Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?  (Read 789 times)

reez

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
    • View Profile
ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« on: December 13, 2007, 01:06:31 AM »
...

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2007, 01:17:54 AM »
No Iraq war, probably pretty significant government investment into alternative hydrocarbon technology. The Taliban would probably still be in power in Afghanistan while the dems search for a diplomatic answer to Al-Quaida.

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 01:42:37 AM »
I would add about 10 lbs of muscle, be much better looking, and have a way hot girlfriend. I'd also probably have a higher GPA and might even have become a basketball player.

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 01:51:05 AM »
No Iraq war, probably pretty significant government investment into alternative hydrocarbon technology. The Taliban would probably still be in power in Afghanistan while the dems search for a diplomatic answer to Al-Quaida.

Yes, yes, and no.  War in Afghanistan was a no-brainer.  But yes to the implication that Democrats would be similarly at a loss to handle al Qaeda in a macro-sociological sense.
Afghanistan was a no-brainer for a republican president with a republican congress. A pacifist president, inhibited by a congress dominated by another party may well have looked for a diplomatic solution.

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2007, 02:07:31 AM »
Afghanistan was a no-brainer for a republican president with a republican congress. A pacifist president, inhibited by a congress dominated by another party may well have looked for a diplomatic solution.

Eh.  Link to Gore being a pacifist.  Even if he is generally less hawkish than Bush, I believe that a military incursion after 9/11--this is America, dude--was entirely inevitable.

Entire Congress loved the Afghanistan action; can't see the narrow majority of Repubs suddenly not liking it because Gore is in office.
Point is that military action wasn't the first thing to happen, even under Bush. The taliban was given an ultimatum to give up Osama and company; they did not comply, so we led a full-scale invasion.

Would Gore also advocate an invasion? If we use the Clinton presidency as a proxy for Gore's attitude on foreign policy, Clinton did not react nearly as strongly as he should have to the original WTC terrorist attack, as well as the Kohl, and the Embassy bombing.

In the past, the US has led full-blown invasions for far lesser slights.

Sure, Gore *may* have spearheaded an invasion of Afghanistan, but I don't think that this would be his first, or second, or third course of action.

I may be wrong. This is all conjecture anyway.

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2007, 02:17:07 AM »
In the past, the US has led full-blown invasions for far lesser slights.

@#!* YEAH WE HAVE

::wails on guitar while two hot babes come out and dance in bikinis::

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2007, 02:27:54 AM »
In the past, the US has led full-blown invasions for far lesser slights.

@#!* YEAH WE HAVE

::wails on guitar while two hot babes come out and dance in bikinis::
Always remember the Lusitania!

bloomlaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Welcome to the Monkey House
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2007, 08:18:24 AM »
There would have been no Team America: World Police.

The real tragedy would be we'd have a lot less to make fun of.

On second thought, I dunno: "Lockbox"

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT: Gore beats Bush in 2000; What's really different?
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2007, 09:07:57 AM »
i don't think there was any question that we would have invaded afghanistan under any president.

the real question is, would forces have been pulled out of afghanistan and redirected to iraq? 

the real answer is, no.

boobmobile (aka titcar).

Afghanistan had to happen. There are still very few people who don't support our action in Afghanistan; it's Iraq and everything resulting from it that's caused the huge rally against the Bush administration.

Some other important changes: no Alberto Gonzales, and no Alito or Roberts appointments to SCOTUS.
No argument that Afghanistan was the right move. But assuming that Gore would have done everything right is probably a stretch. His likely response to 9/11 would have been significant diplomatic pressure on the Taliban, followed with massive airstrikes, not unlike what we did in the Balkans in the late 90's.

I agree Iraq would have never happened, I agree that our energy policy would be in a much better place than it is right now, I think that we would also be seeing a federal gas tax and other pollution reduction measures in place by now; but I can't agree that a democratic president who was VP for three major terrorist attacks under Clinton would actually put significant amounts of American boots on the ground after 9/11.

Airstrikes and international pressure? Yes. Full-on invasion, overthrowing an entrenched government and nationbuilding? I don't think Gore has it in him. Maybe that's a good thing.

Edit:
Other potential differences - No Terry Schiavo debacle. Gore/McCain or Gore/Giuliani election in 2004 (they were both *much* better positioned in '04 than they are now.

Most importantly from a national political perspective: Blame for 9/11 would fall squarely on democratic shoulders. After the initial WTC attacks, the Kohl, and the Embassy bombings, allowing 9/11 to happen would severely damage the democratic stance on mid-east policy.