IF Gore had won in 2000

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by The Mouth of Sauron

Would you really want a bloke as your President who was so crap he even lost an election to George W Bush ?

It would be a valid point except a few details. One, he didn't really lose. And two, he was fighting a Clinton problem...

Kind of like McCain is fighting a Bush problem.

[Bonniedundee]

I thought Gore did win?

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Bonniedundee

I thought Gore did win?

So did/do a lot of democrats, but that's precisely the problem, they give up too early and then say they don't understand why they didn't "win". Gore didn't win, because part of winning is being the one that plants ass in that fancy new custom-made chair in January.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Might have brought oil up to $80 per barrel.

So, Gore would have "freed" Saddam of all sanctions, you say? I say that is a faulty premise, which sends the rest of your argument into the void.

You forget what was happening at the time of the election and shortly thereafter, BEFORE 9/11. The UNSC was debating the ending of sanctions, with basically only the US for keeping them in place. The sanctions would not have lasted another year - their ending was a done deal.

The only thing that kept the sanctions going the last year or so of their existence was the US constantly pointing out the TOS violations. Gore would not have gone to the mat to keep the sanctions.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by clownboy

The only thing that kept the sanctions going the last year or so of their existence was the US constantly pointing out the TOS violations. Gore would not have gone to the mat to keep the sanctions.

Let's follow this hypothetical. So, after Gore would have released those sanctions, you're claiming that Saddam would have pursued his WMD program with vigor, unrestricted by trade sanctions, and then unleashed a mushroom cloud over a major US urban area?

[Zan de Man]

Of course.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

Of course.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Let's follow this hypothetical. So, after Gore would have released those sanctions, you're claiming that Saddam would have pursued his WMD program with vigor, unrestricted by trade sanctions, and then unleashed a mushroom cloud over a major US urban area?

Nope, not what I said or even implied. Gore wouldn't have "released" the sanctions, the POTUS doesn't do that, in this case the UN had already time-tabled the sanctions and they were this close to gone. I don't believe Gore would have instructed our UN Ambassador to vote against the rest of the UNSC on the sanctions.

Saddam would have pursued his nuke program, but that wouldn't have been an immediate threat to anyone. What WOULD have been are the delivery systems he already had illegally built that would be able to deliver gas and bio on Iran (and any other neighbor he wanted to cow).

Iran would have asserted (with some justification) that it was under direct threat and had every right to build their own nuke program. The resulting war between the two would split the ME, and you better believe we'd have ended up being involved, AND we'd have had to chose sides. Saddam or Iran - now there's a healthy choice, right?

[ninjalooter1701]

Iran would have asserted (with some justification) that it was under direct threat and had every right to build their own nuke program. The resulting war between the two would split the ME, and you better believe we'd have ended up being involved, AND we'd have had to chose sides. Saddam or Iran - now there's a healthy choice, right?

A healthy choice?

Did you vote for it?



You openly claim that Saddam would have pursued his nuke program.

Then you say that the nuke program is not what you said or even implied.

Then you state

What WOULD have been are the delivery systems he already had illegally built that would be able to deliver gas and bio on Iran (and any other neighbor he wanted to cow).

Evidence, if you please?

[clownboy]

ninja, the weapons inspector's reports have been posted time and again here. Saddam was in possession of several missile delivery systems that exceed the terms, both in payload capability and range. He could not have hit the US with these, no matter what he loaded them with. And a nuke program takes years to yield anything useful and then you have to work out the delivery.

But with the missles he HAD, he could easily have hit Iran. In case you don't remember back that far - that's why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand, because he was making war with Iran. With Gore that picture would get taken all over again, only with a different SOD shaking Saddam's hand.

Did the homework for you - the Al Samoud II.

On February 13, 2003, a UN panel reported that Iraq's Al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km, in breach of UNSCR 1441. The limit allowed by the UN is 150 km, a threshold at which the missile crosses into being known as a weapon of mass destruction.

[Gilles de Rais]

Clown,

I think your views of Saddam and this what-if history of yours is far too simplistic. Saddam would have stayed well away from any further military adventures and would have been happy to just keep his job - as he was during the sanctions...

