What if Bush and the USA had assumed the moral high ground?
OK, Bush could not (not would not) have understood that as a choice, as I feel his identification with the US and its gungho reactions to foreign affairs made him feel his (and the USA's) manhood was threatened if they didn't respond with guns blazing. Really, he lacked the intellectual aptitude to do anything other than he did. He knew little to nothing of the Middle East and the problems and tensions there and picked the most vulnerable Middle-Eastern target (isolated/friendless).
But say if the USA had forgiven, isolated the culprits and their mentality, gone after those clearly involved and dealt with them appropriately, but otherwise acted with moral certainty and absolved a culture and people from responsibility. At that stage, the USA could not perhaps have done that but strong and credible leadership might have made the difference, and consequently saved at least a million lives.
This is a justified question, Stanley, but also very difficult to answer. Unfortunately, I have become pessimistic over the last few years about America's role as the world's strongest military nation. So many negative feedbacks that were to be expected have not been taken into account for the relevant political decisions - concerning Afghanistan and the wars in the Middle East, and we continue to live in the network of these negative, long-lasting developments.
Democracy thrives on the moral integrity of its representatives. Only with new personalities do I see the possibility of a turnaround. I have the impression that even political experts are only waiting for this era to pass and for new personalities to lead America.
Greetings, HEIN
conflict can exacerbate human beings conditions all over the world. it is time for negotiation not war and conflicts. no war can lead to peace. middle east is experiencing a lot of difficulties due to aggressive politicians.
On the next anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US administration seems somewhat confused in its fight against terrorism, despite its success in fighting a number of al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and the liquidation of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. But what the world faces today is more dangerous than the situation in 2001, as there is a danger of multiple and complex terrorist organizations, with a policy of confusion by the big powers seeking to combat terrorism.
The silent war against terrorism is found in all the countries of the world and not only in America. India has been also continuously fighting for these heinous activities. I feel America's action was quite reasonable on September 11 terrorist attack
All powerful nations must meet together and make comprehensive plans to curb this terrorism and bring peaceful solution.
Not the question, Dr Sheth. Your answer is appropriate to 'is it right to go to war against terrorism', my question asks if much of it could have been avoided. The terrorists' view was that were defending Islam (bin Laden's terrorism concerned American and allied forces in Arabia, the Holy Land, not other reasons as people sometimes imagine. The fact that the armies were defending Arabia meant nothing to him. The fight should have been left in the hands of Allah.Infidel armies in the Holy Land was for him the height of horror. )
Supposing the USA had taken the moral high ground same of the impetus behind terrorism would have immediately been lost. The terrorists would have clearly been viewed as the bad guys, not defenders of the faith, etc, which they proclaimed themselves to be. According to their propaganda, they were doing to the West what the West was doing to Muslims. The fact that America (and Britain) had gone in to prevent the extermination of Muslims after the break-up of Yugoslavia was quickly forgotten. ----America would have successfully shown themselves not to be the Great Satan as declared by the Iranian theocracy, and demonstrated the venomous statements directed towards it from that source were nonsense. Thereby possibly fewer recruits rallying to the cause.
Clearly, Iraq was not a defender, container, or exporter of Islamic terrorism-you may not agree that the terrorists had a right to declare themselves Islamic but they did. Positioning America as steadfast but not retaliatory might have changed the convictions of a sufficient number.
No, it is not necessary for the US to go to war after 9/11 which started with trick from president bush to destroy countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt,Libya...) .
Terrorism is has gone at high level and its going out of hand across global.
a trick from president bush to destroy countries? Why? Why would he or anyone else do that? Ah, was it possibly all an American ruse?
Syed is correct-this is not cultural, it is ethical.
Hein, yes it is not straight but I believe that Bush and Blair's attack on Iraq was then, if only then, indefensible.
Any war is not justified.!
Did it help? People living In these countries should be asked..
By my opinion, no.
A degree of greater intelligence and genuine leadership, perhaps not viewing the world in such narrow tropes. Thinking that goes further perhaps?
There is no Justification to Kill or Murder any Human Being at any way or Cost. There is a way by Judicial way to bring Criminals or Terrorists to Court and get Capital Death Punishment for Killers. There is Also A Right to Self Defense if Terrorists attack at your Home which clearly seems Fails in USA (9 /11 Attack). It Clearly seems Ugly Tragedy Death Sorrow Punishment Racism Maniac Killings Murder Sufferings Poverty Rape Genocide Hatered What else more Happens after attacking a Country.No one can Justify the Act or Support of a Regime to Terrorists by Killings of Innocent Children Men and Women who has Nothing to do with Responsible Regime. Both the Countries Loss their Innocent People but in One Country the number is in Hundreds and in other Country its in Million now and going on. What a Mess and People has pay not by Money its by Life and Blood.
Ahsan, do you not think that a more considered response might have ameliorated the subsequent descent into repetitive wars? Some greater insight into possible consequences?
Remember, Bush appears to have known nothing of the Middle East but simply wanted a huge USA response or gesture. Don't forget also the amazing hypocrisy of political positions, as the USA continued normal relations with some countries that might have had an involvement.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation