06-12-2003 06:25									#31
	Got spare money?

West versus the rest. Open your markets or die! ^_^

Even the chinese have come around.

The USA is just delievering the final blow for western civilization. Some help would be appricated guys.

	06-12-2003 06:41									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Possibly in his second term

	06-12-2003 06:46									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Osweld Why do some people seem to be connecting the invasion of Iraq as some sort of response to 9/11?

Because of Saddam's link to terrorism and his WMD.

	06-12-2003 06:47									#34
	Suffering from ads?

no banana option?

	06-12-2003 06:49									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sava Probably... but not as early as Bush as Gore would have actually exhausted all diplomatic options instead of pretending to. But I think that's irrelevant because I don't believe 9-11 would have happened if Gore were president, just because he would have made Clinton's anti-terror policy suggestions into reality instead of instituting Operation Ignore.

That's a BIG assumption to make.

	06-12-2003 06:53									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned Because of Saddam's link to terrorism and his WMD.

Ned, why do you have to serve as a constant embarrassment to me - every time I point out to Sava that we aren't ALL fox-watching, Coulter-loving ideological parrots, you come along.

	06-12-2003 06:54									#37
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Because of Saddam's link to terrorism

Do you mean the mortar attack on 10th Downing Street, happening about the same time as England WAS in war with Iraq, making any attack by Iraq on English soil legitimate?

(not in my heart, but by legal standards)

	06-12-2003 06:55									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: instead the Clinton administration was focused on domestic terrorists like the Branch Dividians, and a mother and her child at ruby ridge.

Ruby Ridge occured under Bush 1 and the Waco disaster occured very soon after Clinton took office, i.e., the apparatus responsible for Waco was created by Reagan/Bush and the militarization of law enforcement in the name of fighting the drug war.

	06-12-2003 07:13									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Saddam long had links to terrorism. He had a terrorist training base in Iraq. He was linked to al Qaida.

Saddam had WMD (at least at one time) and had demostrated his willingness to use them.

Saddam was still at war with the US and Britain due to the no fly zones and his lack of cooperation on the weapons inspections.

9/11 demostrated that terrorists could strike in the US with devastaing effect. At the time of 9/11, a mild anthrax attack nearly shut down our government.

Saddam reputedly had tons of anthrax. He reputedly had tons of other bio and chemical weapons.

We feared that Saddam would give those weapons to terrorists who would use them with devastating effect in the US.

Finally, Saddam refused to cooperate fully with the UN despite a final ultimatum.

Get it now?

	06-12-2003 07:15									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Skywalker, just because Ann Coulter is a bit bizzare is no reason not to laugh with her rather than at her. We all do not have to be overly intellectual aboul liberalism, or is that, libertinism.

	06-12-2003 07:17									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The WMD issue is still up for debate. However, IIRC we decided quite a while ago that Saddam was not linked to 9-11 or terrorism.

	06-12-2003 07:32									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

skywalker, I think you are studiously missing the point.

	06-12-2003 07:51									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Blah blah blah...

I could go through and replace every "saddam" with "USA" but it's been done a million times.


And there is no evidence that Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda, at all. Isn't Iraq a secular state, anyways? I don't see why the Jihad would be any fan of Saddam.

quote: 9/11 demostrated that terrorists could strike in the US with devastaing effect. At the time of 9/11, a mild anthrax attack nearly shut down our government.

Did they ever find out who made the anthrax attacks? I'm pretty sure it was domestic terrorism, there was nothing at the time which indicated it was Al-Qaeda's doing. Killing a couple journalists with anthrax would be a pretty pathetic follow up after the synchronized plane crashes.

quote: Saddam reputedly had tons of anthrax. He reputedly had tons of other bio and chemical weapons.

And there is reputedly a man in the moon.

	06-12-2003 07:58									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Osweld, how can you say there was no evidence of a link between al Qaida and Saddam. Even if one does not have a formal alliance written in stone, one can infer a link by circumstantial evidence. We laid that evidene out before the war. Since the war, we have indeed uncovered documents showing the cooperation back to 1993.

On the anthrax attack, the point is not that it came from terrorists, but that it was effective and was terrorizing. We believed before the war that Saddam had tons of anthrax.

Now, if you truly believed before the war that Saddam did not have tons of anthrax, on what basis did you base your belief?

	06-12-2003 09:35									#45
	Got spare money?

Since this thread is mysteriously located in the Civ2-MP forum now, the real question to ask is, if Gore invaded Iraq, what settings would he use?

	06-12-2003 09:46									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Al Gore wouldn't have had the guts required to deal with Iraq.

	06-12-2003 10:22									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It is, of course, impossible to say what would have happened, but I lean towards no.

Afghanistan would have been a given for any president post 9-11. There was simply too much of a need to respond in some tangible way to the attacks, and with the Taliban regime so overtly harboring those responsible, it would have been absolutely impossible, politically, not to.

