Well the U.S. at least would be a little better. No wasted money or dead soldiers=

me.
Actually, it wouldn't. Because you wouldn't know (and likely wouldn't suspect, or even believe it possible), you would assume that that state of affairs would be nothing special. Hence it wouldn't especially cheer you up one way or another, though alternative uses for that money would be up for interpretation.
Anyway Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power, but I always figured that sooner or later Iraq would fall into Civil War. (Americans just spread up the process) Which if that were to happen America would be probably donate supplies to Civilians and stuff. At home Green Energy/Economic Independence type policies will have greater strength and help make the U.S. a better place.
Iraq was a conflict waiting to happen at some level, regardless of who the president was or 9-11. Saddam had already largely negated the worst effects of the sanctions (now making the country poor, but failing in their goal to destabilize him), his WMD programs were still in the dark (and we know he intended to revive them when he thought he could), and the No Fly zone was increasingly unteneable as Iraqi forces took shots at patroling fighters.
This strikes me as a political, rather than strictly A-H question, but I think under such a scenario (no Bush, no 9/11 - which is two PODs, btw) US-China tensions would be MUCH higher, since without Al-Qaeda and Iraq to focus on, the Neoconservative foreign policy intelligentsia would latch onto China as the Main Enemy to justify US military budgets. North Korea's development of the atomic bomb might become a casus belli to demonstrate (a la Afghanistan) that the US remained a formidable world power able to fight anywhere it pleased, with the same strained letter-not-spirit application of UN resolutions that characterized the leadup to the Iraq war. NK being on China's doorstep wouldn't hurt either.
A couple of problems with this, not least of which is the fact that China was already increasingly important to the US economy.
First, someone other than Bush likely means that the neoconservatives aren't as influential.
Two, if North Korea tests a bomb, what do you think the likelyhood is that they only produced enough for the test device, as opposed to enough for multiple bombs before carrying out the test?
Three, Afghanistan was not invaded to prove the US could fight wherever it pleased. There are a number of much more relevant places the US could intervene for much better reasons and/or gain, whether humanitarian in Africa or elsewhere. Afghanistan was invaded because the government refused to give up its guests who launched a major terrorist attack against the US. Big difference.
Four, have you considered that the North Korea border is one of the most heavily defended ones in the world, that China would be incredibly unlikely to allow US forces to be on its direct borders, AND that the capital of Souuth Korea is in standard artillery range of NK? There's no way either South Korea, China, or even Japan (in range of Korean missiles) would greenlight it. And without the consent of its basing partners and the nation that intervened the last time NK almost fell to the Americans...
As memories of 1979 faded, US-Iranian tensions would likely ease, especially if Khatami remains President (with Gore, you have the two most conciliatory possible Presidents in the two countries, rather than Bush and Ahmadinejad, the two least able to get along.)
Alternative point: with little/no impetus to make the compromises for reconciliation on either side, the two remain as they were.
The UN would remain a much more important arbiter of international disputes, since neither Gore or pre-2000 McCain gave any indication of the outright rejectionism displayed by the Bush administration (the man appointed John Bolton as UN Ambassador).
The UN becoming more important implies it becomes more effective, something that is less than likely. And while most others would certainly pay more lip-service to the UN, any US president will still only go with the UN in as so much as the UN is useful to American interests.
Economically, the rise of Asia would go on, as would the inflation in energy prices, and the economic decline of the US would be much more front and center as a political issue. Hurricane Katrina would still devastate New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, although under Gore FEMA would likely still be well-managed, so rescue and resettlement might proceed more smoothly.
Katrina's problems in Louisiana were as much about the incompetant local leadership as the much more visible Federal idiocy. Short of wanking out the state and local officials, Katrina is going to be bad regardless.
Air travel in the US would be less of a drag, and visas easier to get.
Very true.
Especially under Gore, the love affair between Europe and America would continue, as the face of America abroad would continue to be of befuddled but fundamentally benign tourists rather than redneck Gitmo torturers.
Wrong. There was no "love affair" between Europe and America, only an increasingly strained relationship that found a remarkable scape goat in George Bush. European governments were increasingly annoyed with American unilateralism and unipolarism under Clinton and Bush Sr., the American government had its own conflicts of interest with Europe, and a lack of any kind of common threat to focus against is going to be even more effective at loosening NATO ties (at least till Russia comes around, but seven years can make a lot of butterflies for US-Russian, US-European, and Russian-European relations). This was and is the time in which European leaders were publicly styling themselves as the "alternative" to America, remember and advocating a 'return' to multipolar world, with Europe as a leading pole with softpower.
Tensions over immigration would remain, but with less of the implicit identification of foreigners in general with terrorists.
Are you kidding? Without 9-11, the terrorist angle will be almost completely ignored.
Steps to curb global warming would be slow and awkward, much obstructed by a Republican congress in Gore's first administration.
Gore would be unlikely to do much either. His reinvention into the global warming prophet/monger was only
after he lost the election, remember.
The US would remain a non-signatory to Kyoto and the ICC, as no plausible US president would be willing to expend valuable political capital on such thankless projects as preventing environmental degradation or enforcing international (read:foreign) norms of justice.
There is also the tiny matter of how Kyoto was disproportionately bad for the US economy in comparison to new world economies, something no president will ignore (though few likely to be as blunt as Bush).
Socially, the political polarization of the US would continue, and business would continue with all the rapaciousness of the '90s but with none of the optimism (especially without the inflationary boost of post-9/11 deficit spending and Bush's tax cuts). As OTL, the middle class would be hollowed out by outsourcing, problems of healthcare provision would likewise remain, and without a foreign enemy to focus on, the American people would most likely target their rage at each other. Politics would be an ugly, zero-sum business, and both parties would most likely be frustrated in enacting their policies in any meaningful sense (this is in contrast to OTL, where the GOP ran rampant for four years after 9/11, enacting torture, war, rapacious natural gas drilling in the West, now likely to be followed by a similar period of Democratic predominance). In such an environment, the winner of the 2000 election would very likely be a one term president, and legislatively the Democrats would still likely be chipping away at the Republican gains of 1994 (instead of staring into their collective graves in 2002 and 2004 before powering back in 2006). Overall, in politics, business, and society the atmosphere would be one of overpowering frustration, without the dynamic illusion of war to animate the body politic.
I think this is a bit to over-generalized. The culture war might continue on, but then again it was also slowing down before 9-11. Various foreign affair events could cause a big impact: a continuation of nation-building, more involvement in Latin America with the rise of Chavez, alternate ME crisis, and so on. Too many possible butterflies.