Switch the presidential terms of Bush and Obama...

If Obama and Bush were switched, the short answer is Obama would have invaded Afghanistan, but not Iraq, and there would be gay people serving openly in the military... As for the economy, either way, it would still go thru the usual booms and busts, but maybe a bit less extreme with Obama. The socialization of the corporate health care system may have already be instituted if Obama had been President back in 2000... Those are your differences in a nutshell, I believe.

My question is, what if Ralph Nader had been elected in 2000? What would he have done on 9/11? The better question is, what would Al-Qaeda have done? Would they have attacked? If Nader had been President in January 2001, the unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Israel would have ended. It would have been the beginning of a complete overhaul in U.S. policy in the Middle East. Hard to really get into this complicated topic, or to predict what would have happened in the Middle East in this case, but it's also hard to imagine that Al-Qaeda would have been able to recruit 19 men for a suicide mission against American targets, when it no longer would serve their objectives. So I find no reason to believe the attacks of 9/11 would have happened if Nader and the movement that supported him had become our government. However, I do believe there would have been a greater chance of a bloodier war in the Middle East, but if so, it would no longer involve the U.S. directly. I think Nader would have done his best to calm tensions, and maybe Noam Chomsky would have been Secretary of State. They certainly would have had a better strategy than Bush and Co, whose only true strategy was making more war, and delivering profits to military suppliers like Raytheon, who donated to both the Bush and Gore campaigns. Oh, and by the way, Obama made a Raytheon executive his envoy to Saudi Arabia.

metsfan wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

If Obama and Bush were switched, the short answer is Obama would have invaded Afghanistan, but not Iraq, and there would be gay people serving openly in the military... As for the economy, either way, it would still go thru the usual booms and busts, but maybe a bit less extreme with Obama. The socialization of the corporate health care system may have already be instituted if Obama had been President back in 2000... Those are your differences in a nutshell, I believe.

My question is, what if Ralph Nader had been elected in 2000? What would he have done on 9/11? The better question is, what would Al-Qaeda have done? Would they have attacked? If Nader had been President in January 2001, the unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Israel would have ended. It would have been the beginning of a complete overhaul in U.S. policy in the Middle East. Hard to really get into this complicated topic, or to predict what would have happened in the Middle East in this case, but it's also hard to imagine that Al-Qaeda would have been able to recruit 19 men for a suicide mission against American targets, when it no longer would serve their objectives. So I find no reason to believe the attacks of 9/11 would have happened if Nader and the movement that supported him had become our government. However, I do believe there would have been a greater chance of a bloodier war in the Middle East, but if so, it would no longer involve the U.S. directly. I think Nader would have done his best to calm tensions, and maybe Noam Chomsky would have been Secretary of State. They certainly would have had a better strategy than Bush and Co, whose only true strategy was making more war, and delivering profits to military suppliers like Raytheon, who donated to both the Bush and Gore campaigns. Oh, and by the way, Obama made a Raytheon executive his envoy to Saudi Arabia.

9-11 woulda happened regardless of who was in the white house at the time. al-qaeda had be plotting it for many years once they saw how easy the first wtc attack was. it's pretty dumb to think 9-11 wouldn't of happened had nader been president. look at all the warning signs the 2 presidents before bush had and clinton had a chance to get osama.

Why does it matter how long it was plotted for if the circumstances change within that time period? The only question that matters is, Why did they do it?

David Cross says it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UOcmbHrDY