In war, is one side usually are right and the other all wrong?

Question

or is it possible that a truly independent examination could find fault with both sides?
This question is meant to hopefully generates some intelligent discussion from informed people.

Lets take into consideration 2 scenarios. The first is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to declare war against the USA. The other instance is the islamic terrorists targeting the USA as an enemy, and eventually leading to 9/11.
If we honnestly examine both attacks from an independent view point, Pearl harbor, and 9/11, is one side all wrong, while the other all right?

Answer 1

Right and wrong? What determines who is right or wrong. The one left standing in the end...the victor is right!

Answer 2

Its easy to find fault, and point blame, but when one side, or neither are willing to talk and LISTEN then diplomacy means nothing.

The big problem was even if the US had agreed to allow Japan to keep the territory it had conquered that was only one part of a larger plan that still would have brought war between the two countries.

As for 9/11, the terrorists are using the USA as a scape-goat for all problems in the Islamic world. Thing is if the US left, and Israel left the Middle East would still have problems. They use this 'excuse' to keep people from the truth and creating a better life for themselves and others by keeping a few who have power in power.
The USA is lucky in the fact that after 2008 Bush (who many consider a tyrant) will be out of power. When that happens the next president will be considered a tyrant by the terrorists. They don't care who is in power, just as long as they can continue blaming someone for all their problems.
Ironically most people in the US before 9/11 were too busy with their own lives to worry about what someone said on the other side of the planet about them. Most still are because they are living paycheck to paycheck and buying things beyond their financial limits.

*edit*
reading some answers I'm wondering if people even bothered to read the modern part. The questions doesn't mention Iraq, but 9/11 and an examination between the terrorists and their motives against the USA and its motives.

Answer 3

I'm not sure what your point is, but there is a huge difference in the two scenarios you use.
Pearl Harbor and the Army installations attacked were military targets and the World Trade Center was not. The purpose of war is to impose the will of one government over another. That makes military targets fair game and an integral part of warfare.
The attack on the World Trade Center was something completely different. I've always felt uncomfortable with the term "War on Terror". It somehow legitimizes an act of pure insanity.The attackers had no stated goals other than hate.
Al Quida is a cult, not a political entity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the danger. Allowed to spread, cults can be very dangerous, just look at the nazi's.

Answer 4

the atack on pearl harbor was an act of war.we knew who the enemy was and dealt with them accordingly.
9/11 was also an act of war,however,the enemy is much more vague,and are dealing with them in a completely different way.
they are both terrorists,and should be dealt with in the same fashion.
saudi arabia should be held accountable for 9/11 but too many oil rich people feel different.
our president being #1.
i can only speculate what the scenario would be if we had a real president at the helm..............!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

Well, an embargo against Japan might have ticked them off. Wiki has some interesting theories you might want to read on Japan's attack of Pearl Harbor.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Japanese_attack_Pearl_Harbor

Of course, I don't think either attack was warranted. At least the Japanese hit a military target, something the 9/11 people only succeeded in doing by hitting the Pentagon - but the WTC was full of innocent people of a myriad of nationalities.

Answer 6

In most wars, there's fault with both sides. Like World War One. What the heck was that about anyway?

And with the terrorists, it's a clash of ideologies. One side thinks it's fighting for democracy and freedom, the other for God himself.

Answer 7

I believe there is defense and attack. In both we were attacked and war was declared on us. How does that explain Iraq? I can only say that that there would have been more repercussions to President Bush had all the military in Iraq supporting the UN No Fly Zone massacre, as opposed to providing protection to them before he would have attacked.

Answer 8

WW-2, there was no question as to who was right and who was wrong. It is obvious that the world banded together to protect itself from a would be global dictator.

In the case of the Iraq war, there does not seem to be a "right" in it whatsoever. There are just varying degrees of wrong.

Answer 9

Usually a war is fought over ideals. Each side thinks they are right. Neither side rationalizes.

Answer 10

well, if you think about it fairly, then one side may be being fair. But fair doesn't mean it's right, such as, if someone bombed there country, then it would be fair to bomb them back, but is that necessarily make it right to kill millions of innocent people? There is no really right or wrong side, it just depends on your beliefs.