Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/11/2004 5:15:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 5:16:31 AM EST by BigJ491]
I was sitting at work today wondering what would have happened if Gore would have won the election 4 years ago. How would he have handled the 9/11/01 attack? Would there even be a "War on Terror" like Bush has started. Would they even be concerned with thwarting terrorist attacks on a global scale, or would they just be concerned with Homeland Security. For that matter, would there even be a Homeland Security Department like there is today, or would they have not seen the need to centralize the LE and Intelligence Departments?

Would Gore be reluctant to take such a pro-active approach like Bush has, or would they have continued to remain reactionary when it comes to attacks on freedom and democracy accross the globe? No doubt that Iraq would still exist under the reign of Sadam Hussein, but what else would remain unchanged and still a threat to the US? Would Gore have taken the fight into Afgahnistan and continued to hunt down Osama and his people, or would they just remain complacent with his existance like Clinton did?

Or, would they have been just as vigillant as Bush and his administration? Would they have inacted effective responses to the 9/11/01 attack?

I will not forget!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:19:25 AM EST
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Thank GOD Bush won! I'm so proud to be one of the cherished 325 voters who made the diference in Florida!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:26:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Thank GOD Bush won! I'm so proud to be one of the cherished 325 voters who made the diference in Florida!



The rest of the country thanks you for you vote!!!!!

How you guys holding up down there?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:26:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 5:27:34 AM EST by pale_pony]
We'd have a few thousand more innocent civilians slaughtered by terrorists on our own soil while Gore went around apologizing to all the Muslim countries for our very existence.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:28:52 AM EST
We would have been hit again, because Gore would have seen it as a criminal act not an act of war.
Just like the World Trade Center in '93, The US Embassy, the Cole and on and on...
He would have done what all Democrats do, nothing.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:30:18 AM EST
I shudder to even think about it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:30:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:43:24 AM EST
Remember when Gore was bashing the bush administration for bombing the Taliban over Ramadan??

I think that alone pretty much sums up what aGore victory would of been like.

He is a total douche bag.If he had won the white house would be flying the Moonworshippers flag to appease the Godd muslims of the world

He and the rrest of the Dems are a Joke
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:55:04 AM EST
I really don't like thinking about it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:58:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Thank GOD Bush won! I'm so proud to be one of the cherished 325 voters who made the diference in Florida!




It was more than 325, thats all they could SUE it down to.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 6:00:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Thank GOD Bush won! I'm so proud to be one of the cherished 325 voters who made the diference in Florida!




Myself,wife,father,mother, brother and sister-in-law are proud to be in that cherished number!
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 6:02:00 AM EST



Sounds like a good title for a new fiction novel, kind of like those about "What if Nazi Germany had won WWII"? Now that I think about it, if I had to choose I'd prefer the Nazi victory rather than Gwhore's.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 6:58:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By imcoltsguy:


Sounds like a good title for a new fiction novel, kind of like those about "What if Nazi Germany had won WWII"? Now that I think about it, if I had to choose I'd prefer the Nazi victory rather than Gwhore's.



Funny but true.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:14:15 AM EST
I shudder to think.....
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:19:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By imcoltsguy:


Sounds like a good title for a new fiction novel, kind of like those about "What if Nazi Germany had won WWII"? Now that I think about it, if I had to choose I'd prefer the Nazi victory rather than Gwhore's.



I detest National Socialism...but sadly I have to agree...
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:24:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Thank GOD Bush won! I'm so proud to be one of the cherished 325 voters who made the diference in Florida!



My first thought was "toss a few cruise missiles" then huddle with the UN.

We would still be having meetings and "blue ribbon task forces" and committees and panels issuing position papers decrying terrorism as "a bad thing" and I firmly believe he would have gone further than the patriot act in restrictive and intrusive new laws. $20 says he would have had Janet Reno as the equivalent of Homeland Security Director. Our taxes would have gone up, and the economy would have tanked as confidence crumbled under the leadership of a spineless President too indecisive to lead a country under attack. The Dow would be lucky to be above 7500.

I also believe that we would not have taken the battle to them, knocked out many of their leaders and forces, and that subsequent attacks on US soil or interests would have transpired. Israel would be in a virtual state of seige.

Thank you for being one of the 325, your simple votes had a more far reaching impact than any of us might know.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:51:34 AM EST
They would have lied and said that the hijackers used pistols.

They would have used that to push through severe restrictions on handgun ownership.

They would have used the "Beltway Sniper" incident to start a confiscation drive.

There would have been some sort of armed resistance to that, which would have been hyped by the media.

Many of us would be in detention camps.

Osama BinLaden would be laughing at how we turned on each other. His people would have hit us a few more times.

Our economy would be in shambles.

Gas would be more than $3.00/gal.

I don't want to think about it anymore. Luckily we have a president who believes in the American people and his responsibilities as CinC..

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:03:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 8:04:31 AM EST by Cato]
Although I am glad that Gore didn't win (there are already too much countries
which support public disarmament), I don't believe he wouldn't have invaded
Afghanistan. So no war on Iraq- which is sucking up all ressources now- and, as
a consequence, a far more throughout "cleaning" of Afghanistan and surgical
strikes against terrorist hides in Sudan, Philippines, etc. while a broader
international alliance would stand with the USA. From an international security
perspective (and only from that!) not too bad.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:06:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 8:07:07 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:09:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 8:18:01 AM EST by Cato]
Please explain to me why the war in Iraq should have weakened Al Quaida?
As nice as it is that Saddam is no more, this could have been done in
a few years - without any negative consequences on other regions. He
was a pervert mass murder but no ally of Bin Laden.
Sadly, it is a FACT that Afghanistan is in dire need of manpower and money
and- outside of Kabul- on the edge of falling back to warlord times.

