Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I thought Bush wasn't supposed to give the mission accomplished speech in Iran until after the invasion as occurred.
If you thought Ahmadinejad had a tough time at Columbia...
- Thread starter Che Guava
- Start date
cubsfan6506
Got u
I can see it now
"We have no weapons of mass destruction in America."
"We have no weapons of mass destruction in America."
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Why? Did George Bush tell Ahmadinejad to make outrageous claims at his speech? Did he bribe the students to laugh at him? Or are you desperately trying to link this to some kind of "EVERYTHING IS GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT" theory?
Some comments about Bush and Cheney raise an interesting question.
Can someone explain what is the chain of command? What happens if the US president dies, and then the vice president? Who is next? And next ?
Can someone explain what is the chain of command? What happens if the US president dies, and then the vice president? Who is next? And next ?
aelf
Ashen One
Not enough of that in his own country?
And any leader who makes dishonest and outrageous statements deserve to be ridiculed. You aren't saying that the Romanian people shouldn't have jeered at Caucescu now, are you?
Thanks!
And what happens if they all die up to the Secretary of Homeland Security?
Oh! From you link, we can see on the left in the language "Simple English". What's that? American??
The French system is different. If the president dies, the President of the Senate acts as interim president, and cannot hold the office more than 50 days, as the first round of new elections has to be organized 20 to 35 days after the death of the former president.
In case the President of the Senate dies also, in theory the government (prime minister first, then the ministers in the order they appear in the decree creating the government) can make the interim.
But it is very unlikely, because the President of the Senate dies, the Senate would simply elect a new President of the Senate among themselves, and he would act as the interim president.
The main difference is in the US, you cannot have election anytime, you need to wait for the next election year with the vice president being the boss.
Our system as an advantage: the president doesn't have to select someone much worse than him as vice president, so people think twice before trying to assassinate him.
And what happens if they all die up to the Secretary of Homeland Security?
Oh! From you link, we can see on the left in the language "Simple English". What's that? American??
The French system is different. If the president dies, the President of the Senate acts as interim president, and cannot hold the office more than 50 days, as the first round of new elections has to be organized 20 to 35 days after the death of the former president.
In case the President of the Senate dies also, in theory the government (prime minister first, then the ministers in the order they appear in the decree creating the government) can make the interim.
But it is very unlikely, because the President of the Senate dies, the Senate would simply elect a new President of the Senate among themselves, and he would act as the interim president.
The main difference is in the US, you cannot have election anytime, you need to wait for the next election year with the vice president being the boss.
Our system as an advantage: the president doesn't have to select someone much worse than him as vice president, so people think twice before trying to assassinate him.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
There's a nice little ironic twist to this story that I think warrants a bit of discussion:
Sounds like Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia did manage to do something positive, after all. Even if the students in Tehran won't get the right to speak thier minds right away, I think that its made them think at least about what could be possible in thier country. Let's hope one of them goes on to be someone in a position to actually make some change...
OP said:
Sounds like Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia did manage to do something positive, after all. Even if the students in Tehran won't get the right to speak thier minds right away, I think that its made them think at least about what could be possible in thier country. Let's hope one of them goes on to be someone in a position to actually make some change...
It is rather telling that the White House "isn't taking it too seriously". You would think the leader of the free world would jump at a chance to speak directly to those people he says he supports 'freedom' for.
This is why I would say the reception given to Ahmadawhassisfacejad was a bad idea.
Nobody has to applaud him, but to keep a diplomatic and courteous atmosphere at the speech would have been a good idea and a good precedent to set so that Bush and other western leaders can go there and speak under those circumstances.
Sorry if it rubs us the wrong way, but if we want them to listen to us then we have to listen to them. We don't have to agree, only listen.
Nobody has to applaud him, but to keep a diplomatic and courteous atmosphere at the speech would have been a good idea and a good precedent to set so that Bush and other western leaders can go there and speak under those circumstances.
Sorry if it rubs us the wrong way, but if we want them to listen to us then we have to listen to them. We don't have to agree, only listen.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Reagan spoke in Moscow, Bush spoke in China... the problem with Iran is that any diplomatic overture they make is inherently intended to harm the United States, so accepting those invitations from rouge states hurts the U.S.' ability to project power.
I would jump with joy at such opportunity.
Speaking to hundreds of foreign, hostile people, the half of them briefed to make me look ridiculous, dumb and uneducated. Great idea.
And refusing them makes us look afraid to defend our ideals with anything but a sword. Not that I want Bush bumbling through an explanation of freedom on my behalf, but the fact that he isn't willing to try is saddening.
I was not under the impression that President of the USA was a job for wimps. If he can't hack it, maybe he should have stuck to running baseball teams.
And he wouldn't even be in the situation if he hadn't started calling them names a few years ago.
....
I'm anti-Bush as they come. If the stuff that just came up is true regarding them WH circumventing the non-torturing laws/agreements (yet again), then I think he should be impeached.
And... I also happen to think that Rumsfield, Gonzalez, and maybe Cheney should be tried as War Criminals.
But, never, in a million years, would I wish any of them to die.
@Amadeus, the other problem is that there's no way Iran could guarantee his safety. No way. And given their history, I would worry significantly about that.
I was worried about the Iranian President's safety, too, actually.
Good thing all the nutballs are on the Internet these days.
Good thing all the nutballs are on the Internet these days.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
He did an alright job when he spoke in China.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I'd be more worried if you were an American and didn't want Ahmanutjob dead.
May I order this with a side of mutton and green beans?
Similar threads
