How would the Democrats have reacted?
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Damien you raise a good point.
The coalition would not have been a slam dunk if there had been a Democrat in the Whitehouse when invasion of Iraq had arisen. France could have been a stumbling block, but the predominate view of the rest of the UN nations was that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the region.
With a more "diplomatic" approach to the UN, a resolution to invade would have been almost a foregone conclusion. After all, the majority of the nations had already signed off on "intervention" and "investigation" mandates. It was just a small step to an invasion resolution.
It's too bad Bush decided not to work out differences with the UN.
We will never know whether the outcome in Iraq would have had a more peaceful resolution will we?
The coalition would not have been a slam dunk if there had been a Democrat in the Whitehouse when invasion of Iraq had arisen. France could have been a stumbling block, but the predominate view of the rest of the UN nations was that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the region.
With a more "diplomatic" approach to the UN, a resolution to invade would have been almost a foregone conclusion. After all, the majority of the nations had already signed off on "intervention" and "investigation" mandates. It was just a small step to an invasion resolution.
It's too bad Bush decided not to work out differences with the UN.
We will never know whether the outcome in Iraq would have had a more peaceful resolution will we?
My oppinion is the Democrats would probably reacted the same way although slower. It may have taken them a few more weeks (maybe months) to learn what the Republicans already knew, that santions would not work here. But thats beside the point...
...THERE IS ONE THING ALL OF YOU OVERLOOK HERE!
If AL Gore had won the election instead of GW Bush, then the "war on terror" would have been a TOTAL DISASTER. Most of the Muslim world would have risen up against the US to a degree of maybe a hundred times worse that it did. ...Do you want to know why?
The reason is simple. If Al Gore had won the election, then his vice president would have been Joe Liberman. Joe Liberman is a Jew. Now, you may think this is no big deal. But in the Muslim world this means everything. Liberman being a Jew, the Muslims would have seen this a Zionist plot to undermine and take over the middle east. They would have opposed this totaly and put every effort to combat the US, the effects of which we cannot calculate. They would have seen this as a Zoinist act to takeover Muslim lands. Beleive me I have been studying Muslim doctrine and thinking for a few years now this is what would have happened, at least among the majority of them.
Any military action made could have caused a Jihad.
So if Al Gore was president during 9-11 any way he acted would have been a disater. If he took military action it would have been a disaster. If he didn't that would have been even worse in the long run.
So call it what you want--- luck, divine providence, or what have you, the fact that Bush won that election by a few hundred votes, was definately a good thing. You could say it change the course of how things turned out. I would guess ten times more American lives would have been lost had this not happened.
...THERE IS ONE THING ALL OF YOU OVERLOOK HERE!
If AL Gore had won the election instead of GW Bush, then the "war on terror" would have been a TOTAL DISASTER. Most of the Muslim world would have risen up against the US to a degree of maybe a hundred times worse that it did. ...Do you want to know why?
The reason is simple. If Al Gore had won the election, then his vice president would have been Joe Liberman. Joe Liberman is a Jew. Now, you may think this is no big deal. But in the Muslim world this means everything. Liberman being a Jew, the Muslims would have seen this a Zionist plot to undermine and take over the middle east. They would have opposed this totaly and put every effort to combat the US, the effects of which we cannot calculate. They would have seen this as a Zoinist act to takeover Muslim lands. Beleive me I have been studying Muslim doctrine and thinking for a few years now this is what would have happened, at least among the majority of them.
Any military action made could have caused a Jihad.
So if Al Gore was president during 9-11 any way he acted would have been a disater. If he took military action it would have been a disaster. If he didn't that would have been even worse in the long run.
So call it what you want--- luck, divine providence, or what have you, the fact that Bush won that election by a few hundred votes, was definately a good thing. You could say it change the course of how things turned out. I would guess ten times more American lives would have been lost had this not happened.
