Would we be more or less safer?
2006-10-08 16:43:55 · 19 answers · asked by Sammy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes. After 9/11, he would have refused to attack the terrorists and we would have had 4 terrorist acts since.
So yes, we would have been "less safer". Maybe if libs would actually go to school instead of complaining about stuff all day, they might learn how the world really works.
2006-10-08 16:45:49 · answer #1 · answered by ihatehippies 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Great question!
First, I do not believe 9/11 would have happened. I believe all this 'terrorist' stuff is mostly about the leadership in the USA - not, about the "people" - - -
The family of bush is hated throughout the world, except for their "cronies" who also invest millions\billions in corporate greed.
Secondly, the "USS Cole" incident, I believe was about the fact that the ship was in an area of the world where it was not wanted! (So, it was attacked).
Last, IF there had been a 9/11 attack under Gore, he would definitely NOT rush us into a stupid war, with a country which had NOTHING to do with the attack, in the first place!
And, if I recall my history correctly, the US helped to put Saddam Hussein in power - the responsible thing to do would be simply oust him from power... anyone hear of the CIA? And, why this tactic wasn't used, or if it was and failed, then ... Why?
These are the issues I believe need to be addressed, in this country.
We should have NEVER gone into Iraq, at all! Now, look at the fine mess we are in! For WHAT? Am I angry - you bet!
Al Gore wasn't my favorite choice, but, he'd be a lot better than what we have now!
2006-10-08 17:09:02 · answer #2 · answered by Ro40rd 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We wouldn't see several dozen Americans dying needlessly in Iraq every day. Gore would have gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone since he doesn't have anything to do with the big oil companies like Bush. And, he wasn't friends with the bin Laden family like Bush was. What's more - Iraq was no threat at that time. Even Saddam admitted in an interview with Mike Wallace in the 1990's that he feared al Qaeda - so why would he help them in any way shape, or form? We'd be a lot better off if the rightful winner of the 2000 election had been allowed to take office and we wouldn't have the mess going on that's going on now with the country so divided.
2006-10-08 16:52:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you had listened to Gore's plan after 9/11 it was very to the point and would have been effective. Bush went after the wrong terrorist 3 months after 9/11 - slow as always. Still hasn't achieved his goal and the war is costing us over a billion dollars a week. He couldn't have done any worse (lets put it that way)
2006-10-08 16:54:09 · answer #4 · answered by MrsMike 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it isn't only a count number of being a Christian. earlier Christians ever began, it develop right into a command for people era. Adam & Eve were charged at Genesis a million:28 to "develop into many and fill the earth and subdue it, and performance in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and each and every residing creature it quite is shifting upon the earth.” So searching after our ecosystem and all creatures in that's component to the unique purpose for humanity.
2016-12-04 10:30:23 · answer #5 · answered by mundell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Gore would have apologiesd to Al Qada for provoking them into the attack. And as far as Suddan, he probably would have said how sad it is, and left it at that. As for safety. It is an illusion. The more we allow others to tell us they are doind things fro our protection, the less we will actually protect ourselves, and the more vulnerable we become. In truth, we are far LESS safe now that we were before 9/11 and all because of the actions of the government that is taking away our ability to protect ourselves, making us rely on them and treating us like criminals when we didn't do anything.
2006-10-08 16:52:28 · answer #6 · answered by kveldulfgondlir 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think that as far as safe it would be the same. I think maybe another President wouldn't have been as quick to go to war though. But the bottom line is the President is really not 100% percent in all decisions they just get all the blame.
2006-10-08 17:03:23 · answer #7 · answered by malraene 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Is that supposed to be Sad am or Sudan. First he would have accepted the Taliban's offer to hand over Bin Laden, Second we would not be in Iraq, third North Korea would have tested the bomb 2 years ago, fourth we would have peace keepers in Sudan
2006-10-08 16:54:31 · answer #8 · answered by corvuequis 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The WTC foundation would be a swimming pool in memory to the highjackers, and Saddam would have a lifetime membership !!
2006-10-08 16:48:26 · answer #9 · answered by genny_gump 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Gore would have done an environmental study but not much else.
2006-10-08 16:50:01 · answer #10 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