Musharraf declares state of emergency. Will Bush?

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
The Case of the Missing H-Bomb
Soviet Nukes Missing
Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Russian Officials Deny Claims Of Missing Nuclear Weapons
Broken Arrow to Faded Giant - Lost Nuclear Weapons
Loose Nukes - Council on Foreign Relations
BBC News | AMERICAS | Fears over missing nuclear material

Plus, Iran and North Korea aren't exactly eager to publicize details of their nuclear weapons programs. I don't think Israel has even admitted to having the bomb, even though everyone knows that they do. There's no way to guarantee that they all get destroyed, and even if they did, there's no way to guarantee that new ones don't get produced. I have no problem with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, the less of them there are the less the chance that one will fall into the wrong hands, and mutually assured destruction isn't much of a deterrent to some crazy religious nut/terrorist. Getting rid of all of them, however, is unrealistic. It's not in the United State's interests to completely dismantle their nuclear arsenal when it can't be guaranteed that the entire world will do the same.

Also, I thought the Cold War was about "defeating Communism"- aka ensuring that the USA was the only remaining super-power in the world. When was it ever about dismantling nuclear weapons? Keeping huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons was part of the strategy used by both the USA and USSR in the Cold War, but since when were we building up our weapons stockpiles just so we could eventually dismantle them?

Really, Isreal has the bomb? Boy, the situation is scarier that I ever imagined if those articles are correct. We all are living in a definite false sense of security.

I'm not sure it is unrealistic to sniff out nuclear weapons in other countries and verify their existence. It would be similar to the ban on chemical and biological weapons which I believe we have enforced. The only reason why counties like N. Korea have nuclear weapons is because they are threatened by other countries that have nuclear weapons.

Most of the equimpment needed to make nuclear weapons is traceable and tracked. That is how we now tell who is making nuclear weapons. I would also imagine making dirty bombs would require special equimpment that can be traced and tracked. Working with radiation is not something you can easily hide. Coming from a layman, it seems like the making of these weapons would be easily detected, and confirmed simply by tracing the equipment needed, the radiation leakage and testing. Also there probably is a very finite number of scientists in the world that have the knowledge to make such a device - all of whom are probably known and tracked by our CIA. Most of the Soviet ones are now employed by our govenment.

The whole nuclear stockpile argument never made sense to me because why do we need to stockpile enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 1000 times over? Nuclear weapons are not analogous to conventional weapons. After you have enough to destroy the entire world once having more does not make you any more powerful. I thought the reason for any war is to make the world a better place for the victors. The Cold War being no exception. Nuclear proliferation was the direct product of the Cold War. Wouldn't America and the world be a better place without nuclear weapons? Well, we've won and are we safer? Apparently not with the unresolved problem of nuclear weapons.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not supporting creating huge redundant stockpiles of nuclear weapons, just pointing out that it was a strategy used by both nations.

I think your belief that war is to make the world a better place is a naive one.

Have you ever read Chris Hedges?

War: Realities and Myths by Chris Hedges

His book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning speaks to "the myth of war." I don't agree with all of his assertions, namely that all wars are completely pointless and all rationale for war essentially deceitful. I think that the Allies in WW2 for instance had a pretty good rationale for going to war. But I think he's mostly right and makes a lot of good points.

As to your final question, yeah I think the USA is definitely much safer now than it ever was at any one point during the Cold War, when we teetered on the brink of total annihilation. Not that there aren't scary forces at work right now.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
dong20, our president is the head of our military. If he is controling our judicial system as well (which he is, in the ways which were described by DC_deep) then we are in martial law. And no, we don't get curfews, we get a National Threat Advosory. We never go below Yellow, ever. We are told not to be afraid to shop, but to be afraid of everything else, including neighbors. And no, dong, I don't look forward to anything of the sort happening. I look forward to a peaceful transferral of power. I am very optimistic, in fact. I just know that revolution is coming, possibly inmy lifetime, and possibly that could be the thing to trigger it. People are dissatisfied with, and fearful of their government. The middle class is disappearing. What does history teach?

