In another forum:
So…let’s say Gore [i]had[/i] won. How would the world be different today? Thoughts?
9/11 probably would have happened anyway.
Afghanistan would have been done in greater force, though given the Afghan’s fondness for invaders, whether or not things would be better or worse now is an open question.
The US wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, so thousands of people would still be alive.
The US wouldn’t have squandered all that goodwill, enabling it to do who knows what instead.
Would have signed on to Kyoto, and hopefully already moved on to pursuing something more effective.
Congress would have been busy nipping at his heels, instead of playing lap dog.
How’s that?
[quote=“Jaboney”]
The US wouldn’t have squandered all that goodwill[/quote]
What goodwill?
And Saddam would still be feeding thousands into his German-made papershredders. His sons would still be out beheading women on the streets.
The Senate rejected Kyoto 93-0. How would Gore being President have changed that?
What goodwill? Please.
Kyoto could have been done with leadership and bargaining. Would have been tough, but it might have been done. As it was, who’d be willing to be painted with the anti-job environmental loony brush when there was no hope of passing the bill?
Oh, yes, another way in which the world might be different: a Gore administration would have pushed very hard for higher mileage standards, and with more reasonable products available, Detroit automakers might not have their asses in a sling at the moment. Similarly, with a different energy policy and no war in Iraq, the price of oil may well not have spiked, driving the gas guzzlers to the brink. Hell, you could combine those two: sacrifice Kyoto in order to get higher mileage standards-- standard political bargaining. Net result: cleaner air and more jobs than the Bush admin. delivered by insulating American industry and making it less competitive.
Thoughts of algore winning still seem to inspire wet dream fantasies. It is amazing.
Can anyone remember a certain oil reserve field?
So, you think that Detroit is in trouble because their cars aren’t as fuel efficient as the imports? Detroit is in trouble for the inefficient management and labor structures that they have used for the last 40 years.
[quote=“Doctor Evil”]In another forum:
So…let’s say Gore [i]had[/i] won. How would the world be different today? Thoughts?[/quote]
We’d have peace and prosperity, we’d be fixing global warming, and America would be respected throughout the world.
No, but the lack of competitiveness is a part of the reason.
Another part is inefficient management, the cost of private health insurance for workers, yadda yadda yadda…
But one of the first things consumers look at is mileage, particularly when the price at the pumps is high.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Thoughts of algore winning still seem to inspire wet dream fantasies. It is amazing.[/quote] Hardly a wet dream; an alternative to the nightmare.
That sounds right to me, but how does this square with the idea that the government command is necessary to force Detroit to make high-mileage cars?
It almost sounds like you are saying:
color=blue Consumers want high-mileage cars. Thus, no government coercion is needed. The market will give Detroit the incentive to produce high-mileage cars.[/color]
and also saying:
color=red Consumers don’t really want high-mileage cars. That’s why the government needs to institute mileage standards – to force the auto-makers to produce high-efficiency vehicles in quantities above that which the market demands.[/color]
Both (a) and (b) seem internally consistent to me as stand-alone propositions, but how do you fit them together?
[quote=“Chris”]
We’d have peace and prosperity, we’d be fixing global warming, and America would be respected throughout the world.[/quote]
We haven’t had peace or respect since at least 1941. What planet are you on?
And Saddam would still be feeding thousands into his German-made papershredders. His sons would still be out beheading women on the streets. [/quote]
So, was that the justification for the invasion then? The infamous shredding of people.
Of course similar things may be going on under dictatorships today in places like…North Korea. But they don’t have any oil.
But anyway, why was Iraq invaded again?
That was a weapon of mass people shredding, dude. don’t be so flippant.
Hmm, in a world where Bush lost and whatisname won? Less jokes, certainly less political satire. Possibly Americans would be less sentsitive to perceived slurs on their country?
Afghanistan would in all likelihood have been invaded anyway. Maybe not Iraq. I think that would have been a good thing. However, since they’ve trashed anything resembling authority in Iraq, the US and others need to stay the distance now.
HG
[quote=“Truant”]
But anyway, why was Iraq invaded again?[/quote]
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Chris”]
We’d have peace and prosperity, we’d be fixing global warming, and America would be respected throughout the world.[/quote]
We haven’t had peace or respect since at least 1941.[/quote]
More like 2001. We enjoyed peace and international respect under Clinton’s masterful stewardship.
A remote, mostly harmless planet called Earth. You should come visit it sometime! 
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Truant”]
But anyway, why was Iraq invaded again?[/quote]
[/quote]
Is that answering the serious question? 
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Chris”]
We’d have peace and prosperity, we’d be fixing global warming, and America would be respected throughout the world.[/quote]
We haven’t had peace or respect since at least 1941.[/quote]
More like 2001. We enjoyed peace and international respect under Clinton’s masterful stewardship.
[/quote]
Not a poli-sci fantic like some of you, but I do recall the Clinton era to have a bit more peace, at least at home. He was able to keep the terrorism in other countries, the economy a bit above water, and people seemed to be doing well. I don’t know if we enjoyed international respect under his stewardship, but at least we were able to have decent diologues with other nations, that often resulted in some sort of progress.
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Truant”]
But anyway, why was Iraq invaded again?[/quote]
[/quote]
Is that answering the serious question? [/quote]
It’s the answer the question deserves.
[quote=“Namahottie”]
Not a poli-sci fantic like some of you, but I do recall the Clinton era to have a bit more peace…[/quote]
Yep…Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia…Somalia…wonderful.
President Bill Clinton, 16 Dec 1998:
[quote] Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [/quote]
[quote=“Chris”]
We enjoyed peace and international respect under Clinton’s masterful stewardship.[/quote]
We were the laughing stock of the world with that moron.
Here’s great example of how the French respected us:
Fox News would introduce every news program with a reminder: “Today is October 26th, 2006, the 1871st day since 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is still at liberty.”
The Republicans would have a big flip chart, and everyday they’d invite somebody new-
politicians, celebrities, ordinary Americans- to flip it over to remind people that it’s been
_____ days since 9/11 and Osama bin Laden has not been caught
Al Gore would have faced impeachment hearings for failing to capture Osama bin Laden.