With people declaring their candidacy for the President right left, I had a few idle thought about poor old Al Gore. Now I, like most Americans who voted, voted for Al Gore. Still, despite my vote he did not win. He did not appear to take losing well, he gained quite a bit of weight and kinda went a little nuts. I wonder if a man that is so transformed by setbacks would make a good president. While I was no fan Mr. Bush, in hindsight he seems a bit more stable then Mr. Gore. A sitting President who has a nervous breakdown would probably be bad. So I wonder if Bush was actually the better man for the job despite everything. Any thoughts?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2015, 10:20:40 PM
Now I, like most Americans who voted, voted for Al Gore.
48% is "most"? :huh:
Oh fuck you.
Al Gore almost had what it takes to be president---he needed to have 5 supreme court votes, and he only had 4.
I didn't vote for the man in 2000, so obviously didn't think so then, and I haven't changed my mind since.
Better to trundle forward rather than to gallop backwards. Would he be a great president? Seems unlikely. But to be better than Bush, all he had to do was to not go out of his way to be a disastrous one. No contest, really.
If Al Gore had been elected, we'd have lunar colonies and flying cars by now.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2015, 11:04:38 PM
If Al Gore had been elected, we'd have lunar colonies and flying cars by now.
But would we have armies of killbots? That is the question.
Isn't Gore a killbot himself?
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2015, 10:54:34 PM
Better to trundle forward rather than to gallop backwards. Would he be a great president? Seems unlikely. But to be better than Bush, all he had to do was to not go out of his way to be a disastrous one. No contest, really.
Yeah. If the choice is between the Bush we know and the Gore we don't, I'll "risk" a Gore Presidency.
Al saved himself from having to be the guy everybody hated by losing that election.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2015, 10:54:34 PM
Better to trundle forward rather than to gallop backwards. Would he be a great president? Seems unlikely. But to be better than Bush, all he had to do was to not go out of his way to be a disastrous one. No contest, really.
Yeah. If the choice is between the Bush we know and the Gore we don't, I'll "risk" a Gore Presidency.
People like certainty though and it was unclear whether Gore would be a bad president, not so with Dubya.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2015, 10:54:34 PM
Better to trundle forward rather than to gallop backwards. Would he be a great president? Seems unlikely. But to be better than Bush, all he had to do was to not go out of his way to be a disastrous one. No contest, really.
Yeah. If the choice is between the Bush we know and the Gore we don't, I'll "risk" a Gore Presidency.
People like certainty though and it was unclear whether Gore would be a bad president, not so with Dubya.
History decided that question. Gore would have been the same as Bush on most things, especially war. Especially with Iraq.
Yes, it wasn't a great choice :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:07:38 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 15, 2015, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2015, 10:54:34 PM
Better to trundle forward rather than to gallop backwards. Would he be a great president? Seems unlikely. But to be better than Bush, all he had to do was to not go out of his way to be a disastrous one. No contest, really.
Yeah. If the choice is between the Bush we know and the Gore we don't, I'll "risk" a Gore Presidency.
People like certainty though and it was unclear whether Gore would be a bad president, not so with Dubya.
History decided that question. Gore would have been the same as Bush on most things, especially war. Especially with Iraq.
Might have managed the occupation better. Hard to see how he could have done worse.
Al losing was a blessing in disguise for him. He's a far richer man now than I think would have been possible had he been elected.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:07:38 AM
History decided that question. Gore would have been the same as Bush on most things, especially war. Especially with Iraq.
What do you base this conclusion on?
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 06:53:11 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:07:38 AM
History decided that question. Gore would have been the same as Bush on most things, especially war. Especially with Iraq.
What do you base this conclusion on?
History :yawn:
Elaborate?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 15, 2015, 11:40:11 PM
Isn't Gore a killbot himself?
No, he's the Emperor of the Moon and the founder of the Vice Presidental Action Rangers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F1%2F16%2FAl_Gore_on_Futurama.png&hash=83e242d2cf144a73c1da1ee5dbde76a77231d896)
No
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:07:38 AM
History decided that question. Gore would have been the same as Bush on most things, especially war. Especially with Iraq.
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq? I doubt it.
Gore would have been an average president, like most presidents, and yes I feel he could have done the job. He would have been hit with 9/11 and would likely have done the same in Afghanistan that Bush did. Any president would have had to take strong action, and then to address security over the issue of radical Islam and its terrorism.
I wonder if he would still have invaded Iraq, as the Clinton WH had voiced some similar notions, though likely not very seriously. I tend to doubt it but taking down Saddam had been on the minds of many politicians prior to Bush choosing to do it. Or more likely Gore would have taken stronger measures but less not an invasion.
