As of 9/11, I don't think that there were very many people out there who wanted to attack Americans on American soil. I don't think there is much that can be done to stop people who want to commit mass-murder. You might catch half of them. I also don't think it is a good idea to go through the Bloods' neighborhood dressed in all blue throwing gang signs. It's my right to dress how I want, right? Sure, the Bloods would be in the wrong for killing me. But you know what, it was a dumb move to kick the hornets' nest.
It doesn't matter how many people you think are willing to attack Americans. The question becomes whether it is the role of government to DEFEND RIGHTS. America has enemies, right? Their are well funded and organized groups that are capable of attacking the United States. That means they deserve to die. Those that wish to do the same, also deserve to die. Those that aid them deserve to die.
This is why the Taliban was overthrown after 9/11. They aided Al Qaeda, allowed them to plan their evil and they die. Iran is also a funder of terrorism and arms groups that the American government has listed as enemies. Therefore Iran deserves to be destroyed to eliminate that threat to freedom. Saddam Hussein is a nice special case because he's a dictator, liar, aggressor and rights violator. For those very reasons he has no 'sovereignty' nor do we owe him the benefit of the doubt that he would 'do the right thing'. Freedom doesn't have to wait for a bomb to blow up in their city. Saddam may or may not have had WMDs. He loved to jerk us around though. Whether he'd use them on us? Don't know. Whether he'd give it to a group that would like to use it on us? It's possible. Whether he loses countrol of military installations in a revolt (like an Arab Spring - ie: Libya) that someone could get it? Quite possible.
There is nothing wrong with defending the interests of freedoms from those that have the interest in violating rights.
Who wants to see freedom destroyed in the USA? The government and the police state. Some brown guy half way across the world doesn't care about how I live my life until a government that supposedly represents me starts installing puppet dictators in his neighborhood. There are a few crazies everywhere. You can't stop most of them. I support liberty. That's why I oppose aggressive foreign wars, and that's why I oppose the state.
Here we are again with the relativism again with the police state comment. It's not a police state. Your freedoms pre-9/11 are the same as post-9/11. You're free to disparage the government and the United States all you want. You're a free citizen.
You can't just say you 'support liberty'. You have to believe in the protection of it too. Just as I expect common rights violating criminals thrown in jail, I expect my rights to also be protected from people that wish to kill (the ultimate rights violation) of thousands of people in a matter of hours.
You 'oppose the state'. You can't believe in rights without the state. I've dealt with enough 'anarcho-capitalists' (oxymoron) and it all comes down to 'rights are whatever' and they're defended by 'whoever has the biggest guns'. Thanks for that nihilist confession.
On the Switzerland point. If they are diehard enemies of freedom, then they should attack other free places like Japan and Switzerland and South Korea and so on... But they don't. They almost always attack in countries where the government is meddling in the affairs of the middle east.
You can't rely on such a simplistic view of the world. 'Well they be pissy, so they attack us'. Switzerland on the global Caliphate timeline is step 3045. They're still working on step 1. America is the world super power. It is the 'great satan'. It represents the complete opposite of the Islamic totalitarianist collectivist ideology.
When you're fighting a war, you fight the enemies that count. The argument you're following falls apart when you look at the infighting in the Islamic world. ISIS is trying to exterminate the Kurds, just as Saddam was. Is it because the Kurds were reigning oppression down on them? I think not!
It's more of a told-you-so to say that Osama was right that he would bankrupt the USA. The libertarians were saying the same thing. He laid out the gameplan for the world to see. And you and the American government fell for it. There was not even much of a debate about other strategies. It was all "gung-ho let's nation-build in Iraq and Afghanistan" rather than "let's focus on the murderers and their accomplices". I have no loyalty to the constitution. It has failed to prevent the government from growing as out of control as it has. Some magical document is not going to stop tyrants from trampling on our rights. We've seen it again and again from Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush and Obama.
I'm getting sick of this bankrupting BS because it seems to be some 'well Osama said this, so if we do it, he'll be nice.' Really, that should be our guiding light, the words of Osama bin Laden? I'm glad you don't have loyalty to the constitution, so I assume you'd burn the constitution if Osama told you?
If the American government does immoral things, and Charles Manson calls them out for it, does it suddenly make them moral? Osama was right in calling out the government for its crimes. He was wrong for murdering American civilians.
You need to explain how our acts are immoral. I'd also again, like to know these acts that are so criminal. And let's stipulate that America is wrong, should the government defend the rights of citizens from being murdered by foreign groups? It's really that simple. I get the impression from many libertarians the way they argue, that since America did all these 'bad' things, suddenly we can't do anything about bad coming at us. That we just have to stand down while citizens are murdered in cold blood.