What if Al Gore had won the 2000 Presidential Election?

Are you aware that the American reputation was greatly (and I mean GREATLY) damaged by the actions against Iraq (and that is, of course, ignoring the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo)?

Perhaps.

However if Gore does not take decisive action against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, American support for him is undermined. If Gored decides to close Guantanamo and put the terrorist detainees in federal/foreign prisons, complications will arise, and if they are let free, some will inevitably rejoin their terrorist buddies.

And if Iraq is left alone, even assuming that no WMD development occurs in that country, it could become a "safe haven" for terrorists.

Or that North Korea and Iran have not changed their position in the slightest way, and their animosisty and defiance against the international community has become just greater?

Their "animosisty" and open defiance of the international community is better than subtle prodding and secret planning to accomplish their goals.
 
He used those weapons in the 1980's, which were provided by the Europeans. By 2003 they had been long gone after we took out the vast majority in Desert Storm. Care to provide sources that prove he was working on nukes in 2003?


I stated that it was a possiblity, not that it was probable. The Gore administration would not have been so cavalier about ignoring the bin laden threat (even leaving asside the Bush-Bin Laden family connections), but this does not mean the intelligence failures would still not have happened, as the examples above show. But none of those happened under the Gore administration, so we will never know if he would have been more effective or not. Though he would have to invade Afghanistan if 9/11 happens, he would get far more blowback from the right for what happened.


Again, I am postulating that he would have been more proactive without being certain. We will never know what he would have done, but I question whether he would have continued the deregulations of the Clinton era or made the poor economic policy decisions of the Bush administration. Gore was not Clinton.


Okay, this is just plain partisan and unsubstantiated. Tax cuts to a point are helpful, beyond which they just deprive the government of money to run programs. It is better to have money moving through the economy than have it sitting in a bank. Yes I know that money in banks is invested, but if there is not enough being used to purchase goods and services, then money in investments are not useful. Government programs spend money and move it through the economy, wheras tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is saved instead of supporting the economy. Basing it on investing bubbles like the .com's or realestate is much more detrimental than helpful. Money spent on welfare, social security, and other social programs like healthcare are used in the consumer economy, not save, meaning they have a beneficial effect for businesses. There is such a thing as too much investing afterall.

Tax cuts of those most likely to spend it instead of saving is healthy for the economy: i.e. the lower and middle classes are much more likely to use the money from tax cuts than the upper classes, which hoard that money or use it to chase the hottest new investment (again, .com's and realestate- the largest number of defaults on housing after the bubble burst was with people in the upper classes with more than one home. Interestingly enough, these people only defaulted on investment properties, not their own homes; its easier to walk about from an investment that is underwater than your own home).

1. You're simply saying that you trust Gore to be a better president than Bush. What basis do you have for saying that Gore would have been better than Bush at preventing a bad economy and terrorist attacks?

2. So if taxes/tax cuts simply move money from one person to another, how could that help the economy? If you've increased income taxes on the middle class in order to give more money to social security or welfare programs, that doesn't change the amount of money being spent by consumers.

Also I didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or at least I didn't mean to. They were developing chemical weapons which can also be extremely destructive.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php
 
Also I didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or at least I didn't mean to. They were developing chemical weapons which can also be extremely destructive.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php

From your link:

"The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified partly on the threat posed by the regime's alleged WMD activities. No indications of existing unconventional weapons operations were found after the war"

"The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers..."
 
The point is that Iraq had chemical weapons capability, and it theoretically could have waged war with nerve agents.
 

Deleted member 1487

1. You're simply saying that you trust Gore to be a better president than Bush. What basis do you have for saying that Gore would have been better than Bush at preventing a bad economy and terrorist attacks?

2. So if taxes/tax cuts simply move money from one person to another, how could that help the economy? If you've increased income taxes on the middle class in order to give more money to social security or welfare programs, that doesn't change the amount of money being spent by consumers.

Also I didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or at least I didn't mean to. They were developing chemical weapons which can also be extremely destructive.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php

From your article:
"The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified partly on the threat posed by the regime's alleged WMD activities. No indications of existing unconventional weapons operations were found after the war (see GSN, March 20). Iraq joined the Chemical Weapons Convention earlier this year.
The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated. The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers, he said.
"These are legacy weapons, remnants," Luhan told Global Security Newswire today. He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons are not believed to be in a usable state."

So no, they did not have an active weapons program in 2003 for anything. You did mention that they had a nuclear program, but I understand that mispeaking happens (or writing in this case), I do it more frequently than I care to admit.

