If Al Gore had won the election instead of George Bush would Iraq be occupied today?
I just checked with my officemate’s Magic 8-Ball, and it gave the following response: “Reply hazy, try again.” Repeated attempts gave “Ask again later”, “Better not tell you now”, “Cannot predict now”, and “Concentrate and ask again,” in response. After that, I got bored and started playing with the gyroscope, which is more shiny. I’m sorry, what was your question again?
Stranger
Of course not.
Do you not remember how the invasion came out of nowhere? This was the president’s personal mission, not some foreign event that took over the United States unexpected.
It’s doubtful, simply because I feel Gore is the type of person who would listen to the area experts. Also, he was VP with Clinton and surely knew what was going on in some detail.
I’d expect a continuation of the soul crushing (and IMO, probably won’t garner much debate from this statement, immoral) sanctions and a lot of bombing. Maybe a continuation of the assassination attempts against Saddam Hussein. After all, the official policy of the United States towards Iraq throughout the 90s was regime change and was demonstrated as such.
Now, a more interesting question IMO would be a hypothetical Gore response to the 2003 Iranian letter which advocated for a renormalization of the Iran-U.S. relationship. The Bush administration rebuffed them and then later had Rice lie about the letter to Congress. Would Gore have had a similar outlook? I don’t even know Gore’s public thoughts on Iran. Hopefully it wouldn’t be similar to many of the other Dem hawks.
Would Al gore have invaded Afghanistan?
Would Dick Cheney have been Al’s VP?
Of course not! Think of all the polutants war kicks up.
Not a chance; there was never any reason beyond Bush’s insecurities ( “I am as good as my Dad ! I AM !” ), Christian fundie fantasies, and neocon delusions to invade. Gore would be too busy going after our actual enemies.
Almost certainly. And he would likely have done much better, by not diverting almost everything to Iraq.
Iraq? No. Afghanistan? Yes.
Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President. Mr. Lieberman supports the war.
I doubt Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld would not have been the Sec. of Defense.
David Frum, is that you?
I agree – Iraq no, Afghanistan yes, and he would have done a better job on the latter. Might even have got our NATO allies to pitch in as they offered at the beginning – not only with the fighting, but with the nation-building afterwards. As it is now, Afghanistan is an economic basket case dependent on the illegal opium trade, with a resurgent Taliban, and we shouldn’t expect any of that to change any time soon.
Does that count as “flaming”?
(If it doesn’t, it should. 
)
Would Al Gore have invaded Belarus, Biafra, Burma, Belgium, or Botswana?
Well, no. No particularly urgent reason to.
I daresay that same factor would have also applied to Iraq, if the U.S. had had a rational human being as President. Didn’t have to be Al Gore. Bill Bradley wouldn’t have invaded Iraq either, nor would have Dick Gephardt or Sam Nunn or Bob Graham or…you get the idea.
Heh. It was actually a reference to a David Frum-penned portion of a “what if?” book (which I can’t recall the title of), wherein his chapter was on the what if Al Gore had been President on 9/11, which was a horrible written, strawman filled chapter about how Gore would have avoided invading Afghanistan based on environmental concerns. I almost threw the book across the store before realizing I’d have to pay for it. 
That strikes me as an absurd question – there was really no alternative once it became clear that the Afghan government was harboring bin Laden.
But it’s a claim I’ve often heard right wingers make in conversation; the Democrats are soft on terrorism or outright sympathizers, you see. :rolleyes:
That’s a strawman??? :eek:
Seriously though, I have a great deal of trouble imagining any Democratic president invading any country militarily as long as economic sanctions and the U.N. exist (barring a direct attack upon the U.S. by the offending country, that is). My guess is that they would try sanction after sanction and diplomatic effort after diplomatic effort, eventually throwing up their hands and saying that we have no right to invade a sovereign country that has not directly attacked us, and that we must be ever vigilant to protect ourselves from further attack…you know, by looking out for suspicious packages and so forth; and besides, we don’t really have sufficient intelligence to know who was really behind the attack, much less to know whether the parties responsible are still in Afghanistan.
I will grant that a subsequent catastrophic attack which engenders overwhelming public demand for an invasion would likely cause one to take place, but then with only a bare minimum of equipment and forces and that we would bail at the first plausible opportunity afterward.
IMO, lefties just find the idea of war (and of the U.S. appearing to throw its weight around) too abhorent to undertake strong military action as long as they can hide behind sanctions and the U.N. and declare they are doing all that they rightfully can to address the situation.
Just MHO, of course.
Which is true, of course.
I rest my case.