News Was George W. Bush's Response to 9/11 Justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epkid08
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the actions and decisions of George W. Bush during and after the 9/11 attacks, with many participants expressing support for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq as necessary responses to terrorism. There is a belief that Saddam Hussein posed a threat due to alleged ties to the Taliban and weapons of mass destruction, justifying military intervention. However, critics argue that the evidence for war was exaggerated and that the consequences, including loss of life and financial burden, raise questions about the legitimacy of the invasion. The conversation also touches on future military actions, particularly regarding Iran, and the need for a strategic approach to U.S. oil dependency. Overall, opinions are divided on whether Bush's decisions were justified, reflecting broader debates on war and foreign policy.
  • #51
epkid08 said:
A war with Iran - Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years...

Taking over Iran's oil production will help both of those needs. If Bush did this, I'd say he did the right thing.

It really scares me that someone who is (I assume) born and raised in a democracy which the US still is, would think it is OK to unilatirally attack another country purely to steel it's resources.

Who are you with, the East Indy Trading Company?

I wonder which percentage of the US thinks this way. If it is more then 5% we have a serious problem in this country.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
jaap de vries said:
It really scares me that someone who is (I assume) born and raised in a democracy which the US still is, would think it is OK to unilatirally attack another country purely to steel it's resources.

Who are you with, the East Indy Trading Company?

I wonder which percentage of the US thinks this way. If it is more then 5% we have a serious problem in this country.

You're not the only one who's scared. And yes, it's a serious problem.

We still go to war over resources. Might as well face that fact that, as world society, we are not as civilized as we like to think we are.
 
  • #53
jaap de vries said:
It really scares me that someone who is (I assume) born and raised in a democracy which the US still is, would think it is OK to unilatirally attack another country purely to steel it's resources.

Who are you with, the East Indy Trading Company?

I wonder which percentage of the US thinks this way. If it is more then 5% we have a serious problem in this country.

A little over 5 years ago, it was unthinkable that the US would attack a country that hadn't initiated some kind of hostile action first. Now, ruling out the option of being the attacking country is seen as weakness in national security.

I wonder how long that Bush legacy will last.
 
  • #54
jaap de vries said:
It really scares me ...

DaveC426913 said:
You're not the only one who's scared. And yes, it's a serious problem...
:bugeye:
 
  • #56
BobG said:
A little over 5 years ago, it was unthinkable that the US would attack a country that hadn't initiated some kind of hostile action first. Now, ruling out the option of being the attacking country is seen as weakness in national security.

I wonder how long that Bush legacy will last.

russ_watters said:
Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike#Historical_background

My post wasn't specific, but I meant unthinkable to Americans.

Still, the perception of American intentions by other countries is pretty important, too - something that Reagan had to learn pretty early in his term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer
Three years had taught me something surprising about the Russians: Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans. Perhaps this shouldn't have surprised me, but it did … During my first years in Washington, I think many of us in the administration took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first strike against them. But the more experience I had with Soviet leaders and other heads of state who knew them, the more I began to realize that many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike …

As President, Reagan was never really the nuclear war hawk his pre-election image suggested. Of course, spending a night or two perusing the message templates for a post-nuke scenario could easily shock any sane person. Those things can give you nightmares for a few nights.
 
  • #57
It might not all be because of all the international mistakes that Bush has made, but also from domestic failures. He certainly expanded the gap between the rich and the poor with his "faith based initiatives" and I don't remember him doing anything for those without any healthcare...except exacerbating it by vetoing that bill that would expand childrens' access to healthcare. There's also No Child Left Behind, his lip service in averting global climate change, failure to address weakening infrastructure, immigration, etc.
Yeah, to sum it all up. A lot of lip, little action. He's a liar.
It's surprising how 9/11 occurred, not because of Osama's reasons to do so, but because they were able to. the terrorists were able to enter the U.S. even though 15 out of 19 of them failed to fill in the proper visa documents. U.S. intelligence had knowledge that the terrorists did receive flight training and also on several occasions of bin Laden's whereabouts, but never took action.
 
  • #58
BobG said:
My post wasn't specific, but I meant unthinkable to Americans.
Yeah, that's the part that wasn't true: our nuclear policy does not and never has completely and unconditionally ruled-out first strike. Yeah, I also doubt that we ever would have done it, but that's not the point. The point is that we don't take such things off the table because leaving them on the table has deterrence value. It also avoids the potential problem of painting yourself into a corner.

The world likes to condemn unilateral aggressive action of any kind and does not make value judgements regarding the actions themselves. They should. Such actions are sometimes the right thing to do. Israel's attack on the Isirak reactor complex in Iraq in the early 80s was the right thing to do. If Iran continues to violate the NPT and a few years down the road gets close to having a nuclear bomb, taking it out will be the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
DaveC426913 said:
You're not the only one who's scared. And yes, it's a serious problem.

