Viewing Thread:
"What would you do?"

Here's your scenario:

You're president of a big country. You've just displaced the leadership of another country and have assumed control of its rebuilding.

Next year is election year, and the polls indicate it's going to be close. You realise financial backing for the campaign will be very important if you're still to have a chance at re-election.
But you can feel a certain squeeze from your larger sources of funding.

Company A has approached you. It's seen an opportunity to expand its business into the second country which is temporarily under your rule, but needs your help to get a foothold in the market. You'll need to control who is allowed to compete in the market to allow Company A to take a sizable share.
In return Company A will make financial contributions to your party, allowing you more money to fund your re-election campaign.

Company B have been contributing to the party for many years. You're aware they too could benefit from expansion into the country concerned.
You realise that helping the company now will ensure their continued, and perhaps greater support for future years.


So, do you manipulate the second country for the benefit of Company A so as to give yourself the best possible chance of keeping leadership of your own nation ?
What about for Company B ?

And, do you think it matters which companies take control in this other country ? - Is it important whther they come from within or outside said country ?

id take the thumb outta my ass and actually do some work

Or, alternatively (once more) I'd tell my military to get their butts in gear and start showing the opposition in the occupied country what happens when you p*ss off the greatest military power in the world...

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/ 0,,30000-1101645,00.html

I like them odds...

It's a difficult choice. I'd probably go with Company A because they would get me my second term, after which I would be out of politics, and so screw the party because I wouldn't have much of a say once out of ofice.

Belldandy wrote:
> I'd be more concerned that my troops were getting into something that
> is rapidly going to make the darkest days of Northern Ireland look
> like a U Rated video unless something major happens...


Can't be that bad yet. The Troubles went on for years. Besides, the Iraqis havn't learned about kneecapping.

I'd make noises about freedom and democracy.
Then I'd get the UN in to help me and yank all my troops out.
Then I'd point the finger at someone else, knowing Joe Public is stupid and will forget.
Then I'd get my dad to call in the favours owed and ensure I got a 2nd term.
Company A & B can kiss my retard, small-eyed behind cos I'm the President..sorry, head of this fictional country.

Then I would commit Hari-Kari on live tv to try and regain some honour and dignity.

An excellent point, if on a tangent

I'd comission an enquiry, that would release so much evidence about the lead up to occupying the other country, that it would appear to be open, but I'd know that with so much released I could hide or remove the crucial pieces of evidence, and that those around me would back me up. Hence the illusion of an enquiry to satisfy the largely easily pleased public and media, and I'd make it drag on so long that the public would lose interest, after all they have the attention span equivalent to the next Big Brother/Pop Idol style program being released.

I would not run for another term.

I'd be more concerned that my troops were getting into something that is rapidly going to make the darkest days of Northern Ireland look like a U Rated video unless something major happens...

Company A - though no amount of money is going to help re election if no one finds a way to stop a steady stream of body bags leaving the country in question...

Sorry, I meant you could go with both, just occured to me to see if people would treat the two differently.