Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,688,919 times
Reputation: 3689

Advertisements

Would 9/11 had still happened?
Would we have had several wars?
Would Katrina had gone a little better?
Would the economy had tanked?

What if...?

Discuss
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:24 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
The comics would have been over run with joke material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:28 AM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,939,504 times
Reputation: 12828
Yes, all the above cr*p still would have happened plus Americans and our economy would have been hit even harder by the carbon tax imposed under a Gore administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Artiste View Post
Would 9/11 had still happened?
Would we have had several wars?
Would Katrina had gone a little better?
Would the economy had tanked?

What if...?

Discuss
you mean gore the lame puppet

911...still would have happened...was planned under the clinton era

wars....??? gore would have been to chicken to avenge 911..iraq would still be training terrorists, and ...well iran...gore helped broker iran getting plutioium and uranium to begin with

katrina....FEMA was cut drasticly under clinton...the hurricaine would have still hit...nagan (the lousy mayor) would have still screwed up

the economy...well the two main problems were....JOBS and realestate...nafta was a clinton/gore baby...and the RE market was also from clinton policies


so......still a 911.but no BL death....no wars from us but the ME would still be at war with us...NO (a city UNDER the sealevel) would have still been destroyed and the economy would be futher in the tank
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:37 AM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,409,483 times
Reputation: 2394
Very little would have been different. The Plutocracy owns both of our major parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:01 PM
 
10,875 posts, read 13,813,272 times
Reputation: 4896
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Artiste View Post
Would 9/11 had still happened?
Doubtful. Gore would have taken Clinton's intelligence reports seriously that Bin Laden was planning a terror attack, and stopped it before it happened. Unlike W that couldn't care less, he was busy doing what he did best, he was on vacation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Artiste View Post
Would we have had several wars?
9/11 never would have happened, so there never would have been a reason to invade Afghanistan let alone the false war in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Artiste View Post
Would Katrina had gone a little better?
Absolutely. Gore would have had all hands on deck after Katrina, not ignore them for about a week like W did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Artiste View Post
Would the economy had tanked?
Not at all, the economy would continue to soar like it did under Clinton. If Gore had his 8 years in office, we would be well on our way to being debt-free by now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:06 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,212 posts, read 107,931,771 times
Reputation: 116160
L'Artiste: No disrespect intended, but I have a better one: What if Kerry had become President in 2004?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,409,483 times
Reputation: 2394
TempestT68: When 9/11 happened, W was in a classroom full of kids. I think he was there trying to promote his failed "No Child Left Behind" policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
Doubtful. Gore would have taken Clinton's intelligence reports seriously that Bin Laden was planning a terror attack, and stopped it before it happened. Unlike W that couldn't care less, he was busy doing what he did best, he was on vacation.



.
oh

In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.


JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct
.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
Absolutely. Gore would have had all hands on deck after Katrina, not ignore them for about a week like W did.



.
gore was instrmental in CUTTING fema

bush declared the area a emergancvy BEFORE the hurricanin hit..the MAYOR and GOVERNOR failed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top