We still go to war over resources. Might as well face that fact that, as world society, we are not as civilized as we like to think we are.

It's easy to say that and then wake up and drive to work in your oil can. This civilized world doesn't run without recources. Period. That is still no excuse for making war on a people, but I just thought it was funny because all these wars are fought to keep our society civilized. If you're looking at it from a economic standpoint, that is. From the human standpoint, we liberate peoples from oppression. Whatever you want to say about oil, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in horrendous atrocities.
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
Yeah, that's the part that wasn't true: our nuclear policy does not and never has completely and unconditionally ruled-out first strike. Yeah, I also doubt that we ever would have done it, but that's not the point. The point is that we don't take such things off the table because leaving them on the table has deterrence value. It also avoids the potential problem of painting yourself into a corner.

A nuclear first strike was effectively ruled out by the MAD policy. In fact that was the point, so by default we did agree to a no first-strike policy. Also, a full-scale nuclear war cannot be compared to the invasion of another country. And one can hardly compare the threat of 20,000 nuclear warheads to the threat from terrorism; even if Saddam had been involved in 911, which he wasn't. The scale of the two situations are many orders of magnitude apart.

The world likes to condemn unilateral aggressive action of any kind and does not make value judgements regarding the actions themselves. They should. Such actions are sometimes the right thing to do. Israel's attack on the Isirak reactor complex in Iraq in the early 80s was the right thing to do. If Iran continues to violate the NPT and a few years down the road gets close to having a nuclear bomb, taking it out will be the right thing to do.

What does this have to do with attacking the wrong country, which, if we assume that Bush isn't lying, is what we did? Whoops.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Herodotus said:
It might not all be because of all the international mistakes that Bush has made, but also from domestic failures. He certainly expanded the gap between the rich and the poor with his "faith based initiatives"...
What faith based initiatives did President Bush implement? I believe the answer is none.
 
  • #62
Yeah hahahaha He said he'd do it to get support from the fundies and then stabbed them in the back. Quite possibly the only thing I like about him, even if he did it for the wrong reasons, i.e. he just didn't want to be bothered with it, whereas I would have done it on purpose.
 
  • #63
mheslep said:
What faith based initiatives did President Bush implement? I believe the answer is none.
Believe again.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/bushchurch.htm
http://www.rockinst.org/publications/religion_policy/default.aspx?id=374
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/action/recent/Community-Solutions-Act-7-03-01.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200303/ai_n9170697
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
Aww man, they actually got some money? :(
 
  • #65
mheslep said:
What faith based initiatives did President Bush implement? I believe the answer is none.

Gokul43201 said:
Believe again.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/bushchurch.htm
http://www.rockinst.org/publications/religion_policy/default.aspx?id=374
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/action/recent/Community-Solutions-Act-7-03-01.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200303/ai_n9170697
Only the first post discusses any money, only $1M, dispensed under the 'faith based initiatives' program. To stay on point: that initiative was about giving federal money to religious based institutions doing humanitarian or educational work, and not the broader umbrella issue of the division between church and state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
mheslep said:
only $1M,

You might not think that's a big sum, but my taxes went to that. What ever happened to "small government", by the way?
 
  • #67
WarPhalange said:
You might not think that's a big sum, but my taxes went to that. What ever happened to "small government", by the way?
That's very nearly 0.3 cents :rolleyes:.
 
  • #68
mheslep said:
Only the first post discusses any money, only $1M, dispensed under the 'faith based initiatives' program.
So what? We can convert into a theocracy tomorrow with no additional taxpayer cost!
 
  • #69
Ivan Seeking said:
A nuclear first strike was effectively ruled out by the MAD policy. In fact that was the point, so by default we did agree to a no first-strike policy.
I don't agree, but ok...
Also, a full-scale nuclear war cannot be compared to the invasion of another country. And one can hardly compare the threat of 20,000 nuclear warheads to the threat from terrorism; even if Saddam had been involved in 911, which he wasn't. The scale of the two situations are many orders of magnitude apart.
I'm just trying to get people to acknowledge that the line exists.
What does this have to do with attacking the wrong country, which, if we assume that Bush isn't lying, is what we did? Whoops.
No one said anything about attacking the wrong country, so nothing. Whoops.

I'm discussing the general concept of unilateral first strike. I argued that there are times when it is the right thing to do. I agree that attacking Iraq was not the right thing to do (in hindsight only), but that doesn't have any bearing on whether we should do it if a situation presents itself where it is the right thing to do.

I'd argue that the 6 day war was another example of a unilateral first strike that was the right thing to do.
 
  • #70
Gokul43201 said:
So what? We can convert into a theocracy tomorrow with no additional taxpayer cost!
I only mentioned this to point out the flaw in Herotodus statement:
...He certainly expanded the gap between the rich and the poor with his "faith based initiatives"
since the government did not do anything of significance with the latter that could effect the former (the gap).
 
