|Somali PiratesPage 2 of 12 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)|
The intelligence agencies of the major powers KNOW where the "masterminds" are operating from, but without an effective government in place in Somalia, have been reluctant to act.
Yeah, and we knew where to direct "Shock and Awe" at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Liberation, too. What's been the cluster**** over there? "The insurgency."
I stress again, the US military is currently incapable and ill-trained to fight this kind of warfare (4gw.) You really think taking out the head warlords over there is going to put a stop to the piracy? Do you REALLY think more warlords won't arise, or that the poor will no longer resort to violence? Who's going to surrender and/or negotiate peace, on who's authority, and will said negotiations be adhered to by the "unwashed masses" of thugs?
You ignore history and overestimate our military's ability to deal with these kinds of situations IMO.
Posted: 4/13/2009 1:32:18 PM
That is not an "area" that can be avoided.
Actually I believe it can.
The Red Sea is accessable from the Suez Canal. The Gulf of Aden only borders Somalia and Yemen. And everything else is open waters.
This will drastically increase the cost of shipping between certain points, but it would not be difficult to avoid the area.
Of coarse if you remove the pirates only source of income, they will seek out something else, possibly much less desirable.
Posted: 4/13/2009 7:43:10 PM
|Ninjas > Pirates, i see no error with this answer.|
Posted: 4/13/2009 9:14:05 PM
I think a lot of people are showing some ignorance of what is actually happening in Somalia and where these pirates came from.
Somalia is going through a long nasty civil war. Infrastructure is minimal and mostly destoyed and social programs are non existant. Somalia has one of the lowest per capita GDPs in the (possibly the absolute lowest), poverty and starvation are rampant in this country that has enough aridable land to feed all the citizens ten fold.
This post kind of reminds me of the joke about the two left wing activists, who are walking down the street, and come across a man, who is bloody and concussed, from having been mugged. They look at the victim, and then at each other, and one says "We have to find the man who did this. He obviously needs our help, and is a victim of an uncaring society".
Posted: 4/13/2009 10:05:28 PM
|The whole problem with fighting wars as they used to be fought...is that the left won't stand for it. |
In Tripoli EVERYONE was a pirate, or supported piracy in some form or fashion. Therefore when the Marines made landing and killed /captured everyone in sight...it was judged a "Victory". Nobody even HEARD of "collateral damage" back then...if you were a civilian that got caught in the middle of a military operation, you were just considered "too stupid to live".
Run through a few dozen wars where people thought the same...until a little after WW2. Dresden, Germany was firebombed to ashes...it was later decried, but at the time, they were trying to hit the rail station to destroy the last major semi-truck shipping companies and their trucks...but they "Used a cannon to kill a mosquito"...and the entire town was wiped out. After WW2, any town that was the site of a battle war pretty much gutted & destroyed, not to mention the millions of people killed...but you still didn't hear anything about "Collateral Damage" back then...they were just considered "folks who didn't have sense enought to RUN after they heard the first bomb explode".
Then you hit Korea...and you start hearing from the left more & more in this war. Where normally we would have used overwhelming force, we ended up attempting a "Police Action"...which almost NEVER works, in any war, throughout history. And in this case, it certainly didn't. Civilian Casualties first comes into prevalent public notice during this war, mostly due to liberal journalists who were against fighting Commies in the first place.
Then there was Veitnam...another "Police Action"...this war was almost completely and totally run by the US Congress, and ruined by the same. You let Generals fight & determine strategy in wars, not Congress...what should have lasted a year or two tops, drug out for almost a decade. The President & Congress REFUSED to allow strikes on legitimate military targets for the first few years...Hanoi was "Off Limits"...dumb idea. The Vietnam war was the most mismanaged clusterfoobar to ever occur in the history of Modern Warfare.
We then go to the two Gulf Wars...some of the most precise military strikes in history up to that point...but OMG listen to the liberals scream...we lost more of our people in ONE MINOR Civil War battle than we've lost in the entire TWO Gulf Wars to date. Let's see...a couple hundred thousand of them versus less than 8,000 thousand of OURS?? THAT'S A WIN!! We used the most precise weapons of war to date and have had the LEAST "collateral damage" of ANY WAR, yet the left screams about every dead un-uniformed death like it's a kid from their neighborhood....WTF??
(Hey, and let's not even talk about how none of the bad guys wears a uniform these days and when they get shot, someone else grabs their weapon and runs...)
