# PIRATES DECLARE THEY INTEND TO RETALIATE!  Oh my...



## PubliusInfinitum

Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate



> NAIROBI, Kenya &#8212; Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."



Well we're in for it now... 

LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...

The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...

Enjoy...  

Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...


----------



## jillian

well, it actually started out like something i might actually agree with... 

which is that the pirates sound like idiots and that it's the same lack of reality that says terrorist acts are retaliation for another country having the nerve to stop bombs from being lobbed at it.

and then you went all psycho on us.

bummer.


----------



## Mr. President

Im sure our navy is bored anyway.  While their pirates cast small arms fire at our deestroyers we can drop small bombs capsize the boats with the  waves generated and practice sniping since Obama is cuting the sniper school bidget.  Yup sounds like a win win.


----------



## DavidS

Good! We've got to keep the Navy occupied with this kind of target practice. I mean, the Air Force, Marines and Army were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.. what did the Navy do? Nothing. 'Bout time we give the biggest, strongest and most bad-ass Navy in the world something to do before they decide to go blow up China or something.


----------



## DvDud1

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya  Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone's going to compare actions taken in a hostage situation with pirates to the sorry clusterfuck in the Middle East.
Besides, this operation was a success...they actually took out the bad guys and didn't instead invade Spain or some other such stupid shit.

Although there's one valid comparison...like Iraq under Saddam, in spite of all the posturing and sabre-rattling, the pirates aren't any real threat to our nation.

They will likely be a threat to U.S. ships in that part of the world, though...I think our ship's crews should be armed and trained to repel attacks. The next crew these characters get their hands on will likely be slaughtered in retaliation...we should make sure our sailors have the capability to defend themselves.


----------



## Tech_Esq

This is not a seaborne operation folks. If we intend to fix it and not just stem the bleeding, it will require a land operation. You know that line in the Marine Hymm that goes "..._to the shores of Tripoli..._ That was from the Barbary wars against the pirates. We'll have to go to Somalia and cut out the pirate's heart.

If we don't have the balls for that operation, we can entertain ourselves by permenantly stationing 3 or 4 Iwo Jima class assault carriers with attack helos and Harriers to patrol the area and shoot up the bad guys.

Let's see what kind of political will Obama has.....the world will be watching.


----------



## Tech_Esq

DvDud1 said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya  Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone's going to compare actions taken in a hostage situation with pirates to the sorry clusterfuck in the Middle East.
> Besides, this operation was a success...they actually took out the bad guys and didn't instead invade Spain or some other such stupid shit.
> 
> Although there's one valid comparison...like Iraq under Saddam, in spite of all the posturing and sabre-rattling, the pirates aren't any real threat to our nation.
> 
> They will likely be a threat to U.S. ships in that part of the world, though...I think our ship's crews should be armed and trained to repel attacks. The next crew these characters get their hands on will likely be slaughtered in retaliation...we should make sure our sailors have the capability to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


You know many countries do not allow weapons on civilian ships right? Are you suggesting we should just not have trade with those countries or we violate their laws?


----------



## Bootneck

Tech_Esq said:


> This is not a seaborne operation folks. If we intend to fix it and not just stem the bleeding, it will require a land operation. You know that line in the Marine Hymm that goes "..._to the shores of Tripoli..._ That was from the Barbary wars against the pirates. We'll have to go to Somalia and cut out the pirate's heart.



Yep. You're right. Look no further than Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary in 1841 and one of the greatest advocates of gunboat diplomacy, for the right sort of advice.

Speaking in defence of a British naval officer who attacked the shore base of slavers, he said; "Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one," 

Denman had attacked and destroyed slave quarters on the West African coast and had been sued by the Spanish owners for damages.


----------



## xotoxi

In other news...



> A group of bank robbers vow to fight back against the police that killed one of their team members.
> 
> "From now on, if we are robbing a bank and the city cops try to stop us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Bob Smith, a 30-year-old bank robber, told The Associated Press. "(The city cops have) become our No. 1 enemy."