Yeah, I'm not seeing Iraq as something anyone besides Bush/Cheney would have done. The weapons inspection crisis was largely created by them. The inspectors had left years before, and nobody really cared that much then. Reviving the issue was done for their own personal issues and philosophy.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 11:16:39 AM
Yeah, I'm not seeing Iraq as something anyone besides Bush/Cheney would have done. The weapons inspection crisis was largely created by them. The inspectors had left years before, and nobody really cared that much then. Reviving the issue was done for their own personal issues and philosophy.
This is seriously overegging the pudding. The inspectors left years before because they felt they had thoroughly inspected their hotel rooms for WMD and were not allowed anywhere else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2015, 11:19:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 11:16:39 AM
Yeah, I'm not seeing Iraq as something anyone besides Bush/Cheney would have done. The weapons inspection crisis was largely created by them. The inspectors had left years before, and nobody really cared that much then. Reviving the issue was done for their own personal issues and philosophy.
This is seriously overegging the pudding. The inspectors left years before because they felt they had thoroughly inspected their hotel rooms for WMD and were not allowed anywhere else.
And this is seriously understating what they did, since they did find and destroy some WMD over the course of several years. Of course after they did leave it wasn't like the world was on the brink of war for 4 years and we were in a state of constant crisis. During the 2000 presidential campaign the Iraq "crisis", wasn't the main issue or even a big one. Bush was rather laid back about Iraq in 2000 about a country that was the verge of a surprising us with a mushroom cloud over one our cities as he suggested in 2002. If there was an inevitable war going to result in the leaving of inspectors in 1999, you'd think it would on everyone's lips.
In order to understate, seriously or otherwise, what they did before inspecting their minibars, I would first have to state it.
Not sure why a chemical weapon program mandated an attack anyway. Iraq was less of a threat than in 1990/1991. The administration knew that--as evidenced by a much more rapid ground war in Gulf War II.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2015, 01:12:10 PM
Not sure why a chemical weapon program mandated an attack anyway. Iraq was less of a threat than in 1990/1991. The administration knew that--as evidenced by a much more rapid ground war in Gulf War II.
Collective stupidity/naivete.
Invading Iraq was a mostly bad idea, but it had large bi-partisan support. Only after the going to tough did some politicians start going.... against it, same ones who were for the initial invasion. Everyone had the intel info, including the UN and other nations. Saddam was being deceptive and not cooperating even though he didn't have an active program on WMDs. He was gaming the system to save face among Iraqis and others in the Mid East, and that backfired on him big time as it lead to the invasion.
Leaving Saddam in place would have been a bulwark to thwart Iran. Our esteemed leaders should have known that and were probably being told that by some of the advisers or others. They should also have known the folly of nation building a nation of disparate tribes and serious religious animosities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2015, 11:52:24 AM
In order to understate, seriously or otherwise, what they did before inspecting their minibars, I would first have to state it.
You said they could not leave their hotels which wasn't true.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 16, 2015, 01:22:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2015, 01:12:10 PM
Not sure why a chemical weapon program mandated an attack anyway. Iraq was less of a threat than in 1990/1991. The administration knew that--as evidenced by a much more rapid ground war in Gulf War II.
Collective stupidity/naivete.
Ideology/ambition. Bush was swayed by the arguments of those who felt that 1991 was a missed opportunity to create a model democracy that would inspire democratic reforms (or revolutions) in across the region bring with it peace in the Middle East. Weapon inspections were just a casus belli, a foot in the door. Since Gore would be unlikely to hire Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz their ambitious plans to transform the Middle East would probably not influence the President. On the other hand, Gore doesn't seem to be the most stable individual so who knows what he would have done after 9/11.
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
Invading Iraq was a mostly bad idea, but it had large bi-partisan support.
Technically true, but somewhat out of context. The nation was put on the warpath, and Democrats for the most part did not have the balls to be publicly at odds with jingoism. Even in democratic countries, when the nation is primed for war, you have a terrible political environment where taking a principled stand carries real serious dangers. So just because Democrats didn't have the balls to resist the push to war doesn't mean they would be starting the war if they were in power.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:39:08 PM
Bush was swayed by the arguments of those who felt that 1991 was a missed opportunity to create a model democracy that would inspire democratic reforms (or revolutions) in across the region bring with it peace in the Middle East.
Which has proven to be incredibly naive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 16, 2015, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:39:08 PM
Bush was swayed by the arguments of those who felt that 1991 was a missed opportunity to create a model democracy that would inspire democratic reforms (or revolutions) in across the region bring with it peace in the Middle East.
Which has proven to be incredibly naive.
