The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MaxFisher

War Child
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
776
Location
Minneapolis
What would the war on terror look like (Sept 12- present day) if Al Gore had been elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004?
 
A lot like Bush's, considering that the blueprint for the "War on Terror" was constructed during the Clinton Administration and only enacted after 9/11. Remember: Bush was only interested in building a missile shield before then.

The main difference is that there would be no Iraq in the equation. That's more PNAC than Clinton.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Bin Laden would still be on the loose.

Bin Laden is still on the loose, in case people have forgotten.

In fact, we hear so little about him these days. It's now "Iran" this. "North Korea" that. For a war that's supposed to be different than a traditional war, all the rhetoric is seemingly the same old, same old.

Overthrowing ayatollahs and sacking Kim Jung Il won't capture bin Laden or destroy "Al Qaeda."

Melon
 
Saddam would continue to kill, torture and starve his people for fun and invade other countries like the past while he lives in palaces

oh and PS, just because we didn't find any doesn't mean they weren't there.....iraq had a LOOONG time to remove them or hide them in other locations/countries.

and suppose the hush hush about bin laden's whereabouts in the media can be directly attributed to the fact that we want bin laden to let go his guard or that we are really close to finding him and it's "quiet" on purpose. not that i necessarily believe that, but anything is possible.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Wow has Bush really convinced some that we somehow captured Bin Laden???

No, and nbcrusader never said we had. The question was about Al Gore. Nbcrusader said Al Gore would not have caught Bin Laden. He never said that Bush did catch him.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
You mean continue not to have WMDs?

No, what he meant was that Saddam would have continued to oppress and execute his own people.

And I might add that his sonswould have lived to continue to execute people and rape women on the street.
 
Last edited:
Numb1075 said:
Saddam would continue to kill, torture and starve his people for fun and invade other countries like the past while he lives in palaces

Ok but this and the war on terror are two separate things. There are still many dictators out there that are still doing this same thing and we aren't going after them. Let's not fall in the trap that this administration has made in combining the two.
 
Numb1075 said:
Saddam would continue to kill, torture and starve his people for fun and invade other countries like the past while he lives in palaces



thank goodness we stopped him.

now, the earth is free of formerly American-supported dictators who kill, torture, and starve their people for fun.
 
Irvine511 said:




thank goodness we stopped him.

now, the earth is free of formerly American-supported dictators who kill, torture, and starve their people for fun.

No, it's not free of them completely, but one is a start. Are you not happy that the world is free of Saddam and his evil sons?
 
80sU2isBest said:


No, it's not free of them completely, but one is a start. Are you not happy that the world is free of Saddam and his evil sons?


am i happy Saddam is gone? yes.

was it worth the invasion of Iraq? no.
 
Irvine511 said:



am i happy Saddam is gone? yes.

was it worth the invasion of Iraq? no.

To some people, it wasn't. But to others it was, and I am speaking specifically of those who were living their lives in a constant state of oppression under Saddam.
 
anitram said:


With his imaginary WMDs

anitram, what was in those large trucks that were transporting material from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the war? You know, the trucks that Charles Duelfer himself pointed out?
 
Irvine511 said:



am i happy Saddam is gone? yes.

was it worth the invasion of Iraq? no.

that's generally how I feel, although I think whether it was worth the invasion will only truly be clear years from now. I really hope I'm proved wrong and that the country can succeed, that the invasion turns out to have been the right thing to do. I really hope so.

also, it's hard to unequivocally state whether or not it was worth it...someone who was tortured under Saddam may disagree with someone who's lost family in the current war.
 
80sU2isBest said:


anitram, what was in those large trucks that were transporting material from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the war? You know, the trucks that Charles Duelfer himself pointed out?



good thing they're in the hands of the Syrians now.

face it: while there are arguments to be made for the invasion of Iraq, WMDs is not one of them.

let it go.
 
Irvine511 said:




good thing they're in the hands of the Syrians now.

face it: while there are arguments to be made for the invasion of Iraq, WMDs is not one of them.

let it go.

Again, I'll ask - what was in those trucks?
 
VertigoGal said:


that's generally how I feel, although I think whether it was worth the invasion will only truly be clear years from now. I really hope I'm proved wrong and that the country can succeed, that the invasion turns out to have been the right thing to do. I really hope so.

also, it's hard to unequivocally state whether or not it was worth it...someone who was tortured under Saddam may disagree with someone who's lost family in the current war.

Good points.
 
I bet something fishy was going on, I doubt Saddam was completely innocent. Still, there's nothing we could really prove, and nothing that would distinguish his (possible) nuclear ambitions from countries like Iran, etc. It was a very weak argument for war, it's obvious they were looking for a reason to go in.
 
Irvine511 said:




any number of things.

the burden of proof is on you, sir.

No, it's not. I'm not trying to prove that there were WMDs. What I am saying is that there are many people in this thread saying there weren't any, and yet those trucks, pointed out by the same man who wrote the famous and oft-cited WMD report, leave open a strong possibility that there were indeed WMDs but that they were taken away. Duelfer himself said that was a possibility.
 
It's also possible that E.T. will be over for dinner later on in the day.

WMDs have not been found. That is a fact. Your presumption about the trucks is just that - a presumption.
 
Irvine511 said:




so we go to war on possibilities?

great rationale.

No, we go to war based on several countries' intelligence, which is what Bush did.
 
Thing I always found amusing about the weapons argument-North Korea has them, so why don't we go after them? Whenever I'd ask that question, people would say that it was because they could attack us back. Well, so could've Iraq if they had the weapons, right? But that didn't stop us from going after them. Also, so, if they're liable to attack us back after we've attacked them, then our having weapons of our own (yeah, we tell other countries to get rid of theirs...great, I totally support that idea :up:. But then maybe we should do the same so we don't look like hypocrites, eh?) isn't exactly a deterrent now, is it?

Also, I thought we didn't like pre-emptive strikes. 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike, no? That sure pissed us off. And yet what did we do with Iraq?

So much hypocrisy involved here, and I didn't feel our government's reasoning was all that sincere...my main reasons for not supporting this war. I'm all for trying to stop terrorism, but not like this.

Angela
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Wow has Bush really convinced some that we somehow captured Bin Laden???




You mean continue not to have WMDs?

Guess which leader has used WMDs more times than any leader in history? Saddam had one of the largest stockpiles of WMD's in history and to date has failed to account for thousands of them according to United Nations Weapons Inspectors. No one knows exactly where they are or what condition or state(intact or dismantled) they are in, but to see they don't exist is false.
 
anitram said:
It's also possible that E.T. will be over for dinner later on in the day.

WMDs have not been found. That is a fact. Your presumption about the trucks is just that - a presumption.

It's no more presumptious than your presumption that Saddam didn't have them moved to Syria.

All we know is that the WMDs are not in Iraq now. You cannot say with any amount of certainty that they were not there when Bush was readying the attack.
 
I believe we would have gone into Iraq after 9/11.

I believe it would have been conducted quite differently however.

There was enough support from both parties post 9/11 for this to have potentially happened.

I do believe Gore would have built a coalition that consisted of more representation from other Arab nations.

I also believe he would have got France and Germany more on board.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Back
Top Bottom