What these pirate don't seem to realize is that there are consequences to breaking the law.


----------



## WillowTree

OMG! look what we gone and done! We've created more pirates.


----------



## Terry

I know willow but I bet they won't call it a war on Pirates but rather "Priates Rights" issue  LOL


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Be serious, Pubes, this isn't gonna get the pirates more recruits. I think STARVATION and a NON-STATE has that pretty much covered.

Though I do agree with Teq_Esq, in the case of Somalia, it's gonna remain like this unless the whole international community gets serious about dealing with the problem, and I'm talking troops, nation-building, a mini-marshall plan, the whole thing to get the place cleaned up and going. Wouldn't be cheap, but if we all put in a bit we can diffuse the losses, and who knows, how much is it gonna cost to keep having skirmishes every summer for the next 200 years? I say we deal with it now.


----------



## Mad Scientist

WillowTree said:


> OMG! look what we gone and done! We've created more pirates.


I'm scared! What are we gonna' do if they start hijacking our ships?


----------



## Terry

Mad Scientist said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! look what we gone and done! We've created more pirates.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared! What are we gonna' do if they start hijacking our ships?
Click to expand...

 
maybe the Dems will really bring the draft back or wait, hire all those high school graduates to patrol the waters.


----------



## WillowTree

Terry said:


> I know willow but I bet they won't call it a war on Pirates but rather "Priates Rights" issue  LOL





or a seaward contingency operation!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Station a helo carrier out in the middle of the place at one end, and one at the other......

Outfit both helo carriers with Predator drones for patrolling, and Reaper drones equipped with Hellfire missiles and gatling guns for shooting.

I figure after the first group of pirates that gets turned into kindling and fish food will be sufficient warning for the others.


----------



## Toro

I thought I heard an admiral say precisely that he expected violence to increase over this incident.

However, I don't think they had a choice but to kill the pirates.  Considering that they shot them at sea at distance not once but three times is pretty amazing.


----------



## jillian

Terry said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! look what we gone and done! We've created more pirates.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared! What are we gonna' do if they start hijacking our ships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe the Dems will really bring the draft back or wait, hire all those high school graduates to patrol the waters.
Click to expand...


i see dumb people....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

DavidS said:


> Good! We've got to keep the Navy occupied with this kind of target practice. I mean, the Air Force, Marines and Army were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.. what did the Navy do? Nothing.
> 
> Talk about shit fer brains.


----------



## Xenophon

What will they do, send 2 rowboats next time?


----------



## user_name_guest

What if:

We hijack a pirate vessel and demand warlords randsom.  Would they pay us $3 million for their boat and their pirates?

Let's see if they care about  the lives of those boys.


----------



## editec

The Somali pirate are going to retaliate?

Yeah, right.

Now had you told me the _Vikings_ were pissed, then I might have been concerned.

Those guys are Thor losers.


----------



## Mad Scientist

user_name_guest said:


> What if:
> We hijack a pirate vessel and demand warlords randsom.  Would they pay us $3 million for their boat and their pirates?


But Somalia is a really poor nation. Maybe we could give then some stimulus or TARP money to pay us with? Just an idea.


----------



## editec

Mad Scientist said:


> user_name_guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if:
> We hijack a pirate vessel and demand warlords randsom. Would they pay us $3 million for their boat and their pirates?
> 
> 
> 
> But Somalia is a really poor nation. Maybe we could give then some stimulus or TARP money to pay us with? Just an idea.
Click to expand...

 
I have a better idea.

Let's hire Blackwater or Halliburton to hijack our ships for them.

Milo Minderbinder was just ahead of his time.


----------



## oreo

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya  Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
Click to expand...




DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_

Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.  

Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.

The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.


----------



## WillowTree

oreo said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya  Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> *Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  *Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
Click to expand...




they're in the kitchen spicing some crow.. Old man irony done come to visit em!


