Will the global situation be different if G.W. Bush did not became president?

Question

If somebody became U.S. president instead of George W Bush, will the U.S. relations be different with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria?. Will 9/11 attack take place?. Will the U.S. face the threat of nuclear proliferation by some countries (Iran, N. Korea)?.

Answer 1

nope radicalism is everywhere

Answer 2

That's the thing I don't think people realize, what has happened in the world would have still happened, 9/11 would have still happened because it was the mistakes of the previous administration that led up to the attacks. Korea would still have created a Nuclear Bomb, same goes for Iran. We can't control ho saddam Hussein handled talks with the UN. These things have been in the works long before the Bush Administration and long before his father was President. Maybe we should think about how to resolve the problems instead of who to point fingers at.

Answer 3

Saddam would still be in power, 9/11 would have happened no matter who was in power; it was only 9 months into the term.
The situation would be about the same in Afghanistan, as we would have probably gone there after 9/11 regardless of who was president.
No. Korea would still be a nuclear threat and Iran would still be seeking to become one.
The Palestinians would still be a mess w/ Hamas as their ruling party, with Syria still backing Hezbollah.
Essentially, only Iraq would be different in my opinion.

Answer 4

Well the Global situation may be different If Al Gore was elected as a President.His experience as senator + 8 years of experience as a Vice President does help the country.Some of the basic policy is decided by the Senate and Congress and President has to consult both the lawmakers.But if you see in long run the policy framed by George Bush will pay.After all he is a president and always dreams for millions of American and others at large.Listen America is not ruling the in Iran-Iraq-Lebanon-North Korea or whichever you have mentioned.America can bring them a idea how to utilize the utility for benefit of peoples.Not to destroy it but to build up.

Answer 5

Absolutely NOT. And anyone who tells you yes is letting their hate blind them. This radical Islamic problem did not happen overnight. I suggest we all do some research into this. This began well before the current administration took office. I have added some links that may enlighten.

"Across America and throughout the world, "anti-war" groups are staging "peace rallies" that attract tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of participants, who gather to voice their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and to any other U.S. military action in the War on Terrorism. The goal of these rallies, the protesters proclaim, is to promote peace. "You can bomb the world to pieces," they chant, "but you can't bomb it into peace."

If dropping bombs won't work, what should the United States do to obtain a peaceful relationship with the numerous hostile regimes, including Iraq, that seek to harm us with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The "peace advocates" offer no answer. The most one can coax out of them are vague platitudes (we should "make common cause with the people of the world," says the prominent "anti-war" group Not in Our Name) and agonized soul-searching ("Why do they hate us?").

The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine--it merely says that military action is always bad. As one San Francisco protestor put the point: "I don't think it's right for our government to kill people." In practice, this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression, or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor's demands."

This mess began brewing back in the Eisenhower years and has just gotten worse since then because NOT ONE President has had the stones to pound the hell out of who is behind terrorism. Both parties are to blame, we are ALL to blame. Now we are aware, should we not do what it takes?

Answer 6

The global situation would be worse. Gore would have done nothing but shot a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan (and he would have waited for opinion polls before doing that).

Saddam would still be in power.

The people of Iraq would still be starving because of the UN corruption in the Oil-For Food program.

France would still be profiting because of their profitable (and corrupt) exclusive Oil-For-Food oil contracts with Saddam.

Al Quaeda would still be launching international attacks.

North Korea would be even further ahead on their nuclear program

And the rest of the world would not be treating us any differently.

Answer 7

Of course. Everything would be different. 9/11 still would have happened, though. The terrorists don't hate just Bush. They don't care who is pres., they still will hate America.

Answer 8

i think so leaders of other countries are aware of whats going on in the u.s. i feel bush was a target and in order to prove that other countries what us to suffer for their dislike in bush from 9/11 to today i feel bush has a personal conflict with other leaders and we are suffering because of that theres so much we will never know about what going on behind close doors of the white house and we will never know i didn't vote for him and bet the ones who did regret it but its too late whats done is done

Answer 9

The U.S. relations with every country would be different. Bush pretty much demolished our goodwill internationally.

Answer 10

1. NO
2. YES
3. YES

Answer 11

If Elmer Fudd had been President things would have been different.