Besides, although i am no expert, would the sanctions have been lifted on clearly military materials? esp. NBC related stuff? Not so sure.

[clownboy]

The sanctions were put in place because Iraq wasn't complying with the terms, not because they went to Kuwait in the first place. They were "incentive" to fully comply. The UNSC was ready to call it a done deal, hey France had contracts all lined up, as did Germany. Once the sanctions were gone Iraq was free of international monitoring and their accounts free for use. Remember, the Oil For Food scandal was just starting to hit, and the UN wanted that embarassment gone before someone noticed.

[Gilles de Rais]

What kind of contracts? I mean, you sound all upset but selling stuff to countries is no crime. Selling weapons is a different matter altogether...

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

What kind of contracts? I mean, you sound all upset but selling stuff to countries is no crime. Selling weapons is a different matter altogether...

Are our memories so short? Oil contracts, exclusive ones, for large sums of money. A tit for tat, you vote to drop sanctions, THEN the contracts are good.

Upset about what? This is a make-believe exercise.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Are our memories so short? Oil contracts, exclusive ones, for large sums of money.

And this is bad how, exactly? It's called business.

A tit for tat, you vote to drop sanctions, THEN the contracts are good.

Again, if France/Germany had wanted to make a quick buck on Iraq, they'd have sold themselves to America. Even with an ex-falling $, it was a better buyer than Iraq. Since GWB started making noises about Iraq, it was doomed. Sealed fate. If i could have shorted Saddam Hussein in 2001/2002, I'd have done so.

And there is strictly no way he would have attempted again to war on his neighbours. The guy was a murderer and a bastard but he wasn't an idiot.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

And there is strictly no way he would have attempted again to war on his neighbours. The guy was a murderer and a bastard but he wasn't an idiot.

Those contracts were "extra-legal" at the time, Iraq being still under the sanctions. But hey, not blaming France and Germany for seeking the contracts, just showing motive for the swift release of the sanctions. That was the environment.

He wouldn't have attacked directly like he did Kuwait, but instead, after a short re-arming period (he would have had full access to oil money again), he would have goaded the heck out of the Iranians. He knew very well how to do that, he'd been doing it for years. And he would have gotten a rise out of them, I believe enough of one to "justify" restarting the Iran/Iraq war. BOTH sides would have claimed the other "started it".

[Gilles de Rais]

I still don't see what he would have to gain by a new Iran-Iraq war. Conquering the world is nice but staying alive isn't too bad either...

[Oigen]

Definitely! That man would have turned things around, for the best. Now it's all just crumbling away.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I still don't see what he would have to gain by a new Iran-Iraq war. Conquering the world is nice but staying alive isn't too bad either...

That's easy, what did he have to gain moving to take Kuwait? After the sanctions and once France and Germany (and China) were receiving oil from Iraq the UNSC would be unable to move against Iraq again. In fact it would have the effect of putting the US in a no-win situation where we would HAVE to support Saddam in the effort. Again, a President Gore, with 9/11, with an Iraq that is not only out of the sanctions, but virtually sanction-proof, would HAVE to support Saddam in an Iraq/Iran war.

And Oigen, Gore isn't the angel and reformer you imagine. He had his hands deep in the Clinton corruptions. He was the bagman for the Chinese money coming in under the table. He was also right on board with President Clinton's retasking of the CIA to analyst-only and an end to HUMINT.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by clownboy

That's easy, what did he have to gain moving to take Kuwait?

Lots if he had been able to pull it off. I believe he had learned his lesson and was very happy to have kept his throne. His desperate trashing before the US invasion were clear sign of his willingness to surrender any and everything to keep his job/life.

After the sanctions and once France and Germany (and China) were receiving oil from Iraq the UNSC would be unable to move against Iraq again. In fact it would have the effect of putting the US in a no-win situation where we would HAVE to support Saddam in the effort. Again, a President Gore, with 9/11, with an Iraq that is not only out of the sanctions, but virtually sanction-proof, would HAVE to support Saddam in an Iraq/Iran war.

To me, that seems totally out there as a scenario. Why the UN would have been unable to move again? We had far more deals before Gulf War 1. It didn't stop it from happening under UN guidance, with French and probably German troops in there...