----------



## oreo

editec said:


> The Somali pirate are going to retaliate?
> 
> Yeah, right.
> 
> Now had you told me the _Vikings_ were pissed, then I might have been concerned.
> 
> Those guys are Thor losers.




These Thor losers as you refer to them, are extremely well-armed in case you didn't notice.  I saw a couple of 50 caliber machine guns & each & every one is carrying an ak-47, along with grenade rocket launchers.  Don't fool yourself--they can do some serious damage.

How the remaining hostages will be treated is unclear as yet.  But no matter what I do approve of the action.  We can't let rogue militia's run about the world inflicting terror on everyone else.  It's time they had a dose of their own medicine.

But, one thing for certain--they aren't done yet.


----------



## oreo

WillowTree said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> *Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  *Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they're in the kitchen spicing some crow.. Old man irony done come to visit em!
Click to expand...



Yep--what goes around comes around.


----------



## editec

Oreo seems to be having a lapse of memory:



> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement. PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE. And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.


 
Had the HIGH COMMAND  been listened to by the Bush II admin BEFORE we went into Iraq, we'd have had enough boots on the ground to not only win that war quickly, but to secure the peace quickly.

So your theory that Bush II was the sort of  leader who knew when to listen to his generals is basically groundless.


----------



## FactFinder

oreo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Somali pirate are going to retaliate?
> 
> Yeah, right.
> 
> Now had you told me the _Vikings_ were pissed, then I might have been concerned.
> 
> Those guys are Thor losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These Thor losers as you refer to them, are extremely well-armed in case you didn't notice.  I saw a couple of 50 caliber machine guns & each & every one is carrying an ak-47, along with grenade rocket launchers.  Don't fool yourself--they can do some serious damage.
> 
> How the remaining hostages will be treated is unclear as yet.  But no matter what I do approve of the action.  We can't let rogue militia's run about the world inflicting terror on everyone else.  It's time they had a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> But, one thing for certain--they aren't done yet.
Click to expand...


Then neither are we.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

DvDud1 said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya &#8212; Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone's going to compare actions taken in a hostage situation with pirates to the sorry clusterfuck in the Middle East.
> Besides, this operation was a success...they actually took out the bad guys and didn't instead invade Spain or some other such stupid shit.
> 
> Although there's one valid comparison...like Iraq under Saddam, in spite of all the posturing and sabre-rattling, the pirates aren't any real threat to our nation.
> 
> They will likely be a threat to U.S. ships in that part of the world, though...I think our ship's crews should be armed and trained to repel attacks. The next crew these characters get their hands on will likely be slaughtered in retaliation...we should make sure our sailors have the capability to defend themselves.
Click to expand...



NOooooooooooo  ...

I'm sure that Muslim Pirates, are COMPLETELY distinct from Muslim terrorists... and US "SHIPPING" is WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THE "US"... so NO ONE COULD *EVER* claim that a *THREAT TO US SHIPPING* IS A *THREAT TO THE US*...

WHO COULD EVEN COMPARE THE TWO?  They're INCOMPARABLE... except for the singularity.

LOL... Leftists...


I mean just because it's Muslims demanding that people react to their complaint and PAY THROUGH THE NOSE... for their dispair... THATS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TERRORISM.... 

Sure...

I see what you're saying... 

But then idiocy is idiocy and the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TAKE BY THE MUSLIM WORLD ON THINGS LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTRINSIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF THOSE RIGHTS... needs to be taken into consideration and we in the west just need to understand that THEY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DO....

Here's the thing... *FUCK THEM AND THEIR WAY OF THINKING.* 

We don't actually have to lend 'their way of thinking' ANY CREDENCE...  just like 'we', speaking as an AMERICAN do not have to lend credence to ANY FACET OF LEFT-THINK...