That I don't know, no.:redface:

I would trust Bush over Cheney and I wouldn't trust Bush with my pet raptor.

This was precisely my point. Cheney has been recently quoted on Nightline as saying that the Constitution was nothing more than an old piece of parchment. It certainly explains a lot.

Since back when he was working for Nixon, he dreamed of bestowing ever increasing power to the executive branch. He met up with a fellow named Addington, who became his attorney after it was discovered that they were of a like mind.

They have been working on this for decades! Who do you think finds the right words to use in order to best subvert our basic rights? Only a very talented lawyer would have the vocabulary and understanding to dismantle the Constitution piece-meal as this administration has been doing. And they're not done yet.

Cheney's the kingpin. Bush is the puppet.
I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.
People should be prepared to protect themselves and their homes in the event of a riot.
It's going to get bumpy. Best thing to do is keep your ears and eyes open on what's going on.
My biggest fear of all, is being drafted into the military due to a senseless madman in office dragging the US down into the dirt for financial gain.
After all I've been through, and worked for to get where I am now, I'd rather die trying to stay in my own home.

We are of a like mind.

DC, some of the subtle things you've listed that the current administration has done to undermine the Constitution are right on, and most people don't understand the importance of what they see as nuances in the way the executive is expressing its power. But every high-school dropout knows about the presidential 2-term limit. There's no way to subtly circumvent that.

No, that would have to be overt. Absolutely. But all the sneakiness certainly makes it possible. That's something that would be a shock, and a wake-up. That's something which would cause chaos and violence. I don't think it will happen, but I'd hate to be caught with my pants down.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,834
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Have you ever read Chris Hedges?

War: Realities and Myths by Chris Hedges

His book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning speaks to "the myth of war." I don't agree with all of his assertions, namely that all wars are completely pointless and all rationale for war essentially deceitful. I think that the Allies in WW2 for instance had a pretty good rationale for going to war. But I think he's mostly right and makes a lot of good points.

Chris Hedges is the MAN!!!!! That book is awesome, I read anything that he writes. He is on CSPAN every now and then, but he is on LinkTV a bunch and gave a lecture last year on that very book, that led me to check it out. You should listen to some Mussogrsky tonight! lol!!!
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
No, that would have to be overt. Absolutely. But all the sneakiness certainly makes it possible. That's something that would be a shock, and a wake-up. That's something which would cause chaos and violence. I don't think it will happen, but I'd hate to be caught with my pants down.
And again, as I said before, not only would it have to be overt, but it would be pointless. Suspending the 22nd amendment would help them none, and only cause them problems. Having puppet-bush in another term would do what? It doesn't matter who their figurehead is. Bush has done really next to nothing that is his own brainchild, except putting a few good-ole-buddies in some influential positions. He has mostly done what cheney, rove, and abramoff told him to do.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
And again, as I said before, not only would it have to be overt, but it would be pointless. Suspending the 22nd amendment would help them none, and only cause them problems. Having puppet-bush in another term would do what? It doesn't matter who their figurehead is. Bush has done really next to nothing that is his own brainchild, except putting a few good-ole-buddies in some influential positions. He has mostly done what cheney, rove, and abramoff told him to do.

I don't understand Cheney's belief that the president should not be subject to checks and balances, but should instead rule over the other two branches of government. I do not know what is behind this belief, and I do not know what he feels that power includes. Because if this, I don't see it as neccesarily pointless. I see it as probably pointless.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
dong20, our president is the head of our military. If he is controling our judicial system as well (which he is, in the ways which were described by DC_deep) then we are in martial law.

I'm aware of that. But I think that connection is rather a reach, not least that because if we accept that the Executive branch has pretty much always exercised tacit control over the Judicial branch one might reasonably argue the US has been in a De Facto state of Martial Law pretty much it's entire existence!

I do agree with DC and others that the US is on a slippery slope, how far down it is arguable, but Martial Law in a real sense, sorry no sale. Not yet.

Incidentally, something I'd forgotton until now was that the US Supreme court is the theoretical ultimate source of appeal for the military abeit via a rather convoluted process as I recall. Not sure why that popped in my head right now but your argument above makes it an interesting nugget!

