^
I don't think U.S. under Gore would have invaded Iraq, his political thinking is opposite to that of Bush's Neoconservative & Evangelical one. He's done much to highlight the danger that is Climate Change. But no I don't think he'd of invaded Iraq.
To exercise your right to vote is very important. Much blood has been shed for this 'Human right'.
Whoever comes into the WhiteHouse will not bring Death or Destruction to Muslims, unless an external factor such as a '9/11' occurs. Even if Iran moves ever closer towards a nuke, there is no way that the already stretched U.S. Military could cope with a 3rd conflict against a country who's majority of citizens are behind their government's policies.
I'm fairly confident that Barrack/Hillary/John/Mit or whoever, won't bring Death and Destruction.
Minaz;
I think your analysis
vis a vis Gore is too superficial.
Many people dont realize this but regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by....wait for it......
President Bill Clinton.
The act directed that:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Almost sounds kinda Neocon, doesn't it? I have a vague recollection that Gore had some role in the Clinton administration. So, if Clinton had become room temperature for some reason, then Gore would have had a solemn obligation to pursue the goal as he would have sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of the nation. Perhaps Bush's fault is he took his job too seriously.
Certainly, Gore, as President would have faced unstoppable pressure to do
something after 9-11.
Here is a hilarious bit of hypocrisy about Gore's concern for his "carbon footprint"...from the New York Times
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y-headline-gores-electric-bills-spark-debate/
February 28, 2007, 9:08 am
An Inconveniently Easy Headline: Gore’s Electric Bills Spark Debate
By Tom Zeller Jr.
An obscure conservative group in Tennessee claims to be offering up the utility bills on Al Gore’s 10,000-square-foot Nashville mansion (wow!) as evidence that the former vice president doesn’t put his money where his mouth is on conservation.
Needless to say, the caterwaul on both sides of the fence is deafening — particularly in its overuse of cheeky variations on “An Inconvenient … Something.”
The group, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, issued its statement a day after the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which tracked Mr. Gore’s campaign to educate the world about the ravages of global warming, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. By its count, Mr. Gore’s mansion “consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year,” the statement said.
But here is where the story gets a little blurry.
The group cited some ****ing kilowatt-consumption figures — 221,000 for the Gores in 2006, compared with the American average of 10,656, for instance — which, it said, were obtained from the Nashville Electric Service. It put the Gores’ average monthly electric bill at $1,359. Of course, those figures immediately rocketed through cyberspace. From Britain’s Guardian newspaper this morning:
By yesterday the news of Mr. Gore’s energy bills was flying around the Internet at a rate which, were the web petrol-powered, would have led to instant sea level rises. Conservative and libertarian bloggers, from Instapundit to Hot Air and Red State, luxuriated over the details, while progressive and liberal blogs led by the Huffington Post tried to discredit the report by describing it as a typical smear campaign. It had been timed for the Oscars, the Post’s blogger said, by a group that had no official status and had connections with right-wing groups funded by ExxonMobil.
The Associated Press, however, apparently asked a spokeswoman from the Nashville utility company, Laurie Parker, if the policy group had actually obtained the information from them, and she said the utility never got a request from the policy center and that no information was ever turned over to them.
So the A.P. decided to review the utility records itself, and came up with slightly different kilowatt consumption numbers: 191,000 for the Gores in 2006 — compared to a typical Nashville home of 15,500 kilowatts.
