2006-08-07 02:18:22 · 11 answers · asked by outremer7 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No. We would not have ruined our internation reputation, become pariahs in the world community, sent ourselves into bankruptcy, or become deprived of civil liberties. Gore won in 2000. Dubya stole it. Even the head of the republican party in Florida said if every vote was counted as it was intended the Dems would have won. Time to get rid of this archaic electoral college system. You should see the SNL w/Gore as president.
2006-08-07 02:29:50 · answer #1 · answered by HelloKitty 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
All you have to do is look at what he said:
"Nevertheless, 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. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint."
2006-08-07 03:26:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Operation Iraqi Liberation...O.I.L.
Al Gore would not have wasted all the resources that we have going to education and social programs at home, to fund a war simply to make himself richer than ever. Since Bush has started this war, Exxon Mobile has seen more pure profit than it had in the last Three Decades!!!!!!!! I mean come the frick on.
2006-08-07 02:26:01 · answer #3 · answered by letum_ante_dedecus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and he probably wouldn't have invaded afganistan. He would have seeked resolution with France and friends with terrorism. We probably would have suffered another attack but who's to say because he did loose the election.
2006-08-07 02:23:22 · answer #4 · answered by ESPforlife 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The difference between him and the current US president is like the difference between two buttocks.
2006-08-07 02:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, Iraq would have another couple hundred UN infractions piled up and yet nothing will have happened.
2006-08-07 02:23:25 · answer #6 · answered by bablunt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he would have surrender without a shot fired or gave them a few billion in tax dollars
2006-08-07 03:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he would not have.. Because Al Gore is not a OIL man!! And that is why Bush did it was for the OIL!!! and you heard it here first froma REAL nutcase!!""NUT'S""..PS ..did i win...did i win...did i win???
2006-08-07 02:24:52 · answer #8 · answered by dl200558 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no,
he would've done exactly what he did for the previous 8 years as VP.
appeasement
2006-08-07 02:31:14 · answer #9 · answered by mason x 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no my opinion is that he wouldnt have,my own opinion is also no because that a leader should first make an decicion then REACT or RESPOND!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-08-07 02:27:36 · answer #10 · answered by jaco_kleb 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