And no, we don't get curfews, we get a National Threat Advosory. We never go below Yellow, ever. We are told not to be afraid to shop, but to be afraid of everything else, including neighbors. And no, dong, I don't look forward to anything of the sort happening. I look forward to a peaceful transferral of power. I am very optimistic, in fact. I just know that revolution is coming, possibly inmy lifetime, and possibly that could be the thing to trigger it. People are dissatisfied with, and fearful of their government. The middle class is disappearing. What does history teach?

Does anyone take these advisories seriously? I mean, they're so transparent.

I agree with almost everything you and others have said. Still, in the end, if people want to believe the US is under martial law today, that's their prerogative. I can only say then that said people are in for a rude awakening should it actually come to pass that (IMO) real martial law (a la Pakistan for example) is declared, and enforced.

I share your optimism, and hope. After all, the domestic and thus global consequences of a disputed or otherwise problematic transition would be manifold so I must. I too suspect revolution of a sort is coming, though I suspect it may be more socio-economic than political, at least in the beginning. History teaches us that we don't learn from history, let's hope we can break that cycle for once. America's global role may be changing but it need not be disastrous.

This was precisely my point. Cheney has been recently quoted on Nightline as saying that the Constitution was nothing more than an old piece of parchment. It certainly explains a lot.

I know, I'd read that somewhere. If that isn't grounds for impeachment I don't know what is. Didn't Cheney you know swear to defend the constitution!!! Should he choose to denegrate it he should have the sense not to do so publically. The fact that it's merely a chatshow debating point indicates that water is rising.

Since back when he was working for Nixon, he dreamed of bestowing ever increasing power to the executive branch. He met up with a fellow named Addington, who became his attorney after it was discovered that they were of a like mind.

They have been working on this for decades! Who do you think finds the right words to use in order to best subvert our basic rights? Only a very talented lawyer would have the vocabulary and understanding to dismantle the Constitution piece-meal as this administration has been doing. And they're not done yet.

I didn't know much of Cheney's history prior his appointment as VP, but the little I did know wasn't inspiring. Ordinarily the one thing in which you can take some small solace is that letter V in front of the job title but with Cheney I think he's quite likely more dangerous for it.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, though I doubt it will help much.:wink:
 

Elmer Gantry

LPSG Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
47,213
Media
53
Likes
258,678
Points
518
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Stepped down before he was pushed, more like it. Kicked out of the Commonwealth and facing powerful political enemies on three sides, he didn't have any choice, even with the Shrubs backing.

Arresting Imran Kahn was one of the stupidest things he's ever done. At that point, he had lost control of the whole mess. He won't survive a true and fair election although I wouldn't like to guess what the odds are that a true and fair election will happen.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Stepped down before he was pushed.

Arresting Imran Kahn was one of the stupidest things he's ever done. At that point, he had lost control of the whole mess. He won't survive a true and fair election although I wouldn't like to guess what the odds are that a true and fair election will happen.

Of course, but he was smart enough to do so and thus, perhaps, preserve some shred of honour, at least domestically.

As for the election, I quite agree. Even if it were free and fair would you choose any of them - though perhaps them all being equally disreputable may render choice irrelevant - in purely practical terms anyway. Still, the journey of a 1000 miles.....
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
The problem with declaring a state of emergency is that it would probably be too disruptive economically. The US economy has been kept alive by the efforts of the consumer, who has been told over and over that everything's fine, keep spending, keep borrowing to spend, we don't need to raise taxes to fund the war, or reduce consumption to end our dependence on foreign oil, etc., by the current administration.

Imposing a state of emergency would tend to contradict that message. However, I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to try it, if they figured they could get away with it.

I think the difference between the fear that Bush will try to orchestrate a scenario in which he remains in office through 2009, and the Republican fear that Clinton would attempt to stay in office through 2001, is that the Clinton administration didn't make statements about the constitution being irrelevant, didn't cook up emergencies to help Clinton's poll numbers, and certainly didn't create the deadlock between Gore and Bush in the 2000 election.