Last edited:
localgrizzly
Active member
Damien435 said:
I must respectfully disagree. Most of the PEOPLE of France, Germany, etc are considerably to the left of the USA, and would have applied enough political pressure on their leaders, that Chirac and Co. would have been forced to strongly support virtually any action of a far left American president.
Look at the wildly enthusiastic support that polling results in most European countries indicated towards Kerry.
Since the sixties, the average citizens of most of Europe have moved so far to the left, that I believe the European version of "Joe Sixpack" considers the USA an enemy.
I sincerely hope that I am mistaken, but I believe that the former friendship that most in Europe felt for us in the forties and fifties cannot be re-established unless we are willing to "cave-in" to the extreme left.
Although I treasured that friendship, and truly long for it's return. I am not willing to cave in.
I must say that Gladius is certainly improving.. nice catch with Lieberman and I reckon you have a very good point.
I do however disagree with Grizzly. One could also argue that that the Europeans have stayed in the centre and the the US swayed far to the right. The effect will be the same, but you don't pin it on the Europeans like that. Maybe we slid left a bit and the US to the right a bit; and again the differences are the same. I'm not sure who did what, but I know that the opposition would be less.
In accordance with Chief I agree that most European powers were willing to go to war. They gave the UN and her search parties one last go. All Bush had to do was wait... Everybody believed Saddam had his WMD's hidden somewhere and everybody was ready to come and look. This is that hasty bit I spoke of earlier. What did Bush gain by pushing for war on such short notice? And what did he loose by doing so?
You might be right about France on this one Damien. But the solution is simple..... offer France a bigger piece of the oil-pie! Once a sell out always a sell out. I don't know whether France was a sell out, but this would be a good solution, wouldn't it?
I do however disagree with Grizzly. One could also argue that that the Europeans have stayed in the centre and the the US swayed far to the right. The effect will be the same, but you don't pin it on the Europeans like that. Maybe we slid left a bit and the US to the right a bit; and again the differences are the same. I'm not sure who did what, but I know that the opposition would be less.
In accordance with Chief I agree that most European powers were willing to go to war. They gave the UN and her search parties one last go. All Bush had to do was wait... Everybody believed Saddam had his WMD's hidden somewhere and everybody was ready to come and look. This is that hasty bit I spoke of earlier. What did Bush gain by pushing for war on such short notice? And what did he loose by doing so?
You might be right about France on this one Damien. But the solution is simple..... offer France a bigger piece of the oil-pie! Once a sell out always a sell out. I don't know whether France was a sell out, but this would be a good solution, wouldn't it?
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Damien435 said:
Someone is assuming that oil WAS a prime mover for the US. As Damien stated, why would we have wasted so much money and American lives on the number three oil field in the world.
Ted and I have pointed out a fact that some of you keep overlooking. Europe WAS the primary area of support when we FIRST took Saddam on with Bush I. The immediacy that Bush II was touting just wasn't there. In all of the various scenarios for invasion justification, at no time did Bush II or his minions tout any information that Saddam had "immediate" plans to invade the United States.
The immediacy that was discussed had to do with the possibility that the "weapons of mass destruction" were being hid (buried), shipped to other countries and hid (buried) or were being given to terrorist groups (none of which has been proven even peripherally).
The one point I hadn't considered was the Lieberman angle. With the repercussions of 9/11 still ringing round the world, I'm not sure that Lieberman being Vice President would have even risen to a light swirl on the ponds of American/European politics. I grant you, the Islamic world MAY have viewed it a little differently than the rest of the world.
Gore WAS the number one choice of almost every country of any note in Europe. Without exception, the same countries that supported Gore had a very real aversion to Bush II, and wanted nothing to do with him.
As far as France is concerned, a little time could have seen France steamrolled by the rest of the European alliance.
The primary feeling of the majority of the alliance was definitely anti-Saddam and in favor of his removal from power.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Rabs said:
The biggest reason was his record as Governor of Texas and his stated views of the world political scene.
I haven't got the numbers on this one but a very good reason could be that all that oil is for your internal market. The US needs oil for the US to. He who controls the rest of the supplies can pretty much dictate the global economy and everybody is interest at that!
