???
2007-12-26 19:43:43 · 30 answers · asked by mng 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Riots in the streets
2007-12-26 19:45:55 · answer #1 · answered by World Peace 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He'd be able to acquire all the funds he wanted for his pet "world policing" project, drawing upon any and all sources available. His targets set on Iran and other surrounding countries that he can conveniently accuse of harboring terrorism, he begins to send his military forces in to secure oil and other resources by conquering lands. (Well, he'll likely leave Saudi Arabia alone unless they protest his other invasions.) As manpower runs low, the draft is reinstated.
The country would eventually go bankrupt, especially without any major exports to offer the rest of the world. The dollar eventually sinks to the point of being worthless, but is rejected by the international community long beforehand. Imports of foodstuffs and basic needs are greatly diminished if not ceased altogether.
Just to make it funny, other countries (such as China) begin to call in USA's debts. By now the military is severely crippled and short of both manpower and supplies to continue carrying out their orders. Occupied countries leap at the opportunity to reclaim their lands.
During the economic death throes, the citizens would be taxed to the point of poverty. The resulting anger would give way to revolts across the country. Those wealthy cronies who weren't stripped of their fortunes during the desperate imperial money drive would seek sanctuary in any country willing to take whatever they may still have of monetary value in exchange for citizenship.
Unable to afford to restore massive civilian revolts by way of military, Bush himself would be forced to flee the country or face the physical wrath of the people.
Crack open a history book and look up the collapse of the Roman Empire for more details on what happens next...
2007-12-26 20:17:33 · answer #2 · answered by shivarodriguez 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously it'd depend on what kind of powers he'd have. Just because you're a monarch doesn't mean you can actually do anything. Also, obviously, the United States would no longer be a republic.
Now, what policy changes would happen if he were an absolute monarch? Probably something resembling the GOP platform.
2007-12-26 19:57:45 · answer #3 · answered by caspian88 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he is acting like a king that's why the NY times calls him King George and america doesn't do anything about it
2007-12-26 20:07:45 · answer #4 · answered by StephC 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I and many American citizens would revolt if ANYBODY became king or Queen of the United States of America.
2007-12-26 19:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well seeing how the President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world and all.....Not much, other than not voting.
2007-12-26 19:48:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, most countries with kings these days also have a strong Parliament and Prime Minister who actually run the country. So he'd be nothing more than a figurehead.
2007-12-26 19:46:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush would never be king because our constitution doesn't allow it. Bush would never get that changed in the constitution because he could never push enough votes to get it amended. Going from Democracy to Monarchy would never happen.
But to answer your question: Er... you really cant...
2007-12-26 19:46:41 · answer #8 · answered by dspawadjie 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
america does not have a king
2007-12-26 19:45:46 · answer #9 · answered by Glop2k10 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I thought he was the king. After all he declare war without asking the population or congress... Oh maybe he is dictator. So probably would be the same.
2007-12-26 19:46:58 · answer #10 · answered by dustin b 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tony blair would be like a fly buzzin around a lump of shxt
24/7 ~~365/ buzzin and creepin around big time
2007-12-26 19:50:34 · answer #11 · answered by infobod2nd 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