If none of the planes had been successful on 9/11, would we still have gone to war?
595577
Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm not sure. We still would have lost American lives so it seems like we would still have gone. However because of how brutal and devastating the attacks were that they hit a target and how they have permanently scared DC and NYC, those things might have had a larger effect on the decision than the acts themselves... OK, I think we would have no matter what. I believe Bush wanted to go to war and unfortunately 9-11 gave him an opportunity to do so without a fight from government or the American people.
1110430
Of course!\n\nWho knows, maybe 9/11 would never have happened. Wouldn't that be nice? And even so, Gore would have leapt out of that chair and he certainly would not have squandered the opportunity to pull the nation together as one. We would almost certainly not be entrenched in this fool's errand of a conflict in Iraq, and Iran wouldn't be playing silly buggers either... probably.\n\nWhat else? Well the deficit wouldn't have happened. Gore would have capitalized on the surplus that Clinton left behind. The rich would have a little less money in the bank, while the middle class would have about the same, maybe a little more. The poor would still be poor but their future might be brighter and definitely not just plain ol' bleak. We certainly wouldn't be giving tax funds away for fun while Social Security needs all it can get.\n\nMaybe everyone would be on the way to having healthcare coverage, including all those millions of children who we really owe it to. Abortion would still be a choice instead of on the way to becoming a distant memory.\n\nThe tsunami and Katrina victims would have been helped within hours... instead of several days to a week later. And the amount of goodwill spread by this country around the world would be cheerfully received. We would still count dozens of other nations as our allies instead of as pissed off neighbors. Vicente Fox wouldn't have decriminalized drugs just to piss us off. Colin Powell would still have a chance at the presidency someday instead of having to hang his head in shame. The UN wouldn't consider us thieves and liars at all future UN summits. Cheney would be back at Halliburton ripping off whoever he can and Rumsfeld may have resigned and just be talking gibberish to the television.\n\nMost importantly, our government wouldn't be blatantly breaking the law and the Constitution, lying about it, and then saying they're not breaking any law when caught. They wouldn't be spying on innocent Americans. They sure wouldn't be using issues such as illegal immigration and gay marriage as a distraction tactic.\n\nAnd I firmly believe that Gore's approval rating would definitely be outside of the toilet.\n\nInstead we got Mr. Loser guy and his comically pathetic cronies... and we're going to be in a world of hurt for decades to come.\n\nThanks Mr. Bush, I hope you enjoy all the money.\n\nAnd to Mr. Gore, if by some weird quirk of fate you do read this... please run for President in 2008. We've been without one for nearly six years now and it's really starting to show.\n\n\n[My friend Answerman is absolutely correct. Katherine Harris (who was probably doing Jeb at the time) made the decision. She's one of Bush's "heck of a job" people. Meanwhile, in Ohio in 2004, the Exit Polls told the exact opposite story to the supposed count. Since that is completely illogical -- and has NEVER happened before -- we can assume the whole thing was rigged. The illegal conduct was aided by the lack of any accountability in the form of a paper trail. For the Exit Polls to contradict the results requires everyone in Ohio to blatantly lie about their vote, which is 100% improbable.]
838219
You have a great point.  The attacks on 9/11 were definitely a statement, and NOT a question, so the argument of "war is not the answer" is an invalid one.  \n\nAnd I wonder if vic felt that way the day we sat and watched our countrymen fall out of a burning skyscraper in NYC, and know that thousands were crushed when the buildings crumbled to the ground.
357522
Sept. 11...  This was NOT a war, we weren't expecting it and thousands of innocent poeple died.  There was Pearl Harbor before but, that was an attack on a military base so, I don't think that can qualify and there wasn't near as many people dead?  The others that you mentioned were war situations and in war people are expected to die.  I would say the War in Iraq but, that wouldn't qualify either becasue it's a war (for the same reasons above)
784400
It is not worth it, nor was it ever worth it. We call this the "War on Terror", yet we have yet to go after those responsible for 9/11. All these lives lost, families ruined, money spent and we haven't accomplished a dang thing.
629055
Superman would not support a war.  He would tell Bush leave him to me.  He flies in their and grabs Osama Bin Laden from the hole he's been hiding in and takes him back to the U.S. for trial.  It would be nice to think if Superman was real how many lives could have been saved in 9/11 and the War on Terrorism.
981850
I feel more confident that Al Qaeda can't mount an attack on the U.S. as easily.  In those days following 9/11, we didn't really know what Al Qaeda might be capable of.  Besides the 9/11 attack, there had been the anthrax incidents, which are still unsolved, by the way.\n\nI also think that airline passengers would respond differently to a hijacking attempt.  Prior to 9/11, most American hijackers just wanted to go to Cuba.  Heck, that's sort of an adventure.  Since 9/11, passengers are in no mood to let a hijacking take place without a fight.\n\nIn conclusion, yes, I feel more confident and safer, but if you want me to give the credit for that to George Bush, I am not prepared to do that.