To be honest Rabs, this involves a bias or 20! We have this image of a respectable, capable, intellectual and enlightend president. Bush doesn't fit these descriptions by a 100 miles. What made it even worse was his blind faith in God and the US and the rest doesn't even matter; let alone the fact that he hardly knew that there is a world outside the US. By prototyping these character-traits he turned himself into somebody we, on out turn, did take very serious.
He aimed at this Texan Cowboy who stood up to the rest of the world and so he did. He managed to piss off (excuse my language, but I can't think of a synonim at this moment) his allies, the islamic world, the third wirld and anybody that I missed. So we didn't give him the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, he himself made sure that we wouldn't give it after he entered office.
Damien435
Active member
That's right Ted, Bush is the most powerful man in the world, he knows it and he is not afraid to show it. When it was clear the UN would do nothing to intervene in Iraq he told the world to F*** off, if they wouldn't help we could and would do it alone.
BTW, Bush didn't piss off the Islamic world, they were already pissed at us, a point made obvious by 9/11, which was in the works before Bush took office.
BTW, Bush didn't piss off the Islamic world, they were already pissed at us, a point made obvious by 9/11, which was in the works before Bush took office.
localgrizzly
Active member
Well said, Damien!
Ted, you say that Europe wanted an "intellectual" prsident. Doesn't your support of Kerry and Gore suggest that you really meant a pseudo-intellectual thug like Chirac?
I am proud to be an American. Americans admire cowboys.
If Europeans have a problem with cowboys, I guess they can just shove........ Well, you get the point!
Ted, you say that Europe wanted an "intellectual" prsident. Doesn't your support of Kerry and Gore suggest that you really meant a pseudo-intellectual thug like Chirac?
I am proud to be an American. Americans admire cowboys.
If Europeans have a problem with cowboys, I guess they can just shove........ Well, you get the point!
I get and acknowledge your point gentlemen. But then you must also understand why I'm non to fond of him. But that is the world isn't it.
To be quite honest, I preffered Mitterand. All his many errors aside (doesn't it sound familiar
in my eyes he was a true politician of the left. Sure corrupt and many other qualifications as well, but he had style! Maybe I should say he had something that I could really dig.... So we all have our faults and wrong politicians. Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? I guess that goes for more then just beauty...
To be quite honest, I preffered Mitterand. All his many errors aside (doesn't it sound familiar
in my eyes he was a true politician of the left. Sure corrupt and many other qualifications as well, but he had style! Maybe I should say he had something that I could really dig.... So we all have our faults and wrong politicians. Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? I guess that goes for more then just beauty...localgrizzly
Active member
Ted,
You said earlier that democrats didn't desire to bring down socialist regimes. In that you are, unfortunately, correct.
But most Americans believe that socialism is the uiltimate evil in the world.
It has been tried in almost every country in the world over the last thousand years, and it's never worked well anywhere.
How many times does an idea have to fail before it's proponents finally admit that it's a bad idea?
You said earlier that democrats didn't desire to bring down socialist regimes. In that you are, unfortunately, correct.
But most Americans believe that socialism is the uiltimate evil in the world.
It has been tried in almost every country in the world over the last thousand years, and it's never worked well anywhere.
How many times does an idea have to fail before it's proponents finally admit that it's a bad idea?
I think that people will continu trying to re-distribute the division of wealth as long as there are poor people in the world. Erradicate poverty and you'll finish the desire for socialism. But you know, just as I do, that this won't happen..... So the answer to your question will be; many many more times.
localgrizzly
Active member
Ted said:
Unfortunately, you are at least partially correct. But socialism, IMHO, is brought about more by greed and envy than poverty.
If a man earns $100 per hour for his labors, he will usually be bitter and dissatisfied if another man earns $101 per hour. A man that lives in a castle will always hate and envy the man who lives in a palace.
Greed and envy are the true motivators of socialism, not poverty.