2006-11-29 16:20:58 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No, it has never been proven that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack. On the other hand we know that Saudi Arabians made up the majority of those actually involved in the attacks that awlful day. Our invasion of Iraq has cost the USA many of our sons and daugthers lives and wounded thousands, changing their lives forever, on top of that thousands of Iraq's citizens have been killed and thousands have fled their homeland since we went in to make their lives BETTER.... Now we have created a terrorist haven and brought Iraq to the point of civil war and the present administration does not have a clue as to how this all can be resolved. They had done so little research about Iraq that they thought we would be welcomed as liberating heroes and the battle would be over when we stopped bombing. Now three years later the situation in Iraq is worse not better. What a mess!!
2006-11-29 22:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by AB See 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, but we would be mandated by law to buy electric cars that cost $100,000 dollars and go 60 miles between recharges.
We would tax gasoline to bring it to European levels of about 5 dollars a gallon, so "evil capitalists" will not buy big cars.
We would all be allowed one lightbulb, and would have to unscrew it and move it from room to room as needed; this is the only way to save the planet, y'know.
We would move the capital of the US to Kyoto, Japan, so President Gore could monitor the world temperature via the "Goremomitor" which would gauge the awful effect of human life on our pristine world.
Flight by jet would be banned for anyone but Algore, who would fly over the Planet to monitor Icebergs and penguin migrations.
Whenever reporters would ask Gore about any issue, he would simple hold up a photo of the Earth and say, "This is bad, very bad..."
After 9/11, Algore would unite the nation via the thought that it was a horrible thing, but to take heart in the fact that 2 less jets would be burning fuel, and 3000 less humans would be expelling deadly CO2.
2006-11-30 00:51:17 · answer #2 · answered by Eric K 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gore would have tried to talk the terrorists out of attacking again. When that failed we would have been attacked again and again. We would now all be kneeling and facing Mecca to pray 5 times a day. The ladies would all be covered head to toe and the men would all have beards. Those who did not want to do this would be missing a vital part of their anatomy, namely their heads. Thank God there was a man with a set in the White House when this happened.
2006-11-29 22:41:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pure speculation, but i'll play your game.
Al Gore would have paid attention to the August 1 PDB
Al Gore would have listened to Richard Clarke
Al Gore would have listened to the CIA
Al Gore would have listened to the Rudman - Hart Report
Al Gore would have warned the Boston airport
The terrorists would never have gotten on the planes.
9/11 would never have happened.
Then Al would have attacke Iraq for no God Dammed reason anyway.
Just like Bush.
but he would have had an exit strategy.
disclosure- I did vote in the 2000 election. I did not vote for Al Gore. I'm sorry everyone. I didn't know.
2006-11-29 17:20:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. He would have found a more diplomatic way and got after the right person, Bin Laden! Anyway, 9-11 would probably not had happened if the Bushes had not been in power.
2006-11-30 01:01:45 · answer #5 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm uncertain if there could have been or no longer. yet what people don't understand is that the Iraq conflict wasn't merely because of the fact of 9/11. It replace into additionally because of the fact Iraq refused to enable the United countries seek for weapons of mass destruction and that intelligence mentioned they could have terrorist hiding of their u . s . a .. universal, it probable replace right into a stupid mistake to invade nonetheless i will see the excuses as to why we did.
2016-12-29 16:53:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
At this point I wish we could turn back time and change this Bush thing. How much worse could anyone make this mess. I would vote for Barney the purple dinosaur if he was the only one running against Bush. Sad but true. This question is going to get alot of hits so look out. People please try to limit your cussing and stuff I know it is a sensitive subject but there are younger children trying out this site. Please be respectful with your answers. Good question.
2006-11-29 21:59:21 · answer #7 · answered by melkhel 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. We'd be fighting a war for the environment instead. That's nowhere as macho as the war in Iraq, but it wouldn't see over 3000 of our young people slaughtered.
2006-11-29 17:38:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
To the lady that answered, "Clinton started this war . . . " and used her Army Ranger son as the 'source' - you are both nuts. Especially when you consider 'the war' didn't start until just over three years ago. Don't try and play semantic word games - this war is W's all the way. You can't blame anyone but him. Are you still angry that Clinton smoked a cigar in the White House so now you can blame him for everything?
2006-11-29 16:49:18 · answer #9 · answered by commonsense 5 · 6⤊ 4⤋
Probably, but there is no possible way in hell the war could have turned out worse with anyone else as president.
2006-11-29 17:20:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