978138
There is only one good thing that would come from bombing a country that threatens to bomb you first, and that is to disable that country's ability to carry out its threat.  The strategy, by the way, is called a pre-emptive strike.  President Bush announced such a strategy to respond to terrorism back in 2002 (see 1st & 2nd links below) and he re-asserted this policy in March of this year (see 2nd link).\n\nThe bad thing that might result is if you overestimated the other country's willingness to carry out its threat.  In the example you give it sounds like the threat is real, but there are examples where a country's leader makes vague threatening statements he does not intend to carry out, or where you've gathered bad intelligence about a country's intentions.  So you'd better be sure the threat is real.  If you confirm it is, well you really don't have a choice, do you?  \n\nBut to further answer your question about what bad things could result, there are all kinds of potentially devastating scenarios.  For instance, other countries could come to the aid of that country, leading to another World War.  Or the country could get military assistance and supplies from other countries, which actually happens a lot in modern conflicts.  \n\nEven If we are successful at first, it could be like stirring up an ant colony.  If we try to occupy the country, guerilla warfare could ensue.  Just look what's happening in Iraq, what happened in Vietnam, and what happened to Russia when it tried to occupy Afghanistan to see how difficult it can be to hold a hostile enemy territory despite having a superior military force.  And in a democratic society, public opinion dictates resolve.\n\nBut the best positive thing that could happen is that all those scenarios were going to take place anyway because the other country was going to attack you in the first place.  The pre-emptive strike could disable much of their military means to carry out their attack.  That's why you would strike first.\n\nUnfortunately, with hindsight we've discovered that we went to War in Iraq on a pre-emptive strike strategy based on the belief that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," and with the administration apparently also believing they were involved in the 9/11 attacks and intended to attack us again.  Apparently none of that was substantiated.  So a pre-emptive strike can be a really bad idea if your intelligence isn't good.
499273
9/11 has been in works since Operation Desert Shield. Even afterwards, while we flew Operation Northern and Southern Watch from Prince Sultan Airbase over Iraq, Bin Laden was fuming at the USA "infidels" being so close to Mecca. It was going to happen someday. GWB just drew the wrong card.
723077
Umm... there were three..  Two completely, the other has been repaired since.  The two World Trade Center buildings, and the Pentagon.  There would have been another, but that plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
555783
Yeah, they could have. Any religion could have. It's just a matter of time. Although I can't see no buddhists bombing towers... :) I am no buddhist.
854596
Yes 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president. The response would have been different. Is Algore was in charge (shudder) More of us would have lost our heads by now, we would not have gone into the Middle East, and prayer rugs would be the big seller at Wal-Mart!
510150
the question is- what if there wasn't?
399832
Try this link. It will reveal and answer a lot of questions you may have.\n\nhttp://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-in-plane-site.html\n\nI dont believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. Flight 93 was made up. The planes that crashed into the WTC's were not commercial airlines. There is no proof! With all the video footage... you never really see the commercial logos. It's all bogus.\n\nThink about it. Why would the government do this? To create FEAR! This is the new era. There is no more cold war. No more bad super power. So where does the government turn for war? To an invisible word called "Terrorist". The war on terrorism is only a few words. \n\nFear makes me people more controllable. They spend more. They submit to anything that will protect them. And in exchange for it all is our freedom.
1086170
They were planning this war before 9/11!
838066
Very good question. If the war HAD been about oil, we would have.
28962
Well, first let me say that I hate the terms "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism." "Terror" is an emotion and "Terrorism" is a tactic. It's like saying "War on sadness," or "War on air-power."\n\nThat said, I think that we still would have invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. That would have been a priority for any president.\n\nHowever, I don't think that a liberal president would have then invaded Iraq. There was simply not enough evidence to warrant such a huge cost (financially and in terms of lives lost).\n\nI would hope that a liberal president would put this so-called war on the back burner and instead address some of the more pressing problems in our country. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. As a New Yorker, you don't have to tell me this, but Bush fumbled the aftermath to an incredible degree. We still don't have bin Laden, we invaded a sovereign nation (I thought only bad guys did that), the economy is in the toilet. He's doing a terrible job. He uses the "war on terror" as a smokescreen to hide behind. It's his way to distract us from the real problems.\n\nI think that a liberal president would have behaved the same way in Afghanistan, avoided a needless conflict with Iraq, and put those resources to where they are most needed. Here. At home. \n\nHopefully the next president will find away to get health-care to Americans who need it, support for independent businessmen, and give disaster relief to Americans when they need it most. And that would just be the beginning.\n\nTo sum up, "The War on Terror" cannot be won. It is a tactic that we can try to defend against, but the mindset behind it will always remain one step ahead of us. It is the price we pay for living in a free society. We cannot sacrifice freedom for security. We must accept this and focus on problems that have solutions.