What SHOULD be done with the Somali Pirates...is exactly what one posted mentioned before...track 'em & MOAB 'em. Do exactly what we did to the American Indian...kill the population down to a point where they couldn't field a decent baseball team in each offending town. If you don't have a population, you can't cause a problem...that's how they USED to look at it. Worked pretty nicely for Western Expansion of the US...didn't it?
I was actually surprised when the Russians didn't do exactly that when their cargo ship full of Tanks got captured last year. But then, the Russians have had most of their military rusting underneath them for some time now and the biggest threat from them now is that they will sell nukes to whoever has the cash...they really don't have the wherewithal to fight a serious, long-term war.
Earth's population is overcrowded anyway...if for no other reason than to save what little is left of the Environment, we simply need to fight wars in a bloodier way to cut down on that excess population. Higher body counts, whether military or civilian, are actually NEEDED to help Earth recover some of the lost territory that mankind has completely screwed up. Otherwise, within 100 years, there may very well be no other option but required Euthanasia for those over 65 yrs of age.
Posted: 4/13/2009 11:05:26 PM
It cracks me up when observers have all the easy answers. Have some respect for the people dealing with these situations! Believe it or not, they might know more than you!
They managed to quell piracy on the Spanish Main 350 years with far more primitive technology than they have today on a hostile ocean filled with far more enemies. I honestly cannot fathom why it has become such a problem lately unless nobody is really doing anything about it.
Posted: 4/14/2009 3:54:13 AM
|In response to the above post--|
And maybe we Americans should have let the Japanese finish off and conquer Australia.
Seems like the rest of the world knows how to "get on their knees" for old Uncle Sam and "use their mouth's" in alternative ways when they are in danger.
Posted: 4/14/2009 6:25:42 AM
|i'm hoping at this point that these ships will be allowed to defend theirselves with armed security. from what i hear on the news they come in rubber dingys or small craft. a lookout should be able to spot them and pick them off with a long range telescopic sniper rifle. i'm not sure i see how they able to do what they do. even if it's just a couple of rifle slugs into the hull of the pirate's vessel should deter them. am i wrong here????|
Posted: 4/14/2009 9:29:36 AM
|You don't need short rang ballistic missles to fend off a couple of pirates or even a small boat of them. A 20mm or 50 cal on each end of a boat is a hell of a lot of deterent and i hardly believe a oil tanker is going to sail into DC and take over the white house.|
Posted: 4/14/2009 10:55:33 AM
I don't want MY money to be used to buy protection for some multibillion dollar corporation.
One of the almost "universally" accepted roles of government is to ensure the free flow of commerce for its citizens. Except for tin foil hat progressives, who hate businesses as a matter of rote allegiance to anarchy, no one denies that a proper role of government is to protect its citizens, who are merely engaged in commerce.
This is one of the few areas, where I believe an international military force needs to come into play. China, Russia, and the United States, and Great Britain are all on the "same side" on this one.
Posted: 4/14/2009 12:21:24 PM
Seems as though a few of those 2 and 3 million dollar ransoms that shipping companies have paid could employ a whole lot armed guards and pay beaucoup bounties.Actually, insurance companies pay the ransom. The shipping companies all share the expense by paying premiums, which, IIRC, costs about $15K per vessel per trip. They expect to have a few ships delayed by pirates, apparently it's a fairly small percentage. When the cost of paying ransom begins to get too expensive, the insurance companies or the shipping companies themselves will take appropriate action, adding features to their ships to make boarding more difficult, and perhaps adding armed guards or training crews in the use of firearms.
$15K buys a lot of Uzis and ammo.
Posted: 4/14/2009 12:36:09 PM
Umm, no. The US govt sent in the navy so that the shipper didn't have to pay a ransom to get his cargo back.
The United States sent its Navy, because a United States flagged ship was attacked by pirates on the high seas. If you don't have any sense of the importance of that, and it seems you don't, there's no point in discussing it further with you. Your hatred of all businesses seems to blind you to the fact that there are issues here far greater than just money.
Posted: 4/14/2009 1:34:52 PM
|Um.... might I point out that this particular ship was not carrying a corporate cargo of Hummers or Barbie Dolls or whatever, but was contracted by the United Nations World Food Program to carry much needed food to feed the starving in Africa.|
Personally, I'm all for having our militaries protect the high seas against piracy regardless of the size of the wallet of whoever they protect, just as I appreciate my local police force stopping burglars whether they're robbing me or a millionaire, but even if there were some logical argument against protecting purely corporate interests, that wouldn't seem to hold up in this particular case.