Any questions?   .
.
.
.
.
And we don't care if Europe doesn't 'like us...' or that Australians feel we're 'cowboys...'  we don't require the respect of idiots and for the record what, except an idiot, would?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Epsilon Delta said:


> Be serious, Pubes, this isn't gonna get the pirates more recruits. I think STARVATION and a NON-STATE has that pretty much covered.



Ahhhh... well there ya have it kids... a LEFTISTS coming to imply that THE NEED OF THE PIRATES overcomes the rights of those who '*have*' what would otherwise '_FILL THEIR *NEED*_'...  

Now when I speak to those who promote the interests of the ENEMY...  ^^^ That is what I am speaking of...



> Though I do agree with Teq_Esq, in the case of Somalia, it's gonna remain like this unless the whole international community gets serious about dealing with the problem, and I'm talking troops, nation-building, a mini-marshall plan, the whole thing to get the place cleaned up and going. Wouldn't be cheap, but if we all put in a bit we can diffuse the losses, and who knows, how much is it gonna cost to keep having skirmishes every summer for the next 200 years? I say we deal with it now.



Yes... Kids don't you realize that 'we' must rebuld Somalia... to GIVE THEM A DEMOCRATIC NATION... where the rights of the individual are respected...  I mean sure... It might look A LOT like what we did in Iraq...  which of course this idiot PROTESTED TO THE EXTENT OF HER MEANS... but 'we' need to save the Somali people, from their OWN OVERT, VEHEMENT, DISRESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL... 

Everyone got that?  And "NO KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS..."  to be sure... setting aside that whole thing where the three Pirates we killed Saturday were Innocent Civilians... considering that they were poor and all... and were just working a 'sound business model' so they wouldn't STARVE...

Oh it's so VERY COMPLEX!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jillian said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared! What are we gonna' do if they start hijacking our ships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe the Dems will really bring the draft back or wait, hire all those high school graduates to patrol the waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see dumb people....
Click to expand...


Turn from the mirror... and stop watching Olberman...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

editec said:


> Oreo seems to be having a lapse of memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement. PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE. And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had the HIGH COMMAND  been listened to by the Bush II admin BEFORE we went into Iraq, we'd have had enough boots on the ground to not only win that war quickly, but to secure the peace quickly.
> 
> So your theory that Bush II was the sort of  leader who knew when to listen to his generals is basically groundless.
Click to expand...


We had more troops on the ground in Iraq to win the war quickly than we had when we 'secured the peace'... 

Don't revise history dickless...  Bush went on defense post Abu Gahrib and THAT is where the peace lost its security...  HAD Bush 'captured' the reporters that 'broke' Abu Gahrib 'story'... sent their sorry ass to Gitmo; and NOT spent one second worrying about the the left's reaction to US troop presence on "INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS" TAKEN GROUND AND HELD GROUND... there would have been NO INSURGENCY, thus no troop pull down, thus no need for a 'surge.'

Where Bush failed in Iraq he failed due to his reaction to leftist crying...  

Which is as predictable as the sun rising and the FAST LANE TO 27% popularity.


----------



## dilloduck

Arrrrrg  I hope they aren't offended by me talking like a pirate. Bring em on I says !!!
and blow the shit out of countries that are financing em too by paying King's Ransoms !
Shiver me timbers--me eye patch is slippin and my *!@&#!**# parrot bit my ear off .


----------



## user_name_guest

I wonder if Latrell Spreewell post-NBA career was working as a pirates.  Wouldn't surprise me.  After all,

His last contract offer, the former Minnesota Timberwolves' player Latrell Sprewell turned down a four-year, $40 million contract offer, citing, "I have mouths to feed."


----------



## Iriemon

oreo said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya &#8212; Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
Click to expand...


Iraq didn't attack us.  

The pirates attacked first.  

That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.

See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.


