If Terrorists Used A Nuclear Weapon In The United States...?

Question

.... would you support Bush if he dissolved Congress and declared Marshall Law?

Martial Law, I stand corrected.

Answer 1

It would be a nuke ultimately from Pakistan... and Bush's supporters have worked harder than anyone to make sure Pakistan got and kept its bomb, without scrutiny or any real protest. They are now proliferating nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran etc... but Bush supporters prefer to parrot Limbaugh than to protect their nation.

Martial law would be needed, but if the nuke went off, that might finally make the US population act and PUT THESE TRAITORS ON TRIAL.

Natjaytra's reaction is typical: perfectly reproducing the manufactured 'moral panic' issues that others want her/him to focus on for their own political advantage, but no original research, no willingness to look behind the spin. Private enterprise is already running and stuffing up the war in Iraq, y'know.

EDIT: I have indeed misunderstood you. It's interesting that government and big business are now exactly the same thing, at the level of the individuals concerned. My assertion that you were not seeing behind the spin was wrong- we agree but use different words. I see outrages like those you have pointed out and see private enterprise (not that the big businesses involved have anything to do with enterprise or risk or actual, legitimate business) manipulating government... you see a government that has become addicted to corruption. Of course, it's a common enemy. Thanks for taking the time to draw my attention to this.

Answer 2

Are you assuming Iraqis are terrorists? they are electorate scuffling with off invaders in case you opt to get technical. There could be extremely no difference if the UN or Russia or China invaded the U. S. for entering into everybody's organization and staging a war against astonishing wing conservatives. merely because of the fact we've a distinctive philosophy on issues would not make us astonishing. Saddam necessary to be killed and he's lifeless. His government necessary to be overthrown and it replaced into. Now we are occupying Iraq and it incredibly is going to be very costly yet mandatory to stabilize the section. Now for first strike nukes. If we are nuked then i could help a nuke attack in case you will possibly be able to desire to verify the place the nuke got here from or what usa financed it. comparable is going for chemical or organic and organic weapons. If we've been invaded via yet another usa, mutually with mexico is doing astonishing now in an exceedingly subtle way, i could help nukes getting used. If russia or china invaded or attacked the U. S. or its allies we would use nukes and that i could help that. in actuality anybody shall we no longer overthrow very quickly with little dying i could help using nukes. even with the undeniable fact that, think of of the outcomes. A unmarried megaton has on no account been dropped and we've multimegaton warheads. This crap they taught us in the process the chilly war is merely that, crap. A small nuke could vaporize each and everything in a 10 mile radius. 10 miles previous that each and everything could die right this moment from the warmth hurricane. 20 miles previous that each and everything in that section could be lifeless in a count of a pair of days from the radiation, 50 miles previous that each and everything could die interior of 6 months from the radiation. previous that the form of deaths drop from a hundred% progressively outward from the blast website finding on process the wind. it extremely is just one nuke. One small nuke. think of, in case you may the destruction.

Answer 3

No, I don't see how either of those acts would help, seeing as how the nuclear weapon had already been detonated. He has the authority to make necessary responses without consulting Congress, so idk why he would need to dissolve it. The only reason people dissolve legislatures is so that they can become tyrannical.

Answer 4

You must be a liberal.

You have no faith in either law enforcement, American intelligence, or the US military, all three among the best in the world.

We don't need to declare martial law and have never needed to under any circumstances.

Answer 5

I would hope that we would see the bi-paritisan reaction like 9/11 and all say get 'um. As much as we love our country, I would think that those in congress who even disagree secretly would keep their mouths shut (fear of losing votes and perks). Therefore, we wouldn't need Marshal Law.

I would be a bit afraid of Marshal law. Our government over the past few decades hasn't proven itself to be very, um..., effective when it comes to handling anything on a large scale, i.e social security, income tax reform, reducing the number of people on welfare, illegal immigrates who get legal medical treatment and schooling, restraint in giving themselves raises. it would just be another reason for bigger Federal Government, which out grew it purse size a looong time ago. We would be better off to hire a private company who handles Marshal Law. I am sure it would be cheaper.


Edit: llordlloyd: You misunderstood where I was going with this. Check out this link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HurricaneKatrina/wireStory?id=2704301

Our government has a tendency to overspend without any checks and balances. This is very disconcerting.

Here's more.
"In January, federal investigators will release the first of several audits examining abuse in more than $12 billion in Katrina contracts. The charges range from political favoritism to limited opportunities for small and minority-owned firms, which initially got only 1.5 percent of the total work.

Currently, half of the government's contracts valued at $500,000 or greater are no-bid. ..."

So you think I am pushing my agenda? The government allowed no bid, repressed the minority companies, 1.5% of the work and, yes, gave money to Haliburton to do reconstruction.

I am pushing for reformation in spending, accountability, and this is prevelent in both parties. This is our money being spent.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index2.php?S=1389961

Above talks about misappropriated funds for Welfare.

I am not for getting rid of such agencies as I listed above, but I am for reform. Do you like the idea that $36 million dollars was misused. I don't.

And finally,

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_02132003

Some info from the site above:

The Omnibus bill may be the "porkiest" bill ever.

"Representatives and Senators, Republicans and Democrats have loaded this bill with some of the most wasteful projects in history."

$1 million for the Iowa historical Society for exhibits related to the world food prize;
$750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame;
$732,000 for the Center for Designing Foods at Iowa State;
$725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia;
$350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame;
$210,000 for swine hoop barn research in Iowa;
$100,000 for the Sea Otter Commission in Alaska;
$90,000 for the Cowgirl Hall of Fame.

We, as a nation and as individuals, do have certain responsibilities for helping each other. But, from reading all of this above, our money is being wasted, misused, and misappropriated. As a democracy, we, the people, are the only ones who can make the government accountable for their actions.

Answer 6

No.

But I would support congress if they impeached Bush and Cheney and put someone competent in charge.

And FYI, it is "Martial Law"

Answer 7

That would not happen. Don't ask stupid questions, Congress would not be dissovled ever even if there was marshall law. Say something intellegent instead of talking out of your ***.

Answer 8

NO because it's his job to keep the terrorists from nuking us in the first place

Answer 9

HELL NO!!! (check your spelling it should be martial not marshall)

Answer 10

To boom chug - how can he ! All his attention is in Iraq.
The other question, I honestly could not say.