Well, I agree on that part.
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2015, 01:41:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
Invading Iraq was a mostly bad idea, but it had large bi-partisan support.
Technically true, but somewhat out of context. The nation was put on the warpath, and Democrats for the most part did not have the balls to be publicly at odds with jingoism. Even in democratic countries, when the nation is primed for war, you have a terrible political environment where taking a principled stand carries real serious dangers. So just because Democrats didn't have the balls to resist the push to war doesn't mean they would be starting the war if they were in power.
Agreed, there was some of this attitude going on, too much actually IMO. On top of that people who were critical were getting lambasted, some musicians were having their CDs publicly destroyed, and that kind of thing. I hated that stuff going on, as it clouded the debate.
Quote from: frunk on April 16, 2015, 08:59:13 AM
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq? I doubt it.
Iraq was going to happen. 700 violations of the no fly zones? Come on. Clinton almost restarted the Iraq war. It was inevitable.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:28:50 PM
Iraq was going to happen. 700 violations of the no fly zones? Come on. Clinton almost restarted the Iraq war. It was inevitable.
A full scale invasion over no fly zone violations? Right. I could see some sort of limited action at some point, but not anything on the scale of the Iraq War.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:28:04 PM
You said they could not leave their hotels which wasn't true.
I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave. If you have evidence that that is not true, I'd love to see it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:28:04 PM
You said they could not leave their hotels which wasn't true.
I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave. If you have evidence that that is not true, I'd love to see it.
Well, logically they had to leave the hotel to leave the country.
Quote from: frunk on April 16, 2015, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2015, 03:28:50 PM
Iraq was going to happen. 700 violations of the no fly zones? Come on. Clinton almost restarted the Iraq war. It was inevitable.
A full scale invasion over no fly zone violations? Right. I could see some sort of limited action at some point, but not anything on the scale of the Iraq War.
There already was limited action. We saw limited action for a decade. There is no reason to believe it would escalate further. By the same reasoning of MiM a Korean war is also inevitable, since the North Koreans violated the cease fire many times. Despite that nobody has seems to have much interest in starting up a new war with the North Koreans.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2015, 11:04:38 PM
If Al Gore had been elected, we'd have lunar colonies and flying cars by now.
No. We would have a nuclear Iran, a unravelled Middle East, sharia law growing everywhere, an stronger Al Qaida, etc.
Oh wait...
And by the way, tech development would have been slower under Al Gore because of his "progressive" taxation against energy.
Energy = Industrial development = Tech development
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:28:04 PM
You said they could not leave their hotels which wasn't true.
I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave. If you have evidence that that is not true, I'd love to see it.
:lol: I can't believe you are falling for this
again!
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 05:25:12 AM
And by the way, tech development would have been slower under Al Gore because of his "progressive" taxation against energy.
Energy = Industrial development = Tech development
But Al Gore invented the internet!
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 05:25:12 AM
And by the way, tech development would have been slower under Al Gore because of his "progressive" taxation against energy.
Energy = Industrial development = Tech development
This assumes he would have actually done this. Sure, left to his own devices he is a progressive environmentalist dude but during 2000 he was, and would continue to be, in the hands of Clinton handlers.
In his books on the Bush administration Woodward described in some detail the degree to which Bush and members of his administration actively attempted to build the case for invading Iraq and ignored the evidence that their reason for the invasion was not well supported.
I doubt Gore would have done the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2015, 06:26:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2015, 01:28:04 PM
You said they could not leave their hotels which wasn't true.
I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave. If you have evidence that that is not true, I'd love to see it.
:lol: I can't believe you are falling for this again!
I honestly can't believe you are still doing this "I'm ignoring you as punishment", thing. Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2015, 11:04:10 AM
In his books on the Bush administration Woodward described in some detail the degree to which Bush and members of his administration actively attempted to build the case for invading Iraq and ignored the evidence that their reason for the invasion was not well supported.
I doubt Gore would have done the same thing.
I think every administration has done that to some degree. Can't imagine Gore doing otherwise *if* he strongly wanted to do something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2015, 11:04:10 AM
In his books on the Bush administration Woodward described in some detail the degree to which Bush and members of his administration actively attempted to build the case for invading Iraq and ignored the evidence that their reason justification for the invasion was not well supported.
I doubt Gore would have done the same thing.
FYP.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:05:04 PM
I honestly can't believe you are still doing this "I'm ignoring you as punishment", thing. Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that.
Go fuck yourself Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2015, 01:14:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:05:04 PM
I honestly can't believe you are still doing this "I'm ignoring you as punishment", thing. Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that.
Go fuck yourself Raz.
