Ron Paul to make another "important announcement" tomorrow

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The problem with the bounty is two-pronged: one, the very rational belief that anyone in Afghanistan that tried to meet it by capturing or killing bin Laden would immediately open himself up to violent reprisal and wouldn't live long enough to see that 50 million, lessening the bounty's worth, and secondly, that given the areas he was in, the local population themselves would protect him from discovery and help hide him.  Even though you are right that the Taliban proposed handing bin Laden over in Sept. 2001 (though it would not accept disbanding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan), bin Laden had enough sympathizers around that he would have easily been tipped off and been able to go to ground.

Furthermore, the Afghan war didn't just produce bin Laden.  From Abu Zubaydah to Ramzi bin-al-Shibh to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the US has found and captured or killed essentially all of the leadership of the original al Qaeda organization, which, for all practical purposes, is dead (leaving behind numerous copycat successor organizations that have borrowed its name).

First, a letter of marque and reprisal isn't exactly a bounty. Second, the people in the areas he was in would have been far less sympathetic if the US wasn't occupying their land. Third, a Bin Laden being chased after by fellow radical Islamic Taliban would be far less influential and threatening than a Bin Laden being chased by the US armed forces in the midst of invasion. Fourth, even assuming it didn't get him caught, it would at least keep him on the run without the massive deficits incurred by the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan or the thousands of deaths.

[The Mikado]

The problem with the bounty is two-pronged: one, the very rational belief that anyone in Afghanistan that tried to meet it by capturing or killing bin Laden would immediately open himself up to violent reprisal and wouldn't live long enough to see that 50 million, lessening the bounty's worth, and secondly, that given the areas he was in, the local population themselves would protect him from discovery and help hide him.  Even though you are right that the Taliban proposed handing bin Laden over in Sept. 2001 (though it would not accept disbanding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan), bin Laden had enough sympathizers around that he would have easily been tipped off and been able to go to ground.

Furthermore, the Afghan war didn't just produce bin Laden.  From Abu Zubaydah to Ramzi bin-al-Shibh to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the US has found and captured or killed essentially all of the leadership of the original al Qaeda organization, which, for all practical purposes, is dead (leaving behind numerous copycat successor organizations that have borrowed its name).

First, a letter of marque and reprisal isn't exactly a bounty. Second, the people in the areas he was in would have been far less sympathetic if the US wasn't occupying their land. Third, a Bin Laden being chased after by fellow radical Islamic Taliban would be far less influential and threatening than a Bin Laden being chased by the US armed forces in the midst of invasion. Fourth, even assuming it didn't get him caught, it would at least keep him on the run without the massive deficits incurred by the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan or the thousands of deaths.

It's not a bounty, it's an authorization of payment for services rendered to mercenaries and privateers, which is essentially...a bounty.

[Cincinnatus]

The problem with the bounty is two-pronged: one, the very rational belief that anyone in Afghanistan that tried to meet it by capturing or killing bin Laden would immediately open himself up to violent reprisal and wouldn't live long enough to see that 50 million, lessening the bounty's worth, and secondly, that given the areas he was in, the local population themselves would protect him from discovery and help hide him.  Even though you are right that the Taliban proposed handing bin Laden over in Sept. 2001 (though it would not accept disbanding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan), bin Laden had enough sympathizers around that he would have easily been tipped off and been able to go to ground.

Furthermore, the Afghan war didn't just produce bin Laden.  From Abu Zubaydah to Ramzi bin-al-Shibh to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the US has found and captured or killed essentially all of the leadership of the original al Qaeda organization, which, for all practical purposes, is dead (leaving behind numerous copycat successor organizations that have borrowed its name).

First, a letter of marque and reprisal isn't exactly a bounty. Second, the people in the areas he was in would have been far less sympathetic if the US wasn't occupying their land. Third, a Bin Laden being chased after by fellow radical Islamic Taliban would be far less influential and threatening than a Bin Laden being chased by the US armed forces in the midst of invasion. Fourth, even assuming it didn't get him caught, it would at least keep him on the run without the massive deficits incurred by the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan or the thousands of deaths.