I doubt that Gore would have shown Putin that the US are THE world power.
But Bush doesn't do that too- and he is allowing Putin to turn the whole
Caucausus region into a big mess- which Al Quaida will use...
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:18:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:
Please explain to me why the war in Iraq should have weakened Al Quaida?
As nice as it is that Saddam is no more, this could have been done in
a few years - without any negative consequences on other regions.
Sadly, it is a FACT that Afghanistan is in dire need of manpower and money
and- outside of Kabul- on the edge of falling back to warlord times.



So you don't see that a US-hating Saddam regime, and a US-hating Al Quaida are natural allies?
So you don't see that denying territory to Al Quaida is a good strategic move?
So you don't see that disrupting the open flow of funds to Al Quaida through the Iraqi, Saddam controlled, banking system is a good strategic move?
So you don't see that "in a few years" Iraq, with it's oil revenues, could have become a nuclear power?

No?

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:20:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 8:25:52 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:25:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:

I doubt that Gore would have shown Putin that the US are THE world power.
But Bush doesn't do that too- and he is allowing Putin to turn the whole
Caucausus region into a big mess- which Al Quaida will use...



How do you think Bush is "allowing" Putin to do ANYTHING? Last I heard, Putin was trying to govern Russia and Bush was president of the USA.

Damn, people, is W to blame for the drought in Africa too??? Good grief!!

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:33:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By Cato:
Please explain to me why the war in Iraq should have weakened Al Quaida?


How many al Qaeda fighters do you believe have been killed in the fighting in Iraq?

Have you been reading everything you need to be reading nowadays?

As nice as it is that Saddam is no more, this could have been done in a few years - without any negative consequences on other regions.

What are you smoking?

The sanctions were breaking DOWN before the War on Saddam occurred.

Ask France's Chirac, as he stood in line to cash his Iraqi check, IF the sanctions were working!

Ask the US Troops who uncovered French missiles which were less than a year old in Iraqi ammo dumps IF the sanctions were working!

All Saddam had to do was to wait out the Bush Adminsitration, as he did the Clinton Administration, and he would have been home free!

Lord, what idiocy you spout!

Saddam had lasted more than 30 years in the Arab world - an unbelievable feat in and of itself in that area of the World - he wasn't going anywhere, and if he did he had his two fine sons who would have taken over from him!

And we know what sorts of folks his two sons were, don't we?

Sadly, it is a FACT that Afghanistan is in dire need of manpower and money and - outside of Kabul- on the edge of falling back to warlord times.

Which is where the British found it 200 years ago, where the Russians found it 150 years ago, where the Soviets found it 26 years ago, and where it will be 100 years from today...

UNLESS the germ of democracy, which WE have planted there, takes root!

There's no reason to be stupid personally just to try and prove a stupid political point!

Eric The(Neo-IsolationismSimplyMeans...'LetOurGrandchildrenDealWithIt!')Hun



+1

There are less than 10 million people in Kabul...

10 million Afghanis have registered to vote...

If we need more troops we should raise a larger military (it was ALOT bigger back before Clinton), not neglect important missions like trying to get a free state operating in the Middle East...

And I don't see the Taliban re-tanking A-stan any time soon... Sure there are individual warlords scrambling for power... It's a 3rd world country trying to build a new govt... What do you expect?

The troops we have in A-stan are there to catch AQ operatives & train the Afghani military, not to pacify/occupy the country.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:36:20 AM EST


Gore would have blamed talk radio and the right wing conspiracy to promote his adgenda just like Clinton did with the Oklahoma City bombing.

And then an another attack on a much larger scale would have happened about 6 months to a year later.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:37:12 AM EST
Why are you being so nice to Gore?


Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:44:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 8:52:14 AM EST by Cato]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
How many al Qaeda fighters do you believe have been killed in the fighting in Iraq?



It is true that such high numbers of stupid cannon fodder couldn't
have been killed in Afghanistan. IMHO it is not very rational- you provoke a
mess to create "terrorists" (I reserve that term for people who have some, if crazy,
concepts of ideology or tactics)- 70% of whom wouldn't have fought the USA in the
first place if left alone. Yes, they hate the USA, but do you want to kill every
muslim who hates the USA or the real AQ pros? Don't be naive, do you think
these pros are getting themselves killed by frontal attacks on US troops in Iraq??

It is a question of priorities- for me killing the heads of Al Quaida would seem
more important. And for that expensive, surgical special forces strikes throughout
the world would be necessary, not a war in Iraq- or, even more stupid, against Iran.

PS: Just a quote which sums up my opinion nicely:

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.

Even before the invasion, the wisdom of shifting resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq was raised privately by top military officials and publicly by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others. Now it's being hotly debated again following an election-year critique of the Bush administration by its former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.

"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:46:48 AM EST
It's quite simple , If Gore had won in 2000 , then after 9/11 buildings over 10 stories would be banned . And they would be working on replacing Airplanes with Mass transit busses that run on methane captured from the asses of flatulent cattle and costing $4,000,000 a piece all funded with your tax dollars Thus eliminating them as being used as targets and weapons for criminal terrorist activity .
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:50:36 AM EST
They'd still be trying to get him out of Cheyenne Mountain. In the off chance he did come out he would declare martial law and suspend all parts of the constitution he could. Then he'd request the U.N. to take over day to day operations of the country. Once that was done he'd have all oposition parties disbanded and replaced by a greater Democratic Socialist Workers Party.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 8:52:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 10:03:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 10:04:26 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 11:26:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Why are you being so nice to Gore?


Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He would have lobbed a few cruise missles, banned AWB's outright, and then whored himself to the UN in a desperate attempt to get them to like us.




Because it's against my nature to be as big of an asshole as he is....
Top Top