In the early morning of September 11, 2001, the United States was awaked to the news that the World Trade Center and Pentagon had been hit by commercial airlines. The deed was stated by President Bush, as an apparent terrorist act. The initial response of America was to go and hunt down all who practice the Muslim faith and to retaliate and possibly initiate a war. But is violence the right way to react. In this case, violence is an acceptable way to respond.
             If the United States did not fight back in some way, shape, or form, it may have lead other countries to believe that we have no way to defend ourselves, therefore making it seem that we are an inferior nation. As a nation, when a problem like this comes about, we should not just brush it off and say "it happens", but we should find some means of defending ourselves. If somebody was threatening your life, you have the right to defend yourself. Though some people may believe in nonviolence, in modern society, this is not the best way of getting your point across when you are dealing with possible war.
             Following the attacks on September 11th, President Bush announced that the reason he would strike back was not only to get vengeance, but also to wipe out terrorism. In his address to the nation he stated: "America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism" (Bush page 2). If his purpose for violence is to help expunge evil, does that still make it wrong?
             The United States is the most powerful country in the world. But that does not mean that the USA is the most liked. As a country we need to live up to the standards set to us by the world. By standing around after the attacks, that may be seen as weak. If the USA retaliates it will show other countries that the USA is the most powerful country and is not to be reckoned with. This retribution agai...