PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: Ron Paul on the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden




W_BRANDON
01-17-2012, 02:30 AM
Dr. Ron Paul's comments expressing disapproval of how Obama handled the Osama Bin Laden assassination continues to be a vulnerability. It is safe to assume that Dr. Paul will continue to be opportunely asked about this until he knocks it out of the park. I, of course, agree wholeheartedly with Paul's position on the matter but must say his argument needs better form.
Let's contribute some ideas about how Dr. Paul might polish up this argument.

bluesc
01-17-2012, 02:41 AM
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

The war in Afghanistan profited defense contractors; The letters would have profited only those who captured or killed Bin Laden. Defense contractors wanted to prolong the war, those contracted by the government to kill Bin Laden would want him dead as soon as possible to receive the rewards.

CaptainAmerica
01-17-2012, 02:45 AM
Dr. Ron Paul's comments expressing disapproval of how Obama handled the Osama Bin Laden assassination continues to be a vulnerability. It is safe to assume that Dr. Paul will continue to be opportunely asked about this until he knocks it out of the park. I, of course, agree wholeheartedly with Paul's position on the matter but must say his argument needs better form.
Let's contribute some ideas about how Dr. Paul might polish up this argument. see this thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?351973-OPEN-LETTER-TO-RON-PAUL-on-very-important-TALKING-POINT

rpwi
01-17-2012, 12:22 PM
He needs to point out terrorism isn't a hierarchical top-down structure. For the most part terrorists are not making demands and ordering each other around, but rather tend to stick to small groups and are only really bound together by ideology. Paul could make a joke about all the #2 head of Al-queda has been taken down and point out if you kill a leader another will just appear in its place. Long term solution is to dry up their ideological foundations and that's easily done by behaving ourselves (like not carrying out assassinations in countries we have declared war on. While not popular, proper extradition is the way to go.

The 'nuclear' option for Paul would be to quote Osama on why he really advocated terrorism against the US (which he is on record)...and that was because of our foreign policy support for Israel. Remove that, and Osama would have called off his Jihad on the US.

LopTarDaBoo
01-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Either Paul needs to adjust his answer or we need some more beef in this thread.

Paul in interviews always says he voted to give authority to go after Bin Laden. Then when asked whether he agreed with Obama's decision to kill Bin Laden he says no. It looks terrible to say Paul agrees with going after Bin Laden but then second guesses Obama on how it was done.

I get that we could potentially worked with Pakistan to arrest him, as with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but what response is there to a point like this (paraphrased from a friend):


Newt points out that Bin Laden was in a multimillion dollar compound just miles away from a large army base in their capital. The idea of working with their government is foolish, since they were most likely assisting Bin Laden.

Now I don't know if they were assisting him or not, or looking the other way, or maybe they honestly did not know he was there. But as it stands now, the general populace sees Paul's position as "I wouldn't kill Bin Laden, but I'd do something else that involves working with Pakistan, that I haven't really articulated, even though it looks mighty suspicious that they didn't know he was there."

It's fine to talk about motives and blowback in a broader sense, and alternative scenarios where we hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are great but that's not what anyone voted for--including Paul. The question is based on the fact is we're there now, we have intelligence on Bin Laden, Pakistan looks suspicious, does the POTUS issue the order to kill or "other"? And "other" had better be a damn good option.

The weakness of this position will only magnify if Paul reaches the general election. My guess is Paul will stick by his answer to not issue a kill order, so he NEEDS to beef up that "other" response. It's critical.

Paulitics 2011
01-20-2012, 01:13 PM
"I would have done it ten years ago, I voted for the authority to capture him in 2001, and I would have preferred him alive so we could have gotten information from him and possibly prevented even more terrorist attacks."

tttppp
01-20-2012, 03:48 PM
"I would have done it ten years ago, I voted for the authority to capture him in 2001, and I would have preferred him alive so we could have gotten information from him and possibly prevented even more terrorist attacks."

I agree. I've stated he should say something like this in other threads. Most people think its a no brainer to kill Bin Laden. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to get him alive so he can be interrogated? We could have uncovered the source of their funding and stopped future terrorist activities.

Paul should say something like this: "I disagree with how Bin Laden was taken out. First of all, we should have asked Pakistan for permission before we attacked Bin Laden's compound. Attacking him without permission could have started a war and possibly a nuclear war with Pakistan. Second, Bin Laden should have been taken alive if possible. Taking Bin Laden alive does two things:first we could have interrogated him and found his source of funding and could have found other high ranking terrorist officials. Second, we could have given him a fair trial like we do everyone else. It is not guaranteed that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks just because Fox News says so. Even if there is a 99% chance he guilty, he still deserves a fair trial. I would also give every citizen in America the right to a fair trial. Currently this right has been taken away by the NDAA."