It's not a bounty, it's an authorization of payment for services rendered to mercenaries and privateers, which is essentially...a bounty.

A letter of marque for "Air Pirates."  Seriously though, you'll never see me argue for the Iraq invasion.  I'll even go further to say that perhaps you are right about which steps to take regarding Taliban/Afghanistan.  They don't ONLY hate us for our freedoms, we have made some mistakes.  Many despise us because we're willing to support Israel.  Many hate us because we support so called "Puppet-dictators", which on that point I'll agree we shouldn't.  Let's say for the point of argument, you're right about absolutely every single one of your points.. What benefit does it provide us now?  I support Ron Paul on numerous issues, but, he tends to stretch his opinions a little.  Simply avoiding any overseas involvement isn't going to make people suddenly fall in love with us.  To radicals, we are and for the foreseeable future, will always be, "The Great Satan".  I'm not very inclined to think the killing of Bin Laden changes much at all.  I'm also not naive enough to view Pakistan as "full partners" in our efforts.  So, seeing as how Ron Paul ran for election in 2008, and he flat out stated that he wouldn't have authorized such a raid.  I think it's safe to assume Osama would not be dead, unlike now, where the President had the guts to follow through on a war he didn't start.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So, what did Dr. Paul announce?

[Cincinnatus]

So, what did Dr. Paul announce?

That he's running for President..

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The problem with the bounty is two-pronged: one, the very rational belief that anyone in Afghanistan that tried to meet it by capturing or killing bin Laden would immediately open himself up to violent reprisal and wouldn't live long enough to see that 50 million, lessening the bounty's worth, and secondly, that given the areas he was in, the local population themselves would protect him from discovery and help hide him.  Even though you are right that the Taliban proposed handing bin Laden over in Sept. 2001 (though it would not accept disbanding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan), bin Laden had enough sympathizers around that he would have easily been tipped off and been able to go to ground.

Furthermore, the Afghan war didn't just produce bin Laden.  From Abu Zubaydah to Ramzi bin-al-Shibh to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the US has found and captured or killed essentially all of the leadership of the original al Qaeda organization, which, for all practical purposes, is dead (leaving behind numerous copycat successor organizations that have borrowed its name).

First, a letter of marque and reprisal isn't exactly a bounty. Second, the people in the areas he was in would have been far less sympathetic if the US wasn't occupying their land. Third, a Bin Laden being chased after by fellow radical Islamic Taliban would be far less influential and threatening than a Bin Laden being chased by the US armed forces in the midst of invasion. Fourth, even assuming it didn't get him caught, it would at least keep him on the run without the massive deficits incurred by the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan or the thousands of deaths.

It's not a bounty, it's an authorization of payment for services rendered to mercenaries and privateers, which is essentially...a bounty.

A letter of marque for "Air Pirates."  Seriously though, you'll never see me argue for the Iraq invasion.  I'll even go further to say that perhaps you are right about which steps to take regarding Taliban/Afghanistan.  They don't ONLY hate us for our freedoms, we have made some mistakes.  Many despise us because we're willing to support Israel.  Many hate us because we support so called "Puppet-dictators", which on that point I'll agree we shouldn't.  Let's say for the point of argument, you're right about absolutely every single one of your points.. What benefit does it provide us now?  I support Ron Paul on numerous issues, but, he tends to stretch his opinions a little.  Simply avoiding any overseas involvement isn't going to make people suddenly fall in love with us.  To radicals, we are and for the foreseeable future, will always be, "The Great Satan".  I'm not very inclined to think the killing of Bin Laden changes much at all.  I'm also not naive enough to view Pakistan as "full partners" in our efforts.  So, seeing as how Ron Paul ran for election in 2008, and he flat out stated that he wouldn't have authorized such a raid.  I think it's safe to assume Osama would not be dead, unlike now, where the President had the guts to follow through on a war he didn't start.

Maybe, but assuming Ron Paul was able to enact the changes he wanted there would also be about a trillion dollars less debt and dropping fast. Osama might not have been killed, but his objectives would have definitively failed (that is, damaging the USA as a nation and/or promoting radical Islamic revolution in Middle Eastern countries), whereas right now he might be dead but his ideas are very much still alive.