----------



## LiveUninhibited

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAIROBI, Kenya  Three flawless shots. Three pirates killed. Bracing themselves on a rolling warship in choppy seas, U.S. Navy snipers took down a trio of Somali pirates with single shots, freeing the American sea captain being held at gunpoint, a Navy commander said Monday.
> 
> Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.
> 
> "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
Click to expand...


The first rule of war is to understand your enemies. The comparison of pirates and Islamic terrorists is very weak. Piracy exists because it is profitable. Terrorism exists because zealots don't like it when "infidels" interfere in their affairs. Very few, if any, attack us because they hate freedom, rather they attack us because they believe we want to destroy Islam. Attacking Islamic countries mostly makes it easier to convert devout Muslims to violent extremism. That doesnt mean we should avoid attacking them under any circumstances, but it does represent an extra cost that vastly outweighed the likely yield of, say, attacking Iraq. Invading Somalia and attempting to establish a nation there would probably eliminate the piracy at a very high cost, and would probably serve as yet another recruiting tool for Islamic extremists who say we're systematically destroying Islam and trying to replace it with democracy and secularism. 

Piracy is defeated by removing its profitability despite what statements may be said in the interim out of anger. The armed forces did a flawless job here, but the solution is going to have to involve target hardening - much cheaper than invading Somalia. Lets not pay to destroy and rebuild another fucking country.



Tech_Esq said:


> You know many countries do not allow weapons on civilian ships right? Are you suggesting we should just not have trade with those countries or we violate their laws?



Those laws need to change because of piracy, not that they made any sense to begin with. As the largest economy America should have considerable influence in this.



xotoxi said:


> In other news...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of bank robbers vow to fight back against the police that killed one of their team members.
> 
> "From now on, if we are robbing a bank and the city cops try to stop us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Bob Smith, a 30-year-old bank robber, told The Associated Press. "(The city cops have) become our No. 1 enemy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What these pirate don't seem to realize is that there are consequences to breaking the law.
Click to expand...


The pirates were just morons. Usually they do a better job than this. Their plan was a longshot and they died of stupidity, not criminality per se. What we need is to make it so that piracy is never or at least rarely a fast way to gain 3 million dollars. The success rates of the pirates are remarkably high so far, though recent incidents suggest an encouraging trend of dead pirates.


----------



## dilloduck

jillian said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared! What are we gonna' do if they start hijacking our ships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe the Dems will really bring the draft back or wait, hire all those high school graduates to patrol the waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see dumb people....
Click to expand...


You really need to stay away from those Dem fund raisers, woman !


----------



## dilloduck

Iriemon said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq didn't attack us.
> 
> The pirates attacked first.
> 
> That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.
> 
> See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.
Click to expand...


We already KILLED the pirates who did it. Quit profiling. Leave the rest alone----they haven't done anything else to America you imperialist bastard !!


----------



## garyd

Wrong Islamic terrorism exists in it's current state because the whole freaking world doesn't operate under Sahria Law. You should read your Osama more carefully.


----------



## dilloduck

garyd said:


> Wrong Islamic terrorism exists in it's current state because the whole freaking world doesn't operate under Sahria Law. You should read your Osama more carefully.



sshhhh we're after pirates now-------someone seems to have forgotten all about Osama. Are we not wasting money and manpower chasing people who haven't done anything to us ?


----------



## garyd

Nope.


----------



## Gunny

DavidS said:


> Good! We've got to keep the Navy occupied with this kind of target practice. I mean, the Air Force, Marines and Army were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.. what did the Navy do? Nothing. 'Bout time we give the biggest, strongest and most bad-ass Navy in the world something to do before they decide to go blow up China or something.



Dude, the Navy is active in both theaters, mostly Iraq.  Marines don't walk to Iraq.  Navy and Marine air support doesn't come from land.  

The Marines are part of the Navy and we're the part that does the grunt work.  They operate the ships and provide our support.  A grunt in the field is no more effective than the ability to support him. 

And I'll take Navy and Marine pilots ANY day over any other.  They get close enough to the ground to see us.


