Does the man, the President weild enough influence that he can plunge this country into war .... or does it take a committee .... a party ... a majority ?
2007-01-02 00:46:26 · 25 answers · asked by burlingtony 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The answers to this Q really show how many people still do not have the facts about this war...
1 there is nothing tying Iraq and Osama
2 the intelligence was made up by the bush admin,,, according to the UN inspectors pre-war
there is an answer up there that is quite interesting referring to oil being traded in Euros rather than the dollar....
anyway we would not be in this war...... it is Bush's baby...
2007-01-02 01:16:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I can only go on passed history which is a good indicator of future history. Since Gore is a appeaser in the mode of Jimmy Carter. I would guess that Thugs Dictators, and Despots around the world would be be more aggressive and bold because they know our president would call for dialog in response.
So I can only speculate that Sadamn would still be in power, the Taliban would still be there and that behavior would only encourage Islamic fanaticism to act even more aggressively than they do now.
2007-01-02 09:40:52 · answer #2 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would have been no Iraqi war.
Plans were in motion to invade Iraq long before 911. 911 delayed the war, and was a distraction. Equipment and troops were already being positioned right after Bush's "election" and the Bush Admin used the 911 tragedy to play on emotions and use that momentum to link (poorly) Sadam with Al Qaeda.
2007-01-02 09:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by getting2old2quick 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
When it was decided that oil would trade in Euros...the US knew it had to do something. Once the trade was converted to Euros, instead of dollars, America would be locked out financially. As well, it has been a mandate of the presidency - ever since the end of WW2 - to maintain a relationship or some form of control in the middle east to ensure that China does not gain control over the oil reserves.
The office of the president has always held an 'oil plan' - and each president has played along. Would Al Gore do any differently? Perhaps he would have liked to...but bigger men than him have fallen for non-conformity.
2007-01-02 08:55:47 · answer #4 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think it is very possible that we wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore were President. Particularly since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The President does wield quite a bit of power by virtue of his ability to appeal directly to the people via the media. A charismatic President can influence the voters to the point that Congress is afraid to oppose him for fear of criticism.
2007-01-02 08:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by Nicole B 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the president is the commander of the army, so there probably would not be a war right now. An act of congress can declare war, and a majority is needed. If the republicans in congress wanted a war and the democrats didnt and gore was president, it would still be up to him.
The president does not need congress to aprove his use of the Marine Corp's however.
2007-01-02 08:56:52 · answer #6 · answered by Sleepy 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Al Gore would have enouraged sustainable, renewable, non-polluting sources of fuel which would have rendered this war and its so-called terrorists irrelevant to the USA economy. It is only those who stand to make enormous OIL PROFITS who have a vested interest in this war, and make mountains out of terrorists who would otherwise be molehills, who are the ones that have the gall to murder American soldiers and Iraqi civilians for the dollar signs in thier eye$$$$$$.
2007-01-02 09:39:06 · answer #7 · answered by obrigada_camoes 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Al would have attacked the guy who actually did 9/11 and not Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
In the Nov election Americans sent Bush a message and he's ignoring that message and the advice of his Generals.
Bush needs to be impeached. If brains were dynamite Bush couldn't blow his nose.
2007-01-02 08:59:58 · answer #8 · answered by snouts 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably. Because Gore is a moral coward.
He'd not only NOT have gone after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he'd have probably abandoned the efforts to contain Saddam. He'd have let the Oil-for-Food scandal go un-investigated. He'd probably have continued the appeasement of North Korea that was started by Clinton, he'd have abandoned Israel, and he'd have crippled our economy with his idiot global warming Chicken Little crap.
And we'd have gotten attacked again, more fiercely and possibly with WMD.
Gore is and was an idiot, a well-bred idiot, but an idiot all the same.
2007-01-02 09:01:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Hard to say, but according to Al Gore during the debates he would have had a better plan for the war unlike President Bush did. I'm pretty sure that the decision would not be one person's alone though.
2007-01-02 08:52:02 · answer #10 · answered by Kam 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