  • #71
mheslep said:
I only mentioned this to point out the flaw in Herotodus statement
I guess I missed that. But having read it now, I can't say I follow the reasoning behind that part of hero's post.
 
  • #72
anyone who still has the cojones to try to defend gw has my respect. hopeless, but admirable, at least in kind of a clueless way.
 
  • #73
mathwonk said:
anyone who still has the cojones to try to defend gw has my respect. hopeless, but admirable, at least in kind of a clueless way.

If the internet has taught me anything, it's that no matter how indefensible a given position is, you will find an army of people who's life goal is to defend it.

Just look at that Batman = Bush article. There are people who seriously believe that.
 
  • #74
WarPhalange said:
If the internet has taught me anything, it's that no matter how indefensible a given position is, you will find an army of people who's life goal is to defend it.
One of the army: http://xkcd.com/386/ :biggrin:
 
  • #75
No, not even that. You can make any kind of baseless argument you want, set up a message board for it, and you'll find idiots just flooding into help your cause.
 
  • #76
mathwonk said:
anyone who still has the cojones to try to defend gw has my respect. hopeless, but admirable, at least in kind of a clueless way.

<---- still defends George Bush (not that I agree with him in everything he's done, but every President has made mistakes).
 
  • #77
George Bush's biggest mistake was not forcing his wife to abort their son, George W. Bush.
 
  • #78
WarPhalange said:
George Bush's biggest mistake was not forcing his wife to abort their son, George W. Bush.
Then you could help give the answer to the OP over on this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=241143"
Or any other opposition politician for that matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
Yes, any other politician responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the dislocation of millions, the complete corruption of the nation's institution of justice and the disregard of the nation's most valued source of individual rights and laws.
 
  • #80
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
Gokul43201 said:
Yes, any other politician responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the dislocation of millions, the complete corruption of the nation's institution of justice and the disregard of the nation's most valued source of individual rights and laws.
No, any, period. Hate and vitriol are not so easily contained.
 
  • #82
russ_watters said:
Israel's attack on the Isirak reactor complex in Iraq in the early 80s was the right thing to do. If Iran continues to violate the NPT and a few years down the road gets close to having a nuclear bomb, taking it out will be the right thing to do.

How is Iran in violation of the nuclear NPT?

Nevertheless, the United States violates the NPT.. So a foreign power demolishing the United State's nuclear facilities would be the right thing to do, right?!?
 
  • #83
epkid08 said:
What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11?

For starters, I wouldn't sit there picking my nose and doing nothing for ten minutes after being informed of a national security crisis in which terrorist attacks were unfolding in real time.
 
  • #84
C Rob said:
Whatever you want to say about oil, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in horrendous atrocities.

The United States killed hundreds of thousands in horrendous atrocities.
 
  • #85
Mental Gridlock said:
How is Iran in violation of the nuclear NPT?
See the recent thread on the subject: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=247063
Nevertheless, the United States violates the NPT.. So a foreign power demolishing the United State's nuclear facilities would be the right thing to do, right?!?
Lol, you don't know why Iran would be in violation, but you know the US is? Clearly, you don't know what the NPT says. Here's the Wik on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

No, the US is not in violation. And btw, these aren't laypersons' opinions. The UN body tasked to police it (the IAEA) continuously reports on Iran's status (it's all in the thread).
 
  • #86
Mental Gridlock said:
The United States killed hundreds of thousands in horrendous atrocities.
What is your point?
 
  • #87
We went after the guy for things we are guilty of as well. Hypocritical, you know?
 
  • #88
Mental Gridlock said:
The United States killed hundreds of thousands in horrendous atrocities.

This is inaccurate. the US has killed MILLIONS in its horrendous atrocities. Vietnam, about 3 million. About 2-3 million alone ended up being murdered or starved to death in the brutal "third world" wars of Ronald Reagan alone, through his support of dictators like Ríos Montt and so on.

The number is between 10 to 20 million killed.

Certainly, the US has caused more damages in areas such as Indochina than Saddam ever caused in the Middle East, so it's a bit hypocritical to be over there for "human rights concerns," it's Hitler's claims of the out of control Polish.
 
  • #89
This is so off topic there is no hope.

So, we're blaming George W Bush for Vietnam now? Or did people forget what the thread title was?
 

Similar threads

News Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link
Replies
9
Views
4K
News It is now official - no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Iran declares victory over the USA
Replies
45
Views
8K
News GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
News Is Bush's Veto and War Rhetoric Justified?
Replies
11
Views
3K
News George W. Bush Recognizes Armenian Genocide
Replies
1
Views
3K
News Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War
4
Replies
158
Views
14K
News Is George W. Bush's Impeachment Legally Justified?
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Was the 2008 election a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party?
Replies
21
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top