Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?

[wimp]

i think he would; "no" just seems like liberal wishful thinking.

[darklordoftech]

No. He wouldn’t act against France’s or Germany’s wishes and he wouldn’t see an invasion as worth it.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Clinton signed the bipartisan Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, and we can imagine that Republicans and some Democrats (remembering Lieberman would have been VP) would have been pressuring Gore to go after Saddam or be painted as weak, especially if his administration is blamed for 9/11. I can see a UN weapons inspection crisis much as OTL happens: Gore gets a UN resolution requiring Saddam let in the inspectors on the threat of invasion, they go in, find nothing much and the crisis fizzles out. Probably he does a round of bombing like Clinton did, but committing hundreds of thousands of US troops to a full blown invasion I think would be too big a step to make. Crucially Gore wouldn't have the Neocon foreign policy team around him who pushed the invasion of Iraq mainly as an ideological project to reshape the Middle East in their image.

Also keep in mind that the first year or so of his Presidency Gore's main foreign policy focus would be getting international agreement on combating climate change, and pissing off the entire world to go into Iraq would scupper that.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Israel was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion because they were more worried about Iran than Saddam Hussein.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Israel was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion because they were more worried about Iran than Saddam Hussein.

The Israeli government took a public "ambivalent" stand, but Sharon gave clearance for Netanyahu to talk to congress in favor of invasion.

[TDAS04]

No.  He would have kept the focus on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

He may not be as hawkish as Bush, but those who say “thank God Gore wasn’t President on 9-11” are just wrong.  Gore wouldn’t have been distracted from the actual perpetrators of 9-11.

[darklordoftech]

No.  He would have kept the focus on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

He may not be as hawkish as Bush, but those who say “thank God Gore wasn’t President on 9-11” are just wrong.  Gore wouldn’t have been distracted from the actual perpetrators of 9-11.

Correct, and Gore would have sent troops into Tora Bora, capturing or killing Bin Laden.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Israel was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion because they were more worried about Iran than Saddam Hussein.

The Israeli government took a public "ambivalent" stand, but Sharon gave clearance for Netanyahu to talk to congress in favor of invasion.

Netanyahu wasn't part of the Israeli government. If they cared that much then they would have lobbied themselves.

[Pericles]

Bush went out of his way to invade Iraq because he had a vendetta against Saddam for trying to kill his dad, it wasn't an inevitable thing. So NO.

[vitoNova]

Not only would he not have invaded Iraq, but Osama Bin Laden would have been killed or captured 1-2 years after US forces touched down in Afghanistan.

Assuming 911 would have even occurred under a Gore Administration, of course. 

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Unlikely, but possible. Joe Lieberman was a neo con who could be like Dick Cheney. Bill Clinton also authorized cruise missile and air strikes a lot in the 90's against Iraq.

[darklordoftech]

In addition to everything else that’s been said, Lieberman would be powerless in a Gore administration and the people giving him intelligence and advice wouldn’t be neocons, which, combined with being VP under a Democrat, could change the direction Lieberman’s career goes in and the views that Lieberman develops.

[SInNYC]

When in congress, Gore was a hawk and one of the strongest Democratic supporters of increased military spending. But he wouldnt have invaded Iraq, considering Saddam was one of Al Qaeda's biggest enemis. He probably would have done a bunch of random bombings in assorted places just to prove that he is tough though.

Congressional Rs also would have made the country ungovernable, attributing 9/11 to '12 years of Clinton/Gore's decimation of the military'.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

....

[All Along The Watchtower]

Congressional Rs also would have made the country ungovernable, attributing 9/11 to '12 years of Clinton/Gore's decimation of the military'.

^^^

Republicans got a lot of mileage out of Clinton's draft-dodging and the perception that Clinton was "nation-building" with humanitarian interventions and misusing the US military. They would have crucified Gore.

(Never-mind the fact that much of the Base Closure and Realignment stuff and job losses in defense-related industries had happened in the late Reagan-Bush era.)

[Badger]

Congressional Rs also would have made the country ungovernable, attributing 9/11 to '12 years of Clinton/Gore's decimation of the military'.

^^^

Republicans got a lot of mileage out of Clinton's draft-dodging and the perception that Clinton was "nation-building" with humanitarian interventions and misusing the US military. They would have crucified Gore.

(Never-mind the fact that much of the Base Closure and Realignment stuff and job losses in defense-related industries had happened in the late Reagan-Bush era.)

Agreed. And to answer the question, not a chance.

[KaiserDave]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Just do us all a favor and say "Jews" already. The mask is off.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Just do us all a favor and say "Jews" already. The mask is off.

Sigh!  Double sigh!

Being anti-Zionist isn't the same as anti-Semitic.

But the bigger sigh is for thinking the Israeli leadership thought getting rid of Saddam would help Israel.  Ever since the Revolution, Iran has been a bigger problem for Israel than any of the Arab states.  From an Israeli perspective, Saddam's guaranteed antagonism towards Iran was a positive than more than compensated for his attempts to bolster his pan-Arab credentials by supporting the Palestinians, since that was something they could at that time reasonably expect any Arab leader to at least pay lip service to.

[KaiserDave]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Just do us all a favor and say "Jews" already. The mask is off.

Sigh!  Double sigh!

Being anti-Zionist isn't the same as anti-Semitic.

But the bigger sigh is for thinking the Israeli leadership thought getting rid of Saddam would help Israel.  Ever since the Revolution, Iran has been a bigger problem for Israel than any of the Arab states.  From an Israeli perspective, Saddam's guaranteed antagonism towards Iran was a positive than more than compensated for his attempts to bolster his pan-Arab credentials by supporting the Palestinians, since that was something they could at that time reasonably expect any Arab leader to at least pay lip service to.