To answer your questions:
1) Yes, not because I think Gore is a great leader or that Bush is a bad one, but simply because of priorities. Many of the policies of the Clinton administration were superior to the Bush administration, both fiscally and militarily, which Gore had promised to continue. Also, given the rampant cronyism and "yes men" mentality of the Bush administration, especially with regards to the Iraq mess, the Gore administration promised to offer more of a professional and capable leadership. Now, as we never will know for fact how Gore would have run things, I cannot offer proof positive, but I can extrapolate some expectations from the Clinton administration. Based on how Clinton ran things (he also had to deal with a Republican congress, something that Gore would be managing too, which IMO could offer positive things for the US), his administration was in many ways much more competent in handling things for the good of the nation, rather than the profit of a few.

This does not mean that Gore wouldn't make mistakes; I concede that 9/11 is very likely (but not certain, butterflies after all), the economy was already turning down, much hinges on how he handles things, Bush doubled down on the housing market to support the sagging economy and ignored economists screaming about the warning signs, the question is whether Gore could or would do the same. Many in his own party were very upset about the deregulation, they may offer enough opposition to force him to do something about it. Unfortunately this is all speculation though.

2) Tax money moving from one person to another: this is what the economy is all about, money passing from one set of hands to another to pay for goods and services; if there is not money being earned and used, businesses cannot keep their doors open. It doesn't matter if all the money in the world is invested in a business if said business does not earn more. The economy is all about money moving through the system; what happened to us is that money availability dropped off and the gears of the economy ground to a halt. Once the banks stopped making loans, the economy could not function. Too much money was locked up in investments and was not moving about the economy, which was very bad as those investments turned out to be bad and evaporated the value of the investments, taking banking system (the #1 investor) with it.

Taxes money is spent by the government, not saved; it goes to pay people's salaries, pay for equipment, or is used in programs like welfare or education which see it spent and pushed out in the economy. By taking from the wealthiest, who generally save their excess money instead of spending it and spending it on the poor, that money gets pushed into the system and helps keeps the economy moving.

Tax cuts though, when targeted at those that generally save, don't help the economy because it just gets shut out of the economy into savings. Tax cuts for those that will spend that money is stimulative, provided that it gets spent.

Now, there can be too many taxes too, when it stifles the economy by drawing out too much from investing. The Reagan era had the best balance IMHO opinion, but the Clinton era then had lower levels than Reagan. Enough funds have to be available to allow the government to cover its expenses, which can prevent overborrowing, something the the Bush administration forgot. Without the Bush tax cuts, which did nothing to help the economy, rather, it expanded the realestate bubble by freeing up more money for investing while taking it out of the economy and opening up severe budget deficits during a war, the budget would be balanced during the recession and during a war in Afghanistan. Granted, the decreased tax revenue and the increased spending abroad would leave us with a mild deficit, but this wouldn't leave us heavily in debt to China or nearly to the point of crippling debt that will take generations to get out of.
 

Deleted member 1487

The point is that Iraq had chemical weapons capability, and it theoretically could have waged war with nerve agents.

No, your article states that these 'legacy' weapons were inert and useless while production facilities no longer existed after 1991.
 
The point is that Iraq had chemical weapons capability, and it theoretically could have waged war with nerve agents.

Not to be a jerk or combative, but the article doesn't support your position.

I will give you the point that the article did say that Iraq declared two bunkers of filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions of dubious quality, but didn't say anything about delivery systems. What good are munitions if you can't use them?
 
1) Yes, not because I think Gore is a great leader or that Bush is a bad one, but simply because of priorities. Many of the policies of the Clinton administration were superior to the Bush administration, both fiscally and militarily, which Gore had promised to continue. Also, given the rampant cronyism and "yes men" mentality of the Bush administration, especially with regards to the Iraq mess, the Gore administration promised to offer more of a professional and capable leadership. Now, as we never will know for fact how Gore would have run things, I cannot offer proof positive, but I can extrapolate some expectations from the Clinton administration. Based on how Clinton ran things (he also had to deal with a Republican congress, something that Gore would be managing too, which IMO could offer positive things for the US), his administration was in many ways much more competent in handling things for the good of the nation, rather than the profit of a few.

This is all based off conjecture.

