September 11: Forgiveness is not Part of the Lessons Learned
Charles Quist-Adade
Parapharistic Reading Method
This article was written on the first anniversary of the September 11 World Trade Centre attacks against the United States. Instead of reflecting on how US citizens are coping with the worst international attack against the US since the Pearl Harbour attack that started the Second World War, this article focuses on President Bush’s decision to go to war against Iraq. The text insists that instead of going to war, The Bush administration and all of the citizens of the United States should have forgiven the people who committed the attack. It claims that the United States has no moral ethics when it comes to innocent lives being lost in battle, both historically, and in future attacks on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This article is not nearly as objective as it should be, and only shows one side to the issue of the US going to war. It fails to point out that historically, the US has helped to overcome many evil dictators and oppressive governments in the hope that the citizens of that country can be free, at the cost of many US lives with little gain. To stand by and let a ruler destroy his or her citizens is not in the United States’ nature, especially when that ruler attacked the United States.
The radical truth is, it is revenge that President Bush craves. Retribution: a body for a body. Now the seemingly high moral standards of Bush and his acolytes are exposed. The haste with which he is pursuing Iraq for not plausible reason other than to complete the unfinished assignment of his father exposes Bush’s dubious standards. Those standards of restraint, peaceful means, using the law, making a case through international legal systems, working with international organizations. . . not doing to others as they would do – or have done – unto you are thrown to out the window when “American interests” are affected.
This paraphrased excerpt from the article was chosen because although it does provide alternate paths to which the United States could have taken instead of directly going to war with Iraq, the options are clouded due to unsupported claims about why President Bush jumped into war in the first place. While the alternative that the US could have taken are valid, the remainder of the paragraph is based only on opinion and not on facts, making the entire article less influential.