Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?

Question

I am from Australia so have no idea.

Answer 1

No. That idiot would have ordered the Army to invade the GM and Ford plants. He would think he was saving the trees while all the people got killed by terrorists. Gore would have then patted himself on the back.

Answer 2

I have been waiting for this question for a very long time and I am glad you asked it.

The answer, straight out, is "no." President Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq either. To understand why Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, it may be useful to understand why President Bush DID invade Iraq. I will never deny that 9/11 was one of the most horrific events in American history. However, 9/11 was planned and executed NOT by the country of Iraq, but by an underground terrorist organization invisible to the outside world. The deaths caused by the 9/11 bombings made a lot of Americans very, very angry. Not a single person was exempt from the sadness and tragedy of that event; it encompassed the poor and rich, the old and young, Democrats and Republicans. However, due to the fact that we were so angry after 9/11 and wanted something "to be done," President Bush decided to offer us instant gratification by naming a country as the enemy (even though no country is the enemy, only an organization within a country). He named Iraq and it took him only a few weeks (which is unimaginable) to move military troops across the world.

To this day, both Republicans and Democrats are asking the same question: "Why are we in Iraq?" There is no straight answer, since the war was never supposed to be with a country. The war was always with a terrorist organization.

The entire Iraq war, thus, could have been avoided had President Bush taken a minute to THINK clearly before making a decision to move military troops across the world to Iraq. If he had taken a minute to THINK, he would have discovered a few things: (1) Iraq, itself, had nothing to do with the underground terrorist organization that caused 9/11, and (2) going to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 would be a mistake. Unfortunately, all Bush could hear were the cries and screams of upset Americans who wanted someone responsible for 9/11 and fast.

Al Gore learned from President Clinton that diplomacy may not always solve the problem, but most times it keeps the problem from getting any bigger. Diplomacy and peace talks are a fantastic distraction. After 9/11, Gore would most likely have taken some time to INVESTIGATE who the enemy truly was, rather than just singling out an unrelated country and things would have been unquestionably better to this day.

Answer 3

Al Gore would have been too busy using US troops on Americans. Remember this is the guy who got books banned from libraries, attempted to ban entire forms of music, who was really the father of the CDA which made cussing a felony punishable by up to 5 yrs imprisonment. He was also wishy washy and would never have done anything without herd approval.

Simple fact, had we NOT responded against the Arabs after 9-11 whoever was president might have hung from a tree nearby the Whitehouse. People were angry after 9-11. Alot of people still are.
Gore's tendancy to be mostly talk except when it comes to robbing US citizens of free speech would have not sat well with the American public. If he'd pulled a Jimmy Carter and not done anything in retaliation Gore would not have finished his term. Gore would have made speeches, maybe launched a missle. He wouldn't have done anyhting bold. Bold is not in Gore's nature. The less he did the angrier the American public would have become. As it was I heard several groups so impatient with Bush's response who were planning on visiting the Arab world on thier own. These were not militia types either. Just normal Americans, as many of them were Democraps who hated Bush as there were Repugnicans. If THESE folk were that upset, the Militia types must have already been gearing up. Think about this kind of anger and a Gore type do nothing up there talking about economic sanctions. It would have tossed the US into an armed revolt if he was not impeached.

Answer 4

Al Gore was the next President of the USA. He blew it by not firmly going out and firmly stamping his name on it! Not an altogether good attribute for a man seeking such an office. However, in hindsight, as it can now only be, I do not think for one moment he would have invaded Iraq. I believe he would have strengthened Home-Land security following 9/11 and deployed major covert operations to infiltrate and monitor Middle East terrorism as a whole. Thus fully allowing Special Forces and the allied SF's to gather every tibbit of information, spread discord, knock out extremists and when necessary take terrorists on in there own back yard.
In conclusion I have to agree with the points expressed herein by others, Bush should never have been elected. He's only following in his Father's footsteps. But America got what it voted for!

Answer 5

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 6

Absolutely. At the time we demended action on terrorism. He would have given it to us or we would have said he is a weak president. Also, when president, he would have seen the need for oil from the middle east and invaded. And when it comes to WMD...

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Answer 7

No, Al Gore would have invaded Ohio.

Answer 8

Nope. Clinton and Gore SHOULD have but neither had the cojones to do it. Iraq was breaching all kinds of resolutions they made. Al Quaida was bombing our embassys. Their reaction??? Their solution??? Clinton admitted on national television that he had an opportunity to take out Bin Laden when he was #1 on the the FBI's (...or was it CIA's?) most wanted list.

Thanks Clinton and Gore for your effort in the war on terror! (yes...that's sarcastic)

Answer 9

No... he wouldn't have to... all he has to do is put one of his environmental speeches on nationwide intercom... He'd put them all to sleep, if they haven't all killed themselves of insane boredom... DID YOU KNOW Al Gore invented the internet... HE DID... and he also... blah-blah-blah... enough said... I hope you know I was being sarcastic...

But seriously, no jokes... he'e do the same thing that CLinton did when Osama bombed the embassies in Africa: shoot a couple of missles into the desert and then go back to the oval office for a party with an intern and a cigar...

Answer 10

No. He would have been smart enough to know that Iraq isn't our problem. Osama Bin Ladin isn't in Iraq, Al Gore would have known that.