2) Tax money moving from one person to another: this is what the economy is all about, money passing from one set of hands to another to pay for goods and services; if there is not money being earned and used, businesses cannot keep their doors open. It doesn't matter if all the money in the world is invested in a business if said business does not earn more. The economy is all about money moving through the system; what happened to us is that money availability dropped off and the gears of the economy ground to a halt. Once the banks stopped making loans, the economy could not function. Too much money was locked up in investments and was not moving about the economy, which was very bad as those investments turned out to be bad and evaporated the value of the investments, taking banking system (the #1 investor) with it.

Taxes money is spent by the government, not saved; it goes to pay people's salaries, pay for equipment, or is used in programs like welfare or education which see it spent and pushed out in the economy. By taking from the wealthiest, who generally save their excess money instead of spending it and spending it on the poor, that money gets pushed into the system and helps keeps the economy moving.

Tax cuts though, when targeted at those that generally save, don't help the economy because it just gets shut out of the economy into savings. Tax cuts for those that will spend that money is stimulative, provided that it gets spent.

The poor and middle class also save their excess money. You make it sound like the rich hoard money. They also spend enormous amounts on various products.

The economy is helped by purchasing and selling, not by the government moving money around. Just because the government is deciding who deserves more money and who deserves less doesn't mean that the economy is going to be benefited. The point is that you need to encourage people to work harder. Progressive income taxes to pay for social security and welfare discourage extra income, because the return is less.

It seems like you are saying that tax cuts allowed the rich people locked up money in their investments, leaving too little to circulate in the economy.

However, taxes paid by millionaires more than doubled from 2003 to 2006.

(I know the full article is only available to subscribers, but the point is the same.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

If the rich have more money, they are going to spend it more. Generally, wealthier people like to "invest" in homes, cars, and other property which cannot be created without economic stimulation. Rich people spend plenty of money, and less taxes means more money to spend.
 
Not to be a jerk or combative, but the article doesn't support your position.

I will give you the point that the article did say that Iraq declared two bunkers of filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions of dubious quality, but didn't say anything about delivery systems. What good are munitions if you can't use them?

They could use scuds...
 
Scuds would be no threat to the USA, UK (45 minutes my arse) or indeed anyone apart from Israel. And after what happened when Saddam used Scuds there in the Gulf War, I think he'd think very carefully before doing so for no good reason. Also, the USAAF working with the Israelis could probably destroy any Scud sites that started being set up, as from my understanding the USA pretty much had all of Iraq covered by no-fly-zones and satellite imaging during this period.

In an attempt to steer this verging-on-CP argument back on topic, I think given the above that Gore would eventually opt for the softer option of publicly blowing up some delivery systems and enacting a CIA-backed coup within Iraq rather than the... 'liberation' invasion that happened IOTL.
 
Scuds would be no threat to the USA, UK (45 minutes my arse) or indeed anyone apart from Israel. And after what happened when Saddam used Scuds there in the Gulf War, I think he'd think very carefully before doing so for no good reason. Also, the USAAF working with the Israelis could probably destroy any Scud sites that started being set up, as from my understanding the USA pretty much had all of Iraq covered by no-fly-zones and satellite imaging during this period.

In an attempt to steer this verging-on-CP argument back on topic, I think given the above that Gore would eventually opt for the softer option of publicly blowing up some delivery systems and enacting a CIA-backed coup within Iraq rather than the... 'liberation' invasion that happened IOTL.

I agree with you on the scuds, if Iraq still possessed them. I remember at the very beginning of the 2003 war, there was supposedly a scud attack after the initial strike on Dora Farms but I never remember it being a confirmed scud attack or just a missile attack on the Iraq-Kuwait border launched by Iraqi forces.

As for Iraq in the foreign policy agenda of Gore, it would be pretty low after the 9/11 attacks (or whenever they occur ITTL). Gore will continue the Clinton policy of no-fly zone patrols and nothing more unless Saddam does something completely stupid to focus the world's attention on him.
 
Also, the USAAF working with the Israelis could probably destroy any Scud sites that started being set up, as from my understanding the USA pretty much had all of Iraq covered by no-fly-zones and satellite imaging during this period.

*head desk* the stupid, it burns *head desk*
 
Try to remember that this isn't Political Chat.

Someone in this thread suggested the possibility of a Republican "Hope and Change" candidate. Four straight Democratic terms and the housing crisis will make the 2008 Republican challenger practically a shoo-in.
 
There would certainly be no Constellation program(which never had a chance anyway:(). I think the space program might end up where it (might) be, without a lot of political histrionics and about nine billion dollars spent, since the COTS program predates the hypothetical Gore administration.
 
Top