With so little evidence to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, and without the neo-conservative pressure to go after Iraq, I think it would have been considerably less likely that a Gore administration would have even considered a war in Iraq. If they did actively consider it, I think much depends on how well they would have handled the diplomacy of it. If it panned out, then yeah, I think they would have done it. If not, I think they would have backed off.

	06-12-2003 10:29									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I figure villiages only and prince, cause he is a wimpy liberal. But unlike Bush, he wouldn't select the bloodlust option. Max AI, and can chat from start, cause he'd be multilateralist about it. Certainly not double production, cause the economy would still suck.

	06-12-2003 10:32									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

He'd turn on cheat mode so that he could actually pay for his huge % on the luxury slider

	07-12-2003 19:24									#50
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Winston Al Gore wouldn't have had the guts required to deal with Iraq.

He doesn't have the stupidity to begin with.

	07-12-2003 20:04									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Nobody makes the previos question: does the 9-11 had taken place with a president other than Bush?

	07-12-2003 20:55									#52
	Tired of ads?

I'm pretty sure Gore would have done it. The main reason is that if he didn't do anything down there, he'd be subject to heavy criticism for being a soft-on-terrorism good-for-nothing wuss. A Republican president wouldn't have a hard time proving he's a hardliner. When Nixon went to China, he had less to fear than a dang commie-appeasing Democrat would.

Historically I think most of the heavy American involvements around the world have been decided upon by Democratic administrations, but I could be wrong.

Last edited by Monk on 07-12-2003 at 21:05

	07-12-2003 21:03									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Okay, Iraq is questionable, but the eleven people who think he wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan are far out. In the climate immediately after 9-11 it would be a pure political suicide not to go into any war at all. I remember one Apolyton old-timer who wanted to throw nuclear bombs on Kabul

So to sum up, I think the neo-cons who are claiming Gore wouldn't have approved of the war are making the false assumption Gore is a man of principles who sticks up for what he believes is right instead of going by his own best interest.

	07-12-2003 22:36									#54
	Remove this text

quote: Nobody makes the previos question: does the 9-11 had taken place with a president other than Bush?

Again, impossible to truly say. The effort most certainly would have been made regardless of the president at the time. As to whether or not it would have detected under another administration, my answer is probably not. I don't know all of the gory details, but it seems to me that there were failures on so many levels that you can't really blame administration higher-ups alone.

	07-12-2003 22:40									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I seem to remember, before the elections, Osama (or someone like him) threatening about not wanting bush elected or something to that extent. But maybe I'm just hallucinating.

	07-12-2003 22:48									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Monk I'm pretty sure Gore would have done it. The main reason is that if he didn't do anything down there, he'd be subject to heavy criticism for being a soft-on-terrorism good-for-nothing wuss. A Republican president wouldn't have a hard time proving he's a hardliner. When Nixon went to China, he had less to fear than a dang commie-appeasing Democrat would. Historically I think most of the heavy American involvements around the world have been decided upon by Democratic administrations, but I could be wrong.

Historically, you are correct that the Democrat party has been willing to go to war to protect American interests. Clinton, the anti-war type that he was, certainly would have done what was necessary with Iraq.

Gore, though, is a different case. After all his confused speeches since 9/11, I don't think the man can think clearly. Contrast his befuddled statements on Iraq with the rather clear, hardline statements coming from Hillary Clinton. Now there is a Democrat who really has balls as opposed to the 9 dwarves running for the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton is our version of Margaret Thatcher.

	08-12-2003 00:08									#57
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Ned, why do you have to serve as a constant embarrassment to me - every time I point out to Sava that we aren't ALL fox-watching, Coulter-loving ideological parrots, you come along.

Thank you, skywalker. I've often wondered the same about Neddie.

	08-12-2003 00:14									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Historically, you are correct that the Democrat party has been willing to go to war to protect American interests. Clinton, the anti-war type that he was, certainly would have done what was necessary with Iraq.

This is, in fact, the crux of the issue. Doing "what was necessary with Iraq." Since Iraq didn't attack us, nor is there any real evidence (aside from what right-wing tabloids have been making up) has supported al-Qaeda in any way shape or form, Clinton would not have attacked Iraq, especially with the majority of the American public against war with Iraq without UN approval (before the bombs started falling).

	08-12-2003 00:16									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

chegitz - weren't the majority of Americans for war with Iraq? Yes, this was after Bush made his case for it, but still...

	08-12-2003 02:48									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara This is, in fact, the crux of the issue. Doing "what was necessary with Iraq." Since Iraq didn't attack us, nor is there any real evidence (aside from what right-wing tabloids have been making up) has supported al-Qaeda in any way shape or form, Clinton would not have attacked Iraq, especially with the majority of the American public against war with Iraq without UN approval (before the bombs started falling).

I'm sorry, Che. But didn't Clinton 1) declare war on Yugoslavia without authorization from either the UN or Congress; 2) bombard Iraq for days without a UN resolution or authorization from Congress; and 3) invade Haiti without a UN resolution and without authorization from Congress?

Please revise your remarks about Clinton just a tad.