Violet Asparagus
05-03-2011, 06:46 AM
How do you think the news about bin Laden's death could influence the elections?
What is the right response for libertarians like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?
#1: To emphasize, that it's police work, intelligence and special forces that are the most effective against terrorists, and there's no need (and no money) for tens of thousands of regular troops on the ground doing nation building
#2: To remind voters, that bin Laden's goal was to take the US down any way possible. With or without him, the US really gets weaker every day because of the policies of the govt. The military is spread thin and unable to protect the border, debt threatens the solvency of the govt, western values such as the right to privacy and a fair trial are threatened. His death doesn't really solve any of these problems.
#3: This operation was more like a wasted chance than a success. The man who probably had more intel on the international terrorist network than anyone else was just shot in the head. His human shield was shot too. If that was the case for police operations, every hostage taking would end up in a bloodshed. That someone refuses to surrender, doesn't mean there are no other ways to overpower him and get his knowledge.
I think the second argument is the most digestible for the general public.
The first has a weak point: some could argue, that the information about bin Laden's whereabouts was extracted from Afghan prisoners through torture, so the military presence (and torture) was needed.
And the third is kind of useless now, after the govt said they wanted to get him alive. First reports stated, that the Seals were ordered to kill only, but now the govt has an excuse.
Any suggestions?
What is the right response for libertarians like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?
#1: To emphasize, that it's police work, intelligence and special forces that are the most effective against terrorists, and there's no need (and no money) for tens of thousands of regular troops on the ground doing nation building
#2: To remind voters, that bin Laden's goal was to take the US down any way possible. With or without him, the US really gets weaker every day because of the policies of the govt. The military is spread thin and unable to protect the border, debt threatens the solvency of the govt, western values such as the right to privacy and a fair trial are threatened. His death doesn't really solve any of these problems.
#3: This operation was more like a wasted chance than a success. The man who probably had more intel on the international terrorist network than anyone else was just shot in the head. His human shield was shot too. If that was the case for police operations, every hostage taking would end up in a bloodshed. That someone refuses to surrender, doesn't mean there are no other ways to overpower him and get his knowledge.
I think the second argument is the most digestible for the general public.
The first has a weak point: some could argue, that the information about bin Laden's whereabouts was extracted from Afghan prisoners through torture, so the military presence (and torture) was needed.
And the third is kind of useless now, after the govt said they wanted to get him alive. First reports stated, that the Seals were ordered to kill only, but now the govt has an excuse.
Any suggestions?