Of course it’s not necessarily but this is obviously anti Semitism in this case from this poster, c'mon use your head and save your sighs for something else.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Just do us all a favor and say "Jews" already. The mask is off.

Sigh!  Double sigh!

Being anti-Zionist isn't the same as anti-Semitic.

But the bigger sigh is for thinking the Israeli leadership thought getting rid of Saddam would help Israel.  Ever since the Revolution, Iran has been a bigger problem for Israel than any of the Arab states.  From an Israeli perspective, Saddam's guaranteed antagonism towards Iran was a positive than more than compensated for his attempts to bolster his pan-Arab credentials by supporting the Palestinians, since that was something they could at that time reasonably expect any Arab leader to at least pay lip service to.

Of course it’s not necessarily but this is obviously anti Semitism in this case from this poster, c'mon use your head and save your sighs for something else.

Unlike some people, I don't obsess over every other poster, and this one has never attracted my notice before.

[KaiserDave]

Gore would have done what Israel wanted, like every other President.

Just do us all a favor and say "Jews" already. The mask is off.

Sigh!  Double sigh!

Being anti-Zionist isn't the same as anti-Semitic.

But the bigger sigh is for thinking the Israeli leadership thought getting rid of Saddam would help Israel.  Ever since the Revolution, Iran has been a bigger problem for Israel than any of the Arab states.  From an Israeli perspective, Saddam's guaranteed antagonism towards Iran was a positive than more than compensated for his attempts to bolster his pan-Arab credentials by supporting the Palestinians, since that was something they could at that time reasonably expect any Arab leader to at least pay lip service to.

Of course it’s not necessarily but this is obviously anti Semitism in this case from this poster, c'mon use your head and save your sighs for something else.

Unlike some people, I don't obsess over every other poster, and this one has never attracted my notice before.

Well suffice it to say he likes to talk about (((Israel))) and the (((globalists))) a lot.

[(no subject)]

At this point in the discussion the point is always raised that hostility to Israel, and even the assertion that Israel has no right to exist – in other words anti-Zionism – is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, which is hostility to Jews as Jews, not to Israel as a state. Are there not Jews who hold anti-Zionist views (it is said), and does this not prove that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism?

As a proposition in logic, that is undeniable. There are many Jews who reject Zionism, although they are a small proportion of all the Jews in the world. They include both leftist secular intellectuals such as Shlomo Sand and Noam Chomsky, and some ultra-Orthodox sects such as Satmar, which reject secular Zionism as blasphemous. Therefore it cannot be asserted that to be an anti-Zionist is also, automatically, to be an anti-Semite.

But in practice this argument doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. For the great majority of the world’s Jews, now and throughout history, identification with the Land of Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and the belief that the Jews should and will return there, has been and is still central to their identity as Jews, and this is true of both religious and secular Jews. To deny the legitimacy of that identity and that aspiration is in effect an attack on the Jewish people, and is experienced as such by the great majority of Jews.

In practice, most of those who most vocally espouse anti-Zionism, whether from a Muslim background or from a secular leftist background, also explicitly or implicitly espouse one or more of the traditional tropes of anti-Semitic rhetoric. The most powerful of these are that the Jews are uniquely powerful and influential, that they work together as a secret international cabal, that they control the world financial system and the world media, and that they use their power to manipulate governments for their own benefit.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has developed a “Working Definition of Antisemitism”, which has been adopted by many governments and international organisations. It includes among others the following elements:

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This makes it clear that denying the legitimate and permanent existence of the state of Israel, and calling for its abolition or destruction, is inherently anti-Semitic, and needs to be called out as such when it occurs.

[darklordoftech]

At this point in the discussion the point is always raised that hostility to Israel, and even the assertion that Israel has no right to exist – in other words anti-Zionism – is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, which is hostility to Jews as Jews, not to Israel as a state. Are there not Jews who hold anti-Zionist views (it is said), and does this not prove that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism?

As a proposition in logic, that is undeniable. There are many Jews who reject Zionism, although they are a small proportion of all the Jews in the world. They include both leftist secular intellectuals such as Shlomo Sand and Noam Chomsky, and some ultra-Orthodox sects such as Satmar, which reject secular Zionism as blasphemous. Therefore it cannot be asserted that to be an anti-Zionist is also, automatically, to be an anti-Semite.

But in practice this argument doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. For the great majority of the world’s Jews, now and throughout history, identification with the Land of Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and the belief that the Jews should and will return there, has been and is still central to their identity as Jews, and this is true of both religious and secular Jews. To deny the legitimacy of that identity and that aspiration is in effect an attack on the Jewish people, and is experienced as such by the great majority of Jews.

In practice, most of those who most vocally espouse anti-Zionism, whether from a Muslim background or from a secular leftist background, also explicitly or implicitly espouse one or more of the traditional tropes of anti-Semitic rhetoric. The most powerful of these are that the Jews are uniquely powerful and influential, that they work together as a secret international cabal, that they control the world financial system and the world media, and that they use their power to manipulate governments for their own benefit.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has developed a “Working Definition of Antisemitism”, which has been adopted by many governments and international organisations. It includes among others the following elements:

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This makes it clear that denying the legitimate and permanent existence of the state of Israel, and calling for its abolition or destruction, is inherently anti-Semitic, and needs to be called out as such when it occurs.

https://memegenerator.net/instance/75077259/stay-on-topic-star-wars-stay-on-topic

[NewYorkExpress]

Gore might well have invaded Iraq...if Bin Laden was captured in Tora Bora or later on.

He's not dumb enough to fight two wars at once.