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.
Yeah? I'll be the families of the 4500 killed in Iraq might feel differently.
or the one million refugees, 50,000 American wounded, the $1,000,000,000,000.00 it has cost the America Taxpayer, the 100,000+ Iraqi dead, not to mention the chaos he has caused for generations to come in the middle east.
explain......look at Gore's votes in the house and Senate and he supported NAFTA as Senator then later as V.P.....He is a globalist and globalists supports endless wars and endless occupations and the world order.
Gore always supported nation-building and avoided isolation and you don't do that without a strong military.
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. Gore supported vigorous intervention abroad.
that was before 9/11////if 9/11 would have happened under his watch he would have become more globalist and more interventionist than what he already was pre-9/11.
BO and Hillary used more recently developed technology (ie drones) to conduct their mayhem and regime changes in the Middle East. These methods were not as well developed when Dubya was in office, so he had to use more ground troops. I am certain Gore would have loved to have had the technology available to BO. You can keep US casualties low and still raise cain.
Would he have invaded Iraq? He seemed to have a pattern of supporting meddling abroad.
or the one million refugees, 50,000 American wounded, the $1,000,000,000,000.00 it has cost the America Taxpayer, the 100,000+ Iraqi dead, not to mention the chaos he has caused for generations to come in the middle east.
the millions of refugees, and half a million dead Iraqi children happened under Clinton
the Clinton/Gore santions against Iraq caused the death of over a half a million Iraqi children......As Clinton's Secretary of State, Albright helped enforce the U.S.-led "Sanctions of Mass Destruction" against the population of Iraq. When asked in a 1996 interview by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl if the killing of half a million Iraqi children was worth the U.S. policy objectives, Albright said yes, the price was worth it.
Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001. http://slate.msn.com/?id=1008414
and the Clinton/Gore ..Sec of State...............On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Gore's foreign policy was more Merkelian than Rumsfeldian, and he had enough military and international experience to make decisions without his VP or Defense Department.
9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was in office. Let's remember the roots of the 9/11 attack: It all goes back to the earlier Gulf War after the Kuwait invasion. Bush Sr. let US troops land in and occupy Saudi Arabia, and what the Muslims considered holy ground (Mecca, etc.) Muslims were offended by this. Years later, when Bush Jr. comes into office, the Muslims were again reminded of what the other Bush did, and what they considered the sacrilege of their holy land being poisoned. To them it was like Bush Sr. was back in power. That's why they were... pissed...and wanted revenge. As we found out, the planning for the attack started right after Bush Jr. was elected president, with it carried out 10 months later.
They were planning 9/11 for several years during the Clinton presidency. They don’t care who the president is, just that we are the Great Satan.
It would have happened, we probably wouldn’t have done anything about it but bomb a few places ineffectually, and we would continue to have terrorist attacks routinely. But we wouldn’t have had an Arab Spring. We wouldn’t have terror cells all over the world, and Saddam Hussein would still have his torture chambers, but no ISIS. And the Taliban would still be in power.
I’m pretty sure we would have had a bad depression after 9/11, and very slow to no growth in GDP. But most likely no President Obama, and no President Trump.
BO and Hillary used more recently developed technology (ie drones) to conduct their mayhem and regime changes in the Middle East. These methods were not as well developed when Dubya was in office, so he had to use more ground troops. I am certain Gore would have loved to have had the technology available to BO. You can keep US casualties low and still raise cain.
This is silly. You can't accomplish regime change (the stated objective) through drone strikes. Libya is not a valid comparison because NATO only provided air support for rebel troops that were already on the ground fighting an ongoing civil war. There were no existing ground troops to support in Iraq. Besides, it's not like the U.S. didn't have the world's largest Air Force at its disposal to annihilate most of Iraq's armed forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird
he have invaded Iraq? He seemed to have a pattern of supporting meddling abroad.
No way to conclusively say what Gore would have done, but I think we can say with a great degree of certainty that an invasion would have been less likely. The support for the Iraq War did not exist in a vacuum--the Bush administration essentially made support for the war a litmus test for patriotism. While there were certainly some Democrats who were enthusiastic about the invasion, most notably Joe Lieberman, many supported the war because they did not want to appear unpatriotic and/or weak on the War on Terror. This was clearly a political miscalculation on their part since the War ended up being more unpopular than they expected. Had Gore been POTUS at that time instead of Bush, I'm not sure he'd be willing to pay the political cost for an invasion considering that the majority of Congressional Democrats and Democratic voters were against it. It was much easier for Bush to do so since 72% of GOP voters agreed with the decision to invade Iraq.
So is it possible Gore would have invaded Iraq? Yes. Was it likely he would have? I don't think so. The anti-war constituency resides almost exclusively within the Democratic Party with the exception of a few odd libertarians. Even if Gore had been ideologically committed to war, the hurdle he would have needed to clear would have been higher because of the politics within his own party.
Regardless of what Gore would have done, we need to put an end to it.
Blowing up things ruins lives, wastes money, and creates enemies.
Economic sanctions are where it's at.
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.
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.
