I don’t understand how military people support republicans. It’s their faults we lost so many children in the Middle East. As well as their fault for how little we are taking care of our soldiers who come home.
Is that all you got? Really though, it was a pet project for bush and cheney. There's pre 9/11 statements that suggest they were brainstorming ways to go to Iraq. The fact the WMD shit was never prosecuted is simply a failure of our political and legal systems.
You could make an argument that supports such conjecture, but the reality is we don't know that. At the end of the day we're speculating about alternative realities. What if hitler was shot in WW1, would WW2 have happened? Probably. But it would have looked very different.
I don't see Gore invading Iraq, there's nothing that supports that. There is however the idea that the Iraq invasion still occurs but at a later date because there's a lot of people in US politics that wanted it.
In Afghanistan? Sure, I'd accept that any administration faced with the successful WTC attack would likely have ultimately reacted a similar way. Though there is some data suggesting that intelligence agencies were a bit off due to the delay in transition from the Florida indecision, so a more decisive election either way might have caused the agencies to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Maybe there's a case to be made of it being handled better, but I can't think of any data to suggest either way how that hypothetical would have gone.
However, the thread specifically mentioned the Iraq war, which was a distinctly Bush/Cheney adventure. Even in the vague "Middle East" starter, it would have been fewer, by virtue of at least limiting the engagement to Afghanistan. Iraq would have been left to its own devices in a Gore presidency.
There was the option of going in with special Forces units only; essentially hunting and killing bin-Ladn without attacking the Taliban directly. Bush chose regime change because he wanted to build a pipeline across the country.