Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 06:57 AM
Quote:
|
Gore would not have achieved any of that.
|
Upon what do you base this statement, JR?
|
i had to think about that for a while.
its just my own opinion. after thinking about it, i dont know that there is anything specific to point to that would offer evidence that he would not have taken a tough stance. certainly there is no frame of referrence since 9/11 has never happened before.
what i mean is that i dont think he would have took the same route that was chosen. it was the unpopular route. it was a difficult choice to make and one that was made knowing that it would have meant a one term presidency. i think that weapons proliferation was something that was long overdue to deal with and to deal with agressively. It was time for there to be consequences for those who willfully manipulate the eneptitude of the UN. I think it was time that Syria was put on notice. that Iran was put on notice. that North Korea was put on notice. I dont think Gore would have achieved that either. i dont think he would have chosen confrontation.
i cant say that Gore would have done worse... but i think he is more worried about popularity and opinion polls than Bush. probably most would agree that he would have definately upset less people in Europe. i think that Bush has the speaking ability of an autistic 4th grader but my personal opinion is that the fact that a tough stance was taken against the passivity of the UN in dealing with the issues that it was formed to deal with. there would not have been a Resolution 1441 if there was not already 5 aircraft carriers parked in front of Bagdad. I dont see Gore going that far without fearing the risk of the political backlashes that occurred.
Last edited by JR at May 9 2003, 07:28 AM