----------



## dilloduck

garyd said:


> Nope.



some of the nicest people I know are pirates.


----------



## Gunny

Bootneck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a seaborne operation folks. If we intend to fix it and not just stem the bleeding, it will require a land operation. You know that line in the Marine Hymm that goes "..._to the shores of Tripoli..._ That was from the Barbary wars against the pirates. We'll have to go to Somalia and cut out the pirate's heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. You're right. Look no further than Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary in 1841 and one of the greatest advocates of gunboat diplomacy, for the right sort of advice.
> 
> Speaking in defence of a British naval officer who attacked the shore base of slavers, he said; "Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one,"
> 
> Denman had attacked and destroyed slave quarters on the West African coast and had been sued by the Spanish owners for damages.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  And we need to take it to them before they do capture another US flagged ship and slaughter its crew.  Might be a writeoff to that poster above, but I'm sure they and their families will feel differently.

Fact is, we got lucky.  Everything was in our favor, right down to the crew.  usually, these pirates take both ship and crew.  THAT is a completely different scenario with a lot more risks.


----------



## garyd

The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.


----------



## Gunny

garyd said:


> The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.



Exactly.  And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice.  At least, not with us.  I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back.  They got punked this time.  They aren't going to accept that.

If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast.  They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.

We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.

That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.


----------



## auditor0007

Gunny said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice.  At least, not with us.  I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back.  They got punked this time.  They aren't going to accept that.
> 
> If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast.  They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.
> 
> We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.
> 
> That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.
Click to expand...


After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here.  The fact is, this may make things worse down the road.  Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it.  We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked.  Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages. 

Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed.  That is now very likely to change.


----------



## LiveUninhibited

auditor0007 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice.  At least, not with us.  I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back.  They got punked this time.  They aren't going to accept that.
> 
> If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast.  They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.
> 
> We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.
> 
> That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here.  The fact is, this may make things worse down the road.  Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it.  We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked.  Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.
> 
> Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed.  That is now very likely to change.
Click to expand...


Maybe. But the primary goal is to get money. This is very distinct from Islamic terrorists, who may seek money but as a means to an ideological end, not a means in itself. Killing hostages is not very conducive to that goal of profit in general, unless you have plenty of spare hostages and you're not being taken seriously.

About being short-handed, I can see what they were thinking there. They got greedy, and most of the hijackings had gone so well with so little effort. If you bring dozens of people you have to split the loot more ways, so you want to use the minimal number of people to complete the job, as in any business. If they feel they have to bring more people, that makes the eventual payout lower. When victims and nations are willing to use force, even at the risk of hostages' lives, that also deters future crimes in the sense of heightened risk without a compensatory increase in profits (as is seen in Black market goods).

Deterrence does work with economic crimes. The boats need to be harder to board and the crews must be armed. A bomb and bullet resistant shelter could be devised in the ship as well, so that if all else fails the hostages cannot be used to prevent the military from coming down upon the pirates. Every conceiveable target-hardening strategy should be utilized, and as the pirates success rate goes to nearly zero, the piracy will stop.


----------



## dilloduck

Undeterred Somali pirates hijack 3 more ships





> MOMBASA, Kenya  Undeterred by U.S. and French hostage rescues that killed seven bandits, Somali pirates brazenly hijacked three more ships in the Gulf of Aden, the key waterway that's become the focal point of the world's fight against piracy.
> 
> The latest trophy for the pirates was the M.V. Irene E.M., a Greek-managed bulk carrier sailing from the Middle East to South Asia, said Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur.
> 
> The Irene was attacked and seized in the middle of the night Tuesday  a rare tactic for the pirates.
> 
> U.S. Navy Lt. Nathan Christensen, spokesman for the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, said the Irene was flagged in the Caribbean island nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and carried 23 Filipino crew. Choong reported a crew of 21, and there was no immediate way to reconcile the figures.
> 
> A maritime security contractor, speaking on condition of anonymity because it is a sensitive security issue, said the ship put out a distress signal "to say they had a suspicious vessel approaching. That rapidly turned into an attack and then a hijacking."
> 
> "They tried to call in support on the emergency channels, but they never got any response," the contractor said


