Alternate History: What if 9/11 had never happened?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-02-08 02:40am

If Al-Qaeda still existed, but never carried out the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, what would the world's political climate be like in Febuary 2004?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-08 02:58am

Perhaps America might be less supportive of Bush. Alot of public opinion is pro-Bush because of his reaction to 9-11 in seeking vengeance.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-08 03:31am

George W. Bush would have been a forgettable, mediocre president on his way out the door, and the Republicans likely would have lost the House of Representatives and not regained the Senate in 2002. Taking away 9-11 creates an enormous shift in the country's political climate.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-08 03:35am

What RedImperator said. Of course, Bush might have still pursued his get-Iraq agenda, but I doubt he could've carried it off, he wouldn't have had the political capital.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-08 03:38am

Vympel wrote:What RedImperator said. Of course, Bush might have still pursued his get-Iraq agenda, but I doubt he could've carried it off, he wouldn't have had the political capital.

Not a chance. The best he could have accomplished was getting the inspectors back in, and even that's difficult without a credible threat of war.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-02-08 02:06pm

And of course, none of this "Patriot Act " garbage.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-02-08 02:22pm

Most House districts are pretty secure, so the House is unlikely to change hands until the next census, regardless of any presidents performance.

A war with Iraq is less certain, but it's still a possibility. I've seen survey results which suggest that at any given moment between 1991 and 2003, 25%-40% of the American people wanted a war with Iraq. With no 9/11, the Iraq war would never have been as popular, but it's still verry much a possibility.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-08 03:02pm

CelesKnight wrote:Most House districts are pretty secure, so the House is unlikely to change hands until the next census, regardless of any presidents performance.

A war with Iraq is less certain, but it's still a possibility. I've seen survey results which suggest that at any given moment between 1991 and 2003, 25%-40% of the American people wanted a war with Iraq. With no 9/11, the Iraq war would never have been as popular, but it's still verry much a possibility.

Bush is a bigger slave to public opinion polls than any president in history. If public opinion had been against the war, he wouldn't have gone.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-02-08 03:19pm

Iceberg wrote:Bush is a bigger slave to public opinion polls than any president in history. If public opinion had been against the war, he wouldn't have gone.

President's also shape public opinion. A significant minority of the people were already in favor of the war, even durning times when no one expected there to be one. Talk of WMD or Scott Spiecher(sp?) or bad things Saddam's done would have pushed that higher.

The war might never have recieved the 80-90% support that it did in our history, but it could easily have still been quite popular.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-02-08 05:34pm

I would be eating french fries and not "freedom fries."

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-08 05:42pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Bush is a bigger slave to public opinion polls than any president in history. If public opinion had been against the war, he wouldn't have gone.
President's also shape public opinion. A significant minority of the people were already in favor of the war, even durning times when no one expected there to be one. Talk of WMD or Scott Spiecher(sp?) or bad things Saddam's done would have pushed that higher.

The war might never have recieved the 80-90% support that it did in our history, but it could easily have still been quite popular.

Are you nuts? There was a vocal minority in favor of taking out Saddam before 9/11, but they were never significant. There's simply no way that public opinion would have supported an imperialist war against a helpless target without the general paranoia spawned by the attacks.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-02-08 06:54pm

Iceberg wrote: Are you nuts? There was a vocal minority in favor of taking out Saddam before 9/11, but they were never significant. There's simply no way that public opinion would have supported an imperialist war against a helpless target without the general paranoia spawned by the attacks.

Most wars that America has fought can be percieved as an "imperialist war against a helpless target"; however, wars are not presented as that when you're trying to get support for them. I've seen nothing to alter my view that American public opinion could have been whipped up to support a war with Iraq regardless of 9/11.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-08 08:00pm

How many Americans supported the war because "Saddam was the man behind 9/11"? Bush would still be an semi-literate laughingstock instead of "the Hero of 9/11", but he would still have had his people within the CIA, and he still could have pulled that WMD-crap, so it's hard to tell. I think 9/11 created this pro-war atmoshpere in the first place, so my bet would be he wouldn't have been able to pull it off.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2004-02-08 08:22pm

That's My Bush would still be on the air.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-02-08 08:39pm

PrinceofLowLight wrote:That's My Bush would still be on the air.

Yeah, I've always wondered what happened to that TV show, it kicked serious ass...

Oh, and we wouldn't have such disrespect for our civil liberties in the name of safety. Remember what Ben Franklin said, "Those who are willing to trade essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety..."

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-08 10:09pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
PrinceofLowLight wrote:That's My Bush would still be on the air.
Yeah, I've always wondered what happened to that TV show, it kicked serious ass...

Why was it cancelled?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-02-08 10:13pm

Gandalf wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:
PrinceofLowLight wrote:That's My Bush would still be on the air.
Yeah, I've always wondered what happened to that TV show, it kicked serious ass...
Why was it cancelled?

Why do you think?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-08 10:20pm

That's My Bush sucked ass. It would have been gr if they had just stuck to parodying sitcom conventions - THAT was funny - and poking fun at the Bush administration, but they had to throw some idiotic political topic into each episode as well and it was never handled well.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-08 10:21pm

gr = great

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-08 10:27pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote: Yeah, I've always wondered what happened to that TV show, it kicked serious ass...
Why was it cancelled?
Why do you think?

Every second show pokes fun at Bush. I don't ever seem to see anyone going off at them.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-08 10:33pm

The difference is, That's My Bush had a central purpose of poking fun at Bush. Granted, the creators didn't really have an anti-Bush agenda; they had planned a show making fun of Al Gore as well that would have aired had he been elected, but that's how it goes.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-08 10:45pm

When was it cancelled?

It was shown here last year, but it was as reruns,

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-08 11:02pm

Gandalf wrote:When was it cancelled?

It was shown here last year, but it was as reruns,

The same year it started. It only lasted eight episodes. I agree with Joe, by the way: the show has its moments but much of it was painfully unfunny.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-08 11:44pm

Techno_Union wrote:I would be eating french fries and not "freedom fries."

You mean they're still called 'freedom fries'? I thought that was only a passing fad or some shit.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-08 11:46pm

Stofsk wrote:
Techno_Union wrote:I would be eating french fries and not "freedom fries."
You mean they're still called 'freedom fries'? I thought that was only a passing fad or some shit.

Nope, no one calls them freedom fries anymore.