Posted: 4/14/2009 2:39:57 PM
|Might I point out to a couple of posters that personal attacks at each other, that don't involve the topic, are likely to get the thread deleted and those posters banned, if someone alerts the mods? There is a topic, and it has nothing to do with a one on one "war" between posters.|
Posted: 4/14/2009 4:12:03 PM
|They aren't pirates. They are terrorists. They are only being called pirates because they attacked at sea. |
Sniper the rest of the **stard terrorists and call it a day.
Posted: 4/14/2009 4:17:39 PM
As long as it's the shipping corporations (or their insurers) paying the bounty, I'm all for it. However, I don't want MY money to be used to buy protection for some multibillion dollar corporation.
You are no doubt aware that the cost would simply be passed on to the consumer, just as it always is.
IOW, yeah, you'll be paying for it one way or another.
Posted: 4/14/2009 5:00:34 PM
They aren't pirates. They are terrorists. Actually, they aren't terrorists. Their motives are economics and criminal greed. They aren't "redistributing wealth," they aren't sharing the booty with the starving masses; for them it's a capitalist enterprise. It's about money, not politics.
Posted: 4/14/2009 6:44:41 PM
It's a shame that a home owning, dog owning, pays all my bills, semi-retired (meaning I only own 3 businesses now) man with savings like me isn't as "successful" as a 24yo with no degree, no marketable skills, no property, and who can't pay his bills.
Let me guess! You live at home and your posting from the basement
When I post, I have a lovely view of NY Harbor. I can see Staten Island, Manhattan, New Jersey, the Verranzano Bridge and the Statue of Liberty from my apt in the sky. I live the life you dream of in your profile
Wow! you own a home and a dog?? how do you do it? Pay your bills? that is nothing to brag about, It is what you SHOULD be doing.
You are semi-retired and only own 3 businesses? Yet your profile clearly states that you have been a computer programmer for 30 years (it mentions nothing about owning businesses that supply head shops).
I see that you like to put others down and personally attack people in every thread you start to lose when intelligent people prove you wrong time and time again.
You should really try to stay on topic.
The navy is there to ensure the sea ways are safe for ALL traffic.
Just like the police are there to make sure their jurisdiction is safe for all citizens including private business owners.
Corporations pay a massive amount of taxes and without them your portion of the tax bill would be staggering.
I vote the navy starts using Q ships, Put bounty s on the pirates heads and uses the navy to destroy and vessel that is reasonably thought to be a pirate vessel.
This could have been nipped in the bud long ago but instead the pirates were allowed to keep doing what they were doing and it proved profitable with very little risk to themselves.
Leading the job of being a pirate very attractive to poor and desperate Somalians.
Posted: 4/14/2009 9:05:24 PM
|Nobushlover, quite frankly, you have, almost singlehandedly, ruined the thread, and it's pointless to continue. Most sane and rational people agree that piracy is a real problem, for all nations, but you twist everything to be about your hatred of corporations. It's odd, really, since most corporations are publicly held, owned by the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker as shareholders. |
What you regard as "evil" or "greedy" about simply shipping goods over the ocean, I haven't a clue. The Maersk-Alabama was engaged in a humanitarian mission, actually, so twisting to the subject to corporate greed seems really odd.
In any case, this is why admin deleted the "Politics" forum. There are just some individuals incapable of rational discussion, and if they take over a thread, rational discourse ceases to be an option.
Posted: 4/14/2009 10:13:22 PM
|^^^ Could not agree more. I even feel dirty for addressing his posts.|
Very well put RenaissanceMan1950...and wvwaterfall...
Good to know at least a few people can see the forest through the trees.
Posted: 4/15/2009 3:03:26 AM
Thank God we finally have a President who is willing to kill terrorists who attack Americans instead of letting them run and hide from justice
Oh--gee. Finally. I never knew that President Bush did nothing after 9/11 but wring his hands. Maybe you can explain why, exactly, Mr. Bush, of all people, would let ANY terrorist the U.S. had a chance of eliminating "run and hide from justice?" He's been giving jihadists a free ride for the past eight years, apparently--I suppose these pirates were the first three terrorists the U.S. has killed. Is that what you're claiming?
