706
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
706 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3784 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
War and using the its personnel as cannon fodder is fully bipartisan
The Iraq war would not have happened if Al Gore was president. Bipartisan my ass.
Is that all you got? Really though, it was a pet project for bush and cheney. There's pre 9/11 statements that suggest they were brainstorming ways to go to Iraq. The fact the WMD shit was never prosecuted is simply a failure of our political and legal systems.
There also pre911 data showing the government was aware of the potential threat of destroying WTC during Clinton. Gore would have gone to war
Are you talking about this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
No wars were started after the first WTC attack
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/us/clinton-aides-plan-to-tell-panel-of-warning-bush-team-on-qaeda.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2004/4/14/clinton-administration-blamed-for-9
not sure what point you're making. Are you suggesting Gore would have prevented 9/11?
He would not have prevented 9/11. Things would have played out exactly as they did
You could make an argument that supports such conjecture, but the reality is we don't know that. At the end of the day we're speculating about alternative realities. What if hitler was shot in WW1, would WW2 have happened? Probably. But it would have looked very different.
I don't see Gore invading Iraq, there's nothing that supports that. There is however the idea that the Iraq invasion still occurs but at a later date because there's a lot of people in US politics that wanted it.
In Afghanistan? Sure, I'd accept that any administration faced with the successful WTC attack would likely have ultimately reacted a similar way. Though there is some data suggesting that intelligence agencies were a bit off due to the delay in transition from the Florida indecision, so a more decisive election either way might have caused the agencies to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Maybe there's a case to be made of it being handled better, but I can't think of any data to suggest either way how that hypothetical would have gone.
However, the thread specifically mentioned the Iraq war, which was a distinctly Bush/Cheney adventure. Even in the vague "Middle East" starter, it would have been fewer, by virtue of at least limiting the engagement to Afghanistan. Iraq would have been left to its own devices in a Gore presidency.
There was the option of going in with special Forces units only; essentially hunting and killing bin-Ladn without attacking the Taliban directly. Bush chose regime change because he wanted to build a pipeline across the country.
I wasn’t aware that the US built a pipeline in Afghanistan, can you give more details?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan%E2%80%93Afghanistan%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93India_Pipeline#:~:text=The%20Turkmenistan%E2%80%93Afghanistan%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93India%20%28TAPI%29%20Gas%20Pipeline%2C%20also%20known%20as,Limited%20with%20participation%20of%20the%20Asian%20Development%20Bank.
It's always about stealing resources
Gore would not have gone to war in IRAQ. That is ridiculous.
Removed, civility.
Look at the vote counts. 🤷