Reading be in favor of going to war against

Reading “The Contested Meaning of 9/11” by Jim O’Brien, analyzes how events that occurred after 9/11 were linked to the 9/11 attack and how it was the primarily start of war. It explores how americans responded to the horrors of 9/11 and how it will affect the future. Many events after 9/11 led to war, the need to imperialize, and the spread of new theories. Bush promised war against terrorism, and at that time, the American people wanted revenge for what the terrorists did. They wanted justice for the 9/11 attack and their thirst for revenge led to war. Once war got out of hand, anti-war protests and new theories spreaded across the U.S. Americans began to question why the twins tower really fell and with the war being unwinnable, anti-war protests spread across the U.S like a wildfire. O’Brien’s work argues that events that happened after 9/11 were closely linked to 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 will not only affect today by leaving the horrors and memories behind it, but also the legacy as to how the U.S government used it as an excuse to further imperialize and dominate (O’Brien 24). Bush was known as the war president. If he saw an opportunity to go to war with an enemy, he will. When Bush promised war against terrorism, war was ultimately unavoidable. They will bring justice by treating the attacks as a crime. When O’Brien argued that the events after 9/11 will affect the future, he was right. Today, the thirst to imperialize is increasing. The U.S military is currently involved in the war in Syria. They want to overthrow the Syrian government. According to “U.S. spreads chaos in the Middle East” by Sara Flounders, the U.S. occupation of Iraq divided the country into walled-off mini-states with checkpoints the U.S’s plans are to divide Syria and Iraq and eventually imperialized and expand into Iran (Flounders). This is very similar to the war in Iraq because if the U.S wants to get rid of a government that is their enemy, they will go to war for that. This can be compared to what happened after 9/11. They had been wanting to get rid of Saddam, the Iraq’s government. 9/11 was perfect to bring up to the american public in hopes of removing Saddam. Administration officials tried to find evidence that linked Saddam to the 9/11 attacks, but none was found. They were desperate to find anything that would make the american public hate Saddam, so they would be in favor of going to war against Iraq. The 9/11 attack was an excuse for the U.S to unleash war anywhere they wanted. There are many different views about the attack on 9/11 and about going to war. Some believed the terrorists were to blame, while some believe the U.S government was to blame. Ever since the anti-war movement, people had suspicions that maybe the U.S government was involved in the attack on 9/11. A poll reported by Scripps-Howard found that 36 percent of Americans found it either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials had assisted in the attacks (O’Brien 19). Americans believed that the U.S government administrative had blamed it on countries in the middle east because they wanted to go to war with them. While U.S government supports going to war in order to imperialize, the public are mainly anti-war. This is similar in both the war in Iraq and the war in Syria. There are anti-war protests world wide when both of these wars were going on. There are countless events that are tied to 9/11, such as war. O’Brien concludes that 9/11 was used as an excuse for the U.S to imperialize. The U.S government saw the opportunity and took it. The U.S government are usually pro war, while the american public are usually anti-war. In this modern era, all the wars that the U.S were involved in are all tied to the one goal, which is to dominate and imperialize other countries.