Would Gore have invaded Iraq?

[Winston]

Al Gore wouldn't have had the guts required to deal with Iraq.

[Kirnwaffen]

It is, of course, impossible to say what would have happened, but I lean towards no.

Afghanistan would have been a given for any president post 9-11. There was simply too much of a need to respond in some tangible way to the attacks, and with the Taliban regime so overtly harboring those responsible, it would have been absolutely impossible, politically, not to.

With so little evidence to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, and without the neo-conservative pressure to go after Iraq, I think it would have been considerably less likely that a Gore administration would have even considered a war in Iraq. If they did actively consider it, I think much depends on how well they would have handled the diplomacy of it. If it panned out, then yeah, I think they would have done it. If not, I think they would have backed off.

[OzzyKP]

I figure villiages only and prince, cause he is a wimpy liberal. But unlike Bush, he wouldn't select the bloodlust option. Max AI, and can chat from start, cause he'd be multilateralist about it. Certainly not double production, cause the economy would still suck.

[Kuciwalker]

He'd turn on cheat mode so that he could actually pay for his huge % on the luxury slider

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Winston
Al Gore wouldn't have had the guts required to deal with Iraq.

He doesn't have the stupidity to begin with.

[DrGerry]

Nobody makes the previos question: does the 9-11 had taken place with a president other than Bush?

[Monk]

I'm pretty sure Gore would have done it. The main reason is that if he didn't do anything down there, he'd be subject to heavy criticism for being a soft-on-terrorism good-for-nothing wuss. A Republican president wouldn't have a hard time proving he's a hardliner. When Nixon went to China, he had less to fear than a dang commie-appeasing Democrat would.

Historically I think most of the heavy American involvements around the world have been decided upon by Democratic administrations, but I could be wrong.

[Monk]

Okay, Iraq is questionable, but the eleven people who think he wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan are far out. In the climate immediately after 9-11 it would be a pure political suicide not to go into any war at all. I remember one Apolyton old-timer who wanted to throw nuclear bombs on Kabul

So to sum up, I think the neo-cons who are claiming Gore wouldn't have approved of the war are making the false assumption Gore is a man of principles who sticks up for what he believes is right instead of going by his own best interest.

[Kirnwaffen]

Nobody makes the previos question: does the 9-11 had taken place with a president other than Bush?

Again, impossible to truly say. The effort most certainly would have been made regardless of the president at the time. As to whether or not it would have detected under another administration, my answer is probably not. I don't know all of the gory details, but it seems to me that there were failures on so many levels that you can't really blame administration higher-ups alone.

[General Ludd]

I seem to remember, before the elections, Osama (or someone like him) threatening about not wanting bush elected or something to that extent. But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Monk
I'm pretty sure Gore would have done it. The main reason is that if he didn't do anything down there, he'd be subject to heavy criticism for being a soft-on-terrorism good-for-nothing wuss. A Republican president wouldn't have a hard time proving he's a hardliner. When Nixon went to China, he had less to fear than a dang commie-appeasing Democrat would.

Historically I think most of the heavy American involvements around the world have been decided upon by Democratic administrations, but I could be wrong.

Historically, you are correct that the Democrat party has been willing to go to war to protect American interests. Clinton, the anti-war type that he was, certainly would have done what was necessary with Iraq.

Gore, though, is a different case. After all his confused speeches since 9/11, I don't think the man can think clearly. Contrast his befuddled statements on Iraq with the rather clear, hardline statements coming from Hillary Clinton. Now there is a Democrat who really has balls as opposed to the 9 dwarves running for the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton is our version of Margaret Thatcher.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker


Ned, why do you have to serve as a constant embarrassment to me - every time I point out to Sava that we aren't ALL fox-watching, Coulter-loving ideological parrots, you come along.

Thank you, skywalker. I've often wondered the same about Neddie.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Historically, you are correct that the Democrat party has been willing to go to war to protect American interests. Clinton, the anti-war type that he was, certainly would have done what was necessary with Iraq.

This is, in fact, the crux of the issue. Doing "what was necessary with Iraq." Since Iraq didn't attack us, nor is there any real evidence (aside from what right-wing tabloids have been making up) has supported al-Qaeda in any way shape or form, Clinton would not have attacked Iraq, especially with the majority of the American public against war with Iraq without UN approval (before the bombs started falling).

[Kuciwalker]

chegitz - weren't the majority of Americans for war with Iraq? Yes, this was after Bush made his case for it, but still...

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is, in fact, the crux of the issue. Doing "what was necessary with Iraq." Since Iraq didn't attack us, nor is there any real evidence (aside from what right-wing tabloids have been making up) has supported al-Qaeda in any way shape or form, Clinton would not have attacked Iraq, especially with the majority of the American public against war with Iraq without UN approval (before the bombs started falling).

I'm sorry, Che. But didn't Clinton 1) declare war on Yugoslavia without authorization from either the UN or Congress; 2) bombard Iraq for days without a UN resolution or authorization from Congress; and 3) invade Haiti without a UN resolution and without authorization from Congress?

Please revise your remarks about Clinton just a tad.