A Month With Gore As The President...

Remove all ads!

Ok, lets say that Al Gore gets to be come the President for a month. Durring this time America stopps being "The World Police" as some put it, and does the exact opsite of what Bush did.

What do you think would happen?

I think Iraq and Norht Korea would see their chance and nuke the hell out of the US, Terrorist would distroy the small towns that Iraq and N. Korea didn't want to waste their nukes and bio weapons on. And by the end of the month America would become one big smoking hole in the ground while the rest of the world just looks on, hoping not to get involved.
Then after the US had been distroyed, the toxic gasses, and radiation drift over to Europe and start disfiguring and killing people. Then suddenly the rest of the world realizes what morons they were when they didn't think Iraq and N. Korea were real threats. But their time to act passed about a month before...and now the world is just like Veinus, with no living things, just a big ball of toxic gasses.

 

exactly why we want Bush off the seat, as you see there's no need for him

 

Sorry, babe. It doesn't quite work like that.

"No living humans" might very well be accurate. We've not quite gotten far enough, technologically, to wipe out everything.

 

To be honest, that "becoming Venus" thingie really solved the problem didnt it??

 

Sorry, EJ, like I've said in other places:

That's what makes our species unique.
Now, onto the topic! Finally! A fellow republican! Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?

 

Now, having Gore in the White House scares me, but I have to say that no matter what he did, North Korea will never be able to get a delivery system that could hit the US, and neither could Iraq. If the US backed off, they'd start pushing around their neighbours, countries that would give them more tangible benefits to attacking, like South Korea and Japan for the North Koreans, and Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (not to mention Israel) for the Iraqis.

 

Do you really belive that?

I have two friens that immigrated from Iran, and several friends that came from Japan. Are you saying you would just let another country attack and possibly distroy another country for no good reason?

I am not totaly against war if it is done without using any nuclear or bio chemical weapons. If N. Korea wants to fight a war with a bunch of guys weilding guns and bazookas, then more power to them.

 

even if they could get the nukes, they would never use them because they know that the US's counter attack would completely wipe them off the face of the planet, america is too big and too over populated to invade, their weapons wouldnt be powerful enough to make their mark.

with regards to pushing around their neighbours?
if iraq pushed around its neighbours then israel would blow them back to the stoneage.
if NK pushed around its neighbours..... er.. south korea? oh, what a shame they really get alot from that dont they, china? i'd love to see them try

 

It is true,

Neither Iraq nor N Korea have a delivery system capable of getting anywhere near the US. Nor Europe other than Cyprus at a push from Iraq.

Now go back two years and tell me Iraq were about to bomb the US. Well, were they?

Now go back the same two years and tell me N Korea were about to bomb the US. Well, were they?

Of course they were not, and for the same reasons they would not now, even if they had a remote chance of doing so (which they don't). It really doesn't matter who is charge in the US, Iraq, N Korea, Syria couldn't club together a sandwich, leave alone an attack on the US. None of these countries are a credible threat to the US or US interests.

This does not mean they are no threat to their neighbours, BUT no more or less than they were before Bush came into power, unless you credit that Bush's tough talk and tough policies are actually making for less stable times rather than more.

 

I dont think there would be that much of a difference, Gore might have been a little smoother and tried a little harder to win the world opinion. But the democrats and republicans do tend to be pretty similar in their views of war on troublesome states. Gore migth not have been as keen on war on Iraq as Bush II as he would have a slightly higher legitamecy due to being elected and not appointed and thus not needed to turn the american eye abroad to keep up the approval ratings. The whole Afganistan and Al-Qaida issue would most likey have been handled as it has been handled.

 

I think it woulda been...

...gory.

 

If Gore was president he wouldn't have done anything after September 11th and the government wouldn't be doing anything in general.

 

i love the way you all assume this, for all we know he could have been a way better president then bush, and if he had won (which he did) then we would be sitting here dissing bush instead

 

shoshino,

Gore didn't win. If he did, he would be president. He played, he lost. If you want to claim he was cheated fine, claim that. I wouldn't recommend it though, that would start a debate that has no factual answer. I would put this out however. Gore didn't even win in his own home state. Even Dukakis, who got smoked by Bush 41 in the electoral college, won his own state.

If the people who know you best won't vote for you...

 

Gore did win, but that doesnt really matter. The victor writes history and I am sure that Bush has deleted all his tracks during his time in the oval office. The election was incredible shady and if it had been in some third world nation with election inspectors they would probably have dismissed it.

 

recounting the votes because a few people 'may' have misunderstoot how to vote is not grounds for a reelection

 

Kitrix, you misread me -- I DO NOT think the U.S. should back off -- I think that if they DID, Iraq and N. Korea would start doing horrible things. I'm arguing that the U.S. should stay involved not out of a sense of self-preservation, but to defend its allies abroad.

I support America's present military stance, no question -- never doubt that!

Does that make more sense?

[ February 13, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Depaara ]

 

Why do people always assume that the only way to deliver nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is with a missile?

 

I'm not sure what the N. Koreans have in the way of missle delivery. A few weeks ago I read an article where state dept officials said they believed N.Korea had a missle capable of reaching western US. Doing a quick search, N. Korea in 1997 was developing the Taepo-Dong 2 missle which had a 6,000 kilometer range. Whether this is the same missle they were talking about recently or not I'm not sure. The concern in 1997, and I suppose it is relevant today, is that N. Korea had exported every missle it had ever built sometimes before they were even deployed. For example, the Scud missles to Iran, Lybia, and Syria. We do know beyond dispute N. Korea is capable of reaching Japan.

Here is the 1997 report:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1997_h/s-hrg-105-241.htm

I'll keep my eye out for the most recent article.