How do you explain eight years of reports from all kinds of sources, listing the hundreds, or even thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban jihadists the U.S. military has killed and captured all over the world? Or were these reports faked by the same people who faked the moon landing and the 9/11 attacks? I can tell from your other posts just how much you know about this subject. Why don't you give us some relevant facts? Or do you get tongue-tied when someone calls on you to back up your mouth?
Having researched this subject as thoroughly as anyone can tell you have, I'm sure you know that the armed Predator attacks in Pakistan's border areas have been going on for a long time. And I'm sure you also know their rate has increased since August. A number of very senior operatives have been killed by Hellfire missiles fired from Predators. I'd be glad to cite you to the names and duties of some of the more important stiffs. In a lot of cases, there are even photos of them, or their remains.
All this happened well before Mr. Obama was inaugurated.
Your statement has quite a lot of truth to it--if you apply it to the right president. Or, you may have forgotten Mr. Clinton's sorry record in fighting jihadists. He did absolutely nothing about the 2000 bombing of the Cole, and next to nothing about either Iran and Hizballah's bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996, or the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February, 1993. And his feckless response to the April, 1993 attempt to kill President G.H.W. Bush in Kuwait was to launch a few Tomahawks at a single empty Defense Ministry building at 2 AM.
Hassan Turabi's radical Islamist regime, which ruled Sudan in 1992, was hospitable to both Ayman Zawahiri and Bin Laden. It was also the point of contact between the Al Qaeda the two men were just forming and Iraqi agents, who were part of the huge staff Iraq maintained at its embassy in Khartoum.
At a farm Bin Laden owned outside Khartoum, Iraqi military specialists trained a number of jihadists in using explosives, setting ambushes, and in designing chemical and possibly biological weapons. In the March, 1991 resolution ending the First Gulf War, the were all actions Iraq had agreed not to take. But the evidence--including intercepts of many phone conversations between people at the plant and known Iraqi WMD designers--was damning. From the dirt near a presumed pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, the U.S. recovered a chemical known to be used for only one purpose--to manufacture VX nerve gas.
As Mr. Clinton knew, Sudan had long been interested in obtaining chemical and biological weapons. He also knew that every week, Sudan had been flying a planeload of frozen beef to Iraq under an exception in the sanctions the U.S. had imposed. This seemed to be one way Iraq might be passing WMD technology to Sudan. The supposed pharmaceutical plant was partly owned by the Sudan government, to which Bin Laden had contributed many millions of dollars. Mr. Clinton finally had this plant destroyed.
The same day, U.S. cruise missiles destroyed several Al Qaeda training camps near Kandahar, Afghanistan. But for the second time, Mr. Clinton let Bin Laden get away, missing him by about an hour and a half. And when Bin Laden might well have been killed by another missile strike near Kandahar--long before 9/11--Mr. Clinton declined. Why? He was afraid a cruise missile might kill several prominent Saudis who were staying nearby, hunting with falcons.
Posted: 4/15/2009 5:21:39 AM
|Wow!! I just read message #139!!! I agree with you 110%|
Now moving on to my thought....
I say that the US Navy should buy a few small ships and arm them discreetly. Then dress them up as if they were merchant ships. This is of course being done to "lure" the pirates in. When the pirates approach and fire upon this un-marked US Navy ship (Pirate raider as I like to call it) the Navy can fire back onto the pirates and send them to the bottom of the sea!!
Perhaps the idea of not knowing which ships are "pirate raiders" and which are just merchant ships will be some what of a threat to discourage the Pirates.
Kind of similar to the Commerce raiders of WW2. But the intent here is to be attacked by the Pirates in order to find them and destroy them.
But that's wishful thinking......
Posted: 4/15/2009 5:50:03 AM
|In regards to the above message(#145)|
Why should anyone want to debate you? You never debate, only hate....
Posted: 4/15/2009 11:08:49 AM
Rush Limbaugh is defending the pirates
I love how the leftist blogs ignore ironic humor, and take quotes out of context. I happened to be listening to Rush, at the time he said that, and it was prefaced with a reference to what he expected "the left" to start saying, and thus your "quote" was what he expected the "left" to say.
In any case, back on topic, apparently there are a few suggesting that Congress authorize privateers operating under letters of marque, to operate as bounty hunters. Odd as that sounds, at first, the constitution provides for it, and it just might work. It's, at least, an intriguing idea.
12 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)