What, now you're doing what Grumbler tells you? You posts about not leaving the hotel, or searching the minibar gave the impression that weapon inspectors did nothing which is not true since they did in fact destroy quite a bit of material and inspected several hundred sights.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:25:17 PM
and inspected several hundred sights.
They could do that from the hotel. :P
Saying they inspected a lot of sites isn't nearly as interesting as noting that there were sites they were not allowed to inspect.
The Iraqi's know what they are trying to hide, so the fact that they let inspectors inspect things they weren't trying to hide isn't even a little bit interesting.
The fact that there were places they were NOT allowed to go is very, very interesting, and really the only pertinent data point when evaluating whether or not Saddam's regime was trying to hide something. Or at least appear like they were trying to hide something.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:25:17 PM
What, now you're doing what Grumbler tells you? You posts about not leaving the hotel, or searching the minibar gave the impression that weapon inspectors did nothing which is not true since they did in fact destroy quite a bit of material and inspected several hundred sights.
The first time we went through this I figured you were confused, which is why I explained. The second time it looks more like lying than confusion.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 01:09:37 PM
I think every administration has done that to some degree. Can't imagine Gore doing otherwise *if* he strongly wanted to do something.
there is something to what you say, but I cannot imagine gore wanting to do something so economically and politically catastrophic, and so damaging to the principals on which the country was founded. He would have done something as dumb but nothing so foolish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:25:17 PM
What, now you're doing what Grumbler tells you? You posts about not leaving the hotel, or searching the minibar gave the impression that weapon inspectors did nothing which is not true since they did in fact destroy quite a bit of material and inspected several hundred sights.
The first time we went through this I figured you were confused, which is why I explained. The second time it looks more like lying than confusion.
Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 01:09:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2015, 11:04:10 AM
In his books on the Bush administration Woodward described in some detail the degree to which Bush and members of his administration actively attempted to build the case for invading Iraq and ignored the evidence that their reason for the invasion was not well supported.
I doubt Gore would have done the same thing.
I think every administration has done that to some degree. Can't imagine Gore doing otherwise *if* he strongly wanted to do something.
I agree. The point is there is nothing to suggest Gore would have felt strongly about creating a case for invading Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 01:12:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2015, 11:04:10 AM
In his books on the Bush administration Woodward described in some detail the degree to which Bush and members of his administration actively attempted to build the case for invading Iraq and ignored the evidence that their reason justification for the invasion was not well supported.
I doubt Gore would have done the same thing.
FYP.
I accept the amendment from the floor.
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
Saying they inspected a lot of sites isn't nearly as interesting as noting that there were sites they were not allowed to inspect.
The Iraqi's know what they are trying to hide, so the fact that they let inspectors inspect things they weren't trying to hide isn't even a little bit interesting.
The fact that there were places they were NOT allowed to go is very, very interesting, and really the only pertinent data point when evaluating whether or not Saddam's regime was trying to hide something. Or at least appear like they were trying to hide something.
:huh: Wait, what? The inspectors did find things, such as a suspected bio weapons lab which they later destroyed. That's not interesting? Keep in mind that this was a paranoid fascist state so they always appear to be hiding stuff. In particular they thought that the CIA had infiltrated the inspection teams and was going to assassinate Saddam So really that's not that interesting that they appear to be hiding stuff, and events have borne this out. Despite the appearance of trying to hide stuff no active weapons program was found after 2003.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:49:58 PM
Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.
So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2015, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:49:58 PM
Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.
So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?
I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it. I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant. What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements? How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2015, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:49:58 PM
Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.
So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?
:lol: You are walking into it, eyes, wide shut.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 04:42:39 PM
I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it. I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant. What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements? How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?
Do all those fascinating questions you just raised somehow get you to "Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2015, 05:24:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 04:42:39 PM
I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it. I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant. What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements? How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?
Do all those fascinating questions you just raised somehow get you to "Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that?"
Yes. If the statement you made is not relevant or not true I would suspect you are trying to give a false impression. Again I ask, what impression were you trying to give when you stated
"This is seriously overegging the pudding. The inspectors left years before because they felt they had thoroughly inspected their hotel rooms for WMD and were not allowed anywhere else."
By itself the statement is not particularly ambiguous. The Inspectors were not allowed out of their hotel rooms and thus could not do their jobs. However, the inspections went on from 1992-1998 and they inspected several sites, documented materials and had equipment and chemicals destroyed. They obviously had to have left the hotels at some point to do this and were not staying in them for the entire period. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant that they were only closed in the hotel for a fraction of that time period I would naturally need clarification of what fraction of that time, why they were in the hotels and if that is relevant.
