2007-04-12 07:45:41 · 13 answers · asked by Ktcyan 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Interesting question.
I think if a Democrat would have been elected President instead of Bush we would not be in Iraq at all...we have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War 2!
I still think 9/11 would of still happened and believe we would have expanded our operations in Afghanistan significantly more than we have and would have captured or killed bin Laden and most of his organization by now. Still can't believe we haven't found him yet....what going on 6 years now?
2007-04-12 08:24:29 · answer #1 · answered by Steve S 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know -- what do you think?
Do you honestly believe that, if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, that al-Queda would have aborted their plans for 9/11?
Do you believe that, if Gore had been elected, Saddam Hussein would have suddenly become a nice person? Or the Iranians or North Koreans would have unilaterally given up their nuclear ambitions? Or that the Palestinians and Israelis would magically have resolved all their differences and would now be living in peace and harmony?
If so, I have some lovely Pacific Ocean beach-front property in the Mojave Desert I can sell you . . .
2007-04-12 15:40:41 · answer #2 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably not! It's become pretty apparent that other motives were at work in the attack on Iraq, though it may take decades for the real facts to come out, just as it did concerning the bogus conflict in Vietnam. When they do, many Americans are going to kick themselves for being so stupid as to help put an airhead like George Bush in the Oval Office.
2007-04-12 14:52:52 · answer #3 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
good possibility we wouldn't be at war in Iraq but, 9-11 would of still happened. All this hard to say though, Monday morning quarterback stuff.
2007-04-12 14:52:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Probably. Maybe not as soon, but it was inevitable. The day that I saw a shrine on the way to Baghdad that glorified 9/11, I knew that they had to have something to do with it. It was just a matter of time before something hit the fan and it got messy with them.
2007-04-12 15:06:31 · answer #5 · answered by Brian I 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no.
i know almost everyone in Congress voted for it but it was because the administration was forcing a relationship between terrorist attacks and Iraq. And we were presented with false information.
Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz were pushing to invade Iraq before the Sept 11 attacks.
2007-04-12 14:52:02 · answer #6 · answered by Diggy 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Al Gore lol, seriously after 9/11 he would have done nothing to anyone. No we wouldn't be there, we would be burying more innocent Americans here at home by terrorists.
2007-04-12 14:56:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The PNAC tribe, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove to name a view have tried to peddle their plan to take over the world since the eighties. the elite clan of war mongers would have tried any President, but I don't think, another one then Bush would have succumbed. Bush doesn't have an own thought between those monkey ears, so he takes Commands from Cheney and Rove.
2007-04-12 14:55:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Nop. I think the war is a family war between Bush and Saddam to settle the score once and for all.
2007-04-12 14:56:28 · answer #9 · answered by monster 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, we would have no reason to be at war in Iraq. Instead we would be focusing our efforts, manpower, and money on finding Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and taking them down.
2007-04-12 14:50:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