intend this to be a mirror of what's taking place in Iraq -- correct?

So I guess my answer is YES -- they should have left Bush in power -- but not for any of the offered reasons.

[0rganism]

6. Absolutely right, I'll edit the question appropriately.

This poll is a mirror of my previous poll, in case you missed it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1491138&mesg_id=1491138

[Blasphemer]

7. I voted Yes...

What would be left in the wake of such an invasion would be 1000x worse. I can just see it now - super right wing anti-French neo-nazis using the fact the these furreners came in and killed our children to stage a Nazi coup of the gov't. Then there are all of the WMDs in this country that rebels would surely get access to and either use them or use the threat as leverage. If the American Public can't revolt against such blatant thievery and criminal behavior on their own, they deserve what they get.

Edit: I should add that the rest of the world should sanction us if such a thing did occur and handle the problem in that way as opposed to using force.

[Nuclear]

8. hmmm

This revolution you refer to happened in 1861. 618,000 American lives later the rebellion was quelled. Outside our borders violence is occasionally necessary when diplomacy fails, but inside our borders, we get to 'overthrow' the government if the people wish it every 4 years.....

[Blasphemer]

10. Well...

The original message indicates a complete subversion of this process. If it's stolen every 4 years and the opposition is routinely killed by the ruling party, a civil war might be necessary.

[MrSlayer]

9. Too ridiculous to consider.

You have to make so many severe leaps to even get to the situation that it's impossible to consider. It could never happen. Nobody can invade Rhode Island, let alone take over the country. No warships or planes can penetrate our coastlines and airspace, we'd be blowing the shit out of them before they even got close, how would these invading armies get here? This is just silly. But, just to play along, I'd be killing every invader I could. I have guns and plenty of ammo. Have to get some body armor though. Maybe I'll just take it from the corpses of my victims before I burn them and hang them from the Walt Whitman Bridge. :eyes:

[Dirk39]

11. Too serious not to consider...

"I'd be killing every invader I could. I have guns and plenty of ammo. Have to get some body armor though. Maybe I'll just take it from the corpses of my victims before I burn them and hang them from the Walt Whitman Bridge"

Now you start to understand the Iraqis, although a lot of them seem to be a bit more civilized and less sadistic than you.
Though you think, this is what the Iraqis should do with the american invaders?

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[0rganism]

13. Really? C'mon, you can do it

After all, this foreign coalition has military forces as superior to ours as our military is to the Iraqis. They use EMP pulses to take out all unprotected electronics, tacnuke above-ground radar sites and missile silos, and use ground-resonance earthquakes to destroy underground command posts. Meanwhile most of our regulars are already deployed elsewhere around the world, doing things like occupying Iraq or protecting the South Korean border. They lose contact with central command, various units go rogue, others are surrounded and disarmed by coalition allies...

No one is invincible.

[MrSlayer]

14. Any use of a nuke, tactical or otherwise, would result in full release.

And then no one wins. It can't happen. We'd see them coming from the proverbial mile away.

[0rganism]

15. Ah, but the Bush gov't doesn't know where the attack is coming from

You know how good they are at ignoring intelligence?

Well, George found a way to fuck this one up too. The attacking force wasn't discovered until the assault was already underway. The invasion force was through our poorly-guarded borders and coastline in minutes. All those nukes, and nowhere to send them, because we have no idea which country is launching the invasion! Not that we didn't try anyway -- the governments of Russia and China were, of course, FURIOUS that several of their cities had been vaporized for no reason whatsoever. Many of the ICBMs never launched at all, due to uncertainty and outright rebellion by SAC operators. Eventually, the remaining American commanders tried to use nukes on occupied cities in the United States, but only St. Louis and Houston were thus demolished before the command lines were severed.

It's a hypothetical. If you can suspend disbelief long enough to think that ships in the Star Trek universe warp space to travel faster than light, you can imagine a successful invasion of the United States.

[0rganism]

16. bumping for the late-night crowd

You've guzzled a beer, watched The Daily Show, now vote in my poll.

[TN al]

17. The no answers are all too good...

... I can't decide between them.
:crazy: