Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?

I think algore would have asked the UN for PERMISSION to invade. This fiasco leads directly to George Bush defeating algore in 2004 and invading Iraq at this time.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

This whole thread is theoretical.

I dont really care.

You know Bush took action against Iraq.

You cannot claim Gore would have done the same when you dont know.

Simple.

reply to post by centurion1211


I don't know about that... Given his temper, that was revealed in the months after his election loss...

I'm glad we never, and will never, have to find out.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Yes he would have.

You see, the problem with that assumption is that, its an assumption. Truth is, you really dont know whether Gore would have done same thing, we know Bush did it.

WRONG!

Congress did it and Bush supported the measure. Both had access to the very same intelligence.

Firstly I never denied the fact congress supported the war with Bush, infact I had stated it numerous times before. You replied off topic to my comment above.

That being said, the support of congress did not justify the war and it still doesnt today.

There were no threats of WND's.
The fact of the matter is, at the same time of the accusations of Iraq supposedly developing these weapons, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Israel had already been well ahead in testing and developing these weapons and yet they were supposedly made acceptions? Why? Who has the God given right to choose which countries to barge into and which ones to now?

We are not the police of the world. The invasion was not justified given the fact many other countries held the same circumstances as supposedly reported in the case of Iraq, and yet Iraq war singled out. Given the fact weapons inspectors found nothing. You cannot charge a man until he is found guilty. You cannot single a man out of many obvious guilty ones, without holding some agenda.

Its complete BS, and I still cannot believe that people are still making excuses about it knowing full well this fact.

your liberal glasses complete with Obama-can-do-no-wrong-colored lenses.

Never mentioned Obama in that comment, never once stated that Obama "could do no wrong". That is you going off topic, all you.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by Southern Guardian]

If it had been known by the guys who wrote and signed off on the PNAC that Al Gore would have fully agreed to invade Iraq, pass the Patriot Act, startup Homeland Security, increase Torture, do Wire Taps, end Habeas Corpus, etc.... Then I'm sure they would have let him be President.

The fact that TPTB wouldn't allow him to be president, despite the vote, indicates that 'no' he would not have agreed to the already established plan.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


May I take exception to this comment?

There were no threats of WND's.

There were indeed threats of WMD's. He used the bloody things against, not only Iran, but his own people in the north, and in the south... Now I'll grant he didn't have the vast stockpiles as was propagandized, but he did indeed have them, and could have had more.

Did that justify a war? Yes, and oddly enough, no... Yes, in that he should have been stopped long before, either by us, or by someone else. No, in that we shouldn't have gone in while concurrently fighting in Afghanistan. You don't fight two wars at the same time, if you can avoid it. We could have.

Had he used them again, then all the bets would have been off. We could have, and should have, waited.

Yes, I know that means that more innocent Iraqi's would have died at his hands...but is what's going on there now any better? For some, yes. For others no.

Originally posted by hephalump
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

May I take exception to this comment?

There were no threats of WND's.

There were indeed threats of WMD's. He used the bloody things against, not only Iran, but his own people in the north, and in the south...

Yes he did, he used it against the north and the south in 1988 before the 1st gulf war. So why do war proponents continue to use this reasoning for the 2nd invasion when it happpened over a decade ago prior to the invasion?

Where is the evidence he was using it during 2003?? You had inspectors, they found nothing, why continue to insist? Are they in the conspiracy?

Stop the excuses.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I fully realize that, thank you.

I just said there was a threat of him getting more. Didn't actually say he had more of them...

You do remember the reports of truck convoys headed to syria, do you not? What was in those trucks? I don't think anyone really knows do they? Were they WMD's? Or maybe furniture for the palaces?

If furniture? Nothing to worry about. If WMD's? Maybe that's a worry we'll face again in the future. We'd be better off if it was furniture. Or maybe the Iraqi treasury.

We simply don't know. Is it, was it, cause for concern, both then and now? Yes. Justify the second invasion...nope, it didn't. See? We were actually in agreement.

Originally posted by hephalump
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You do remember the reports of truck convoys headed to syria, do you not?

Yes Im pritty darn sure there were "reports" from the Bush administration. Im pritty sure the MSM were onto it as well. I just didnt buy it.

Once I saw a movie about the maffia in the USA. By many people it was considered a myth...such a thing did not excist. Until they caught up with the maffia and saw the top bosses come to a secret meeting.

If you ask me such secret meeting are still held but not by the maffia but by something far more sick and dangerous.......and in the open...Bilderberg is one of them.

People like Gore, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and this other guy...what's his name.....Kerry.....has been having secret randevous. maybe aat the Bohemian Grove.

Anyway,...what I am trying to say is that Bush had been chosen to go to Irak. If Gore had been chosen for president it was Gore who'd knocked on their door and forced himself in. It really didn't matter...it could have been Gore.

It is like casting for a major movie.....who fits the agenda best.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

This whole thread is theoretical.

I dont really care.

You know Bush took action against Iraq.

You cannot claim Gore would have done the same when you dont know.

Simple.

So, you are in a thread that is about theoretical situations, yet you dont want a theoretical answer. Interesting. how would you want one to reply to this thread, then?

I have already given my reasons for why i say this. They are legit. i am n ot just spouting off.

That you choose to ignore the basic premise of this thread is your problem, no one else's.

Whoever was in office at that point was irrelevant.

Thats like asking a whore how much...? of coarse he would.
2nd line

Republicans are right about Iraq.



[edit on 2/9/2010 by texastig]