Raz, we've been through this routine before. You say something like "Yi is lying," or "Yi made that up," then when I ask what the fuck you're talking about, you say you need more clarification, or you're confused. An accusation is not a request for clarification or an expression of confusion. It's an accusation.
As to your question, by my count I've answered it three times already. The inspectors did conduct inspections before they were confined to their hotel. However, in your post that started this whole mess you used the fact that the inspectors left Iraq as evidence that the threat posed by Saddam was neutralized, as if they had inspected everything they wanted to and had certified Iraq to be free of WMD. It was nothing of the sort. They left because Saddam was not letting them do their job.
We have been through this routine before, about Iraq in fact it was regarding torture.
However, I am not saying that the because the inspectors left the threat from Saddam was neutralized (though the threat of WMD had been neutralized, the inspectors did not know this and the causation is quite that direct), my point was that nobody cared back in 1998. There was some perfunctory airstrikes, but stuff had been going on before. Hell, it got lost in the news about Kosovo war, the ongoing Impeachment issue, and the Republican rage that Bill Clinton might be distracting the country from the Lewensky case with talk of killing some terrorist name Osama Bin Laden. If an inevitable war came from the inspectors leaving then it was pretty carefully hidden under the radar. You and I are both old enough to remember 1999 and 2000 and I don't recall some mounting crisis that was on everyone's lips. If this terrible war was coming you'd think it would have been a top issue in 2000 presidential elections, but it wasn't. It was assumed that Saddam had these weapons, but it bothered very few. Nobody in the US was cowering at the fear of Iraqi mustard gas. More people were scared of computers going nuts then a dictator who's army had been destroyed less then a decade prior. The crisis only occurred in 2002 when the Bush administration resurrected the issue. While there is great disagreement why he wanted to go to war true devotion to upholding the credibility of the UN is not one that gets toss around much.
Same diff Raz. How does the fact that the inspectors left support the assertion that "nobody cared?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2015, 01:09:11 AM
Same diff Raz. How does the fact that the inspectors left support the assertion that "nobody cared?"
That's the wrong question. The inspector's leaving doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared. The fact that not much was done supports the assertion that nobody cared. There was no crisis. Neither Gore nor Bush ran on preventing Saddam from building nukes. If it was indeed crisis that could be solved only through war, it would have been important prior to 2002. If Bush intended to invade Iraq before 9/11 he kept it. Do you remember the cry for war in 1999 and 2000? I do not.
If it doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared, then why did you include it in your post about no one caring?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2015, 03:05:13 AM
If it doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared, then why did you include it in your post about no one caring?
It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis. To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 05:14:22 PM
It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis. To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.
What's the long period between them leaving and the crisis?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2015, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 05:14:22 PM
It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis. To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.
What's the long period between them leaving and the crisis?
1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.
Have you changed your mind about the inspectors leaving supporting your assertion?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.
Um. He was violating the ceasefire nearly every day during that period. Clinton nearly invaded.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2015, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.
Have you changed your mind about the inspectors leaving supporting your assertion?
Not really.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2015, 09:28:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.
Um. He was violating the ceasefire nearly every day during that period. Clinton nearly invaded.
When?
When he wanted a distraction from his impeachment hearings.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2015, 10:42:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2015, 10:12:44 PM
Not really.
Only sort of?
I'm not sure what you are getting at. My argument was that inspectors leaving in 1998 did not trigger a crisis, because the US was not in crisis mode nor was the rest of the world. The crisis only began in 2002 when Bush chose to take up the issue in a big way to justify the war he was planning.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
When he wanted a distraction from his impeachment hearings.
That's why it didn't happen.
Yes, people did care back in 1998. We nearly went to war then. Saddam got lucky that Clinton's timing was bad.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2015, 01:00:56 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
When he wanted a distraction from his impeachment hearings.
That's why it didn't happen.
Yes, people did care back in 1998. We nearly went to war then. Saddam got lucky that Clinton's timing was bad.
I must have missed the mobilization. When exactly did that happen?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2015, 01:02:34 AM
I must have missed the mobilization. When exactly did that happen?
When you weren't paying attention, apparently.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2015, 01:09:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2015, 01:02:34 AM
I must have missed the mobilization. When exactly did that happen?
When you weren't paying attention, apparently.
Seriously, when were the tens of thousands of soldiers deployed to the Iraqi borders? When were tens of thousands of National guardsmen mobilized? When was the international coalition formed for the invasion? When was the debate in Congress for the invasion? Why was the upcoming war not a major campaign issue in 2000. I don't recall Gore and Bush agreeing that a full scale invasion was inevitable when they debated. If it was inevitable, you think it would have been a big deal.