Of course not. To believe that you'd have to be complete braindead f**king moron like Ralph Nader (who claims that)
Really Doubt that. I admit that Gore may not have invaded Iraq but let's forgot that Clinton's relationship with Iraq was hardly Cordial.. The Sanctions, The continous bombing, enforcement of the no-fly zone and Operation Desert Fox. I've no doubt if Gore became President he would use 9\11 as leverage against 'hostile' islamic regimes. But I doubt he would have gone all the way like Bush did.
Iraq was not an Islamic regime, and Gore was critical of the invasion since before it began. He was opposed since day one. Sure Clinton wasn't friendly with Saddam, but who would be? There's no indication Gore would've actually invaded Iraq.
To say Clinton wasn't 'friendly' with Saddam is a massive understatement. He continued the UN sanctions (which only helped the regime as it made the populace more dependant on it) and not to mention that he seemed to bomb it into the stone age on a couple of occasions for dubious reasons (though not as dubious as bombing that Medicine factory in Sudan in order to distract media attention from that Lewinsky witchhunt nonsense.)
I tend to agree with Al, Iraq history begins with the end of Ottoman Empire (That last word appears too much in the history of Iraq) and decision of the British and the French with some assistance from the major warlord in the region, Ibn Saud (later the founder of the Saudi Dynasty) to split up the old non-Turkish Ottoman provinces.. any bloody way they wanted without any consideration for what the "damn natives" may think - actually iirc Iraq was a Winston Churchill initative. If anything the decision to unite those three ex-Ottoman provinces in Iraq was done
in order to divide the populace as to make British Rule easier. Straight out of the Imperialist playbook - guess who has done something similiar recently?
Which goes to show that Empires are never a good idea.
Poll