----------



## Gunny

auditor0007 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice.  At least, not with us.  I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back.  They got punked this time.  They aren't going to accept that.
> 
> If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast.  They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.
> 
> We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.
> 
> That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here.  The fact is, this may make things worse down the road.  Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it.  We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked.  Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.
> 
> Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed.  That is now very likely to change.
Click to expand...


I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory.  In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.

These people want to win the war.  They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay.  All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.  

Some people understand nothing but force.  Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.


----------



## editec

Seems like these people live in an anarchic state of warlords and (now I guess) sealording pirates.

People with essantially nothing to lose tend to do whatever it takes.

We can kill pirates and sealording pirates, over and over again, but that probably won't solve much.

The longer term solution is to get Somalia stabilized.

Two ways to do that.

Either select one warlord to be our bastard or the longer and much harder solution that might not even be possible, which is to build a nation where none exists today.

I'd advise the first option. Yesterday's priates and warlords are todays kings and prime ministers, folks.

Somebody has to win before the anarchy goes away.

I'm informed that Somolia is basically not a nation, so much as a collection of tribes, so finding the largest tribe or tribes to support and bring back into something approaching the civilized world seems like the long approach I'd take.

The JP Morgan approach seems like the one most likely to solve this problem, long run.


----------



## Dr Grump

Gunny said:


> I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory.  In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.
> 
> These people want to win the war.  They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay.  All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.
> 
> Some people understand nothing but force.  Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.




one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...


----------



## dilloduck

editec said:


> Seems like these people live in an anarchic state of warlords and (now I guess) sealording pirates.
> 
> People with essantially nothing to lose tend to do whatever it takes.
> 
> We can kill pirates and sealording pirates, over and over again, but that probably won't solve much.
> 
> The longer term solution is to get Somalia stabilized.
> 
> Two ways to do that.
> 
> Either select one warlord to be our bastard or the longer and much harder solution that might not even be possible, which is to build a nation where none exists today.
> 
> I'd advise the first option. Yesterday's priates and warlords are todays kings and prime ministers, folks.
> 
> Somebody has to win before the anarchy goes away.
> 
> I'm informed that Somolia is basically not a nation, so much as a collection of tribes, so finding the largest tribe or tribes to support and bring back into something approaching the civilized world seems like the long approach I'd take.
> 
> The JP Morgan approach seems like the one most likely to solve this problem, long run.



Do you think Obama is into nation building ?


----------



## editec

Dr Grump said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory. In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.
> 
> These people want to win the war. They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay. All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.
> 
> Some people understand nothing but force. Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...
Click to expand...

 
*Winning* is NOT having to have the NAVY there, Grump.

Now unless we're prepared to kill everyone, the warlords/tribla leaders are going to continue finding new teenaged boys to arm and dominate somalian and probably to hijack ships.

Winning is really making it worth their while to NOT to hijack ships.

We don't so that by paying ransoms and we probably can't do it by winning _every_ sea battle, either.

We win when they find something better to do with themselves.


----------



## Dr Grump

editec said:


> *Winning* is NOT having to have the NAVY there, Grump.
> 
> Now unless we're prepared to kill everyone, the warlords/tribla leaders are going to continue finding new teenaged boys to arm and dominate somalian and probably to hijack ships.
> 
> Winning is really making it worth their while to NOT to hijack ships.
> 
> We don't so that by paying ransoms and we probably can't do it by winning _every_ sea battle, either.
> 
> We win when they find something better to do with themselves.



I concur, but have come to the conclusion that Somalia will be a basketcase for at least a few more decades, if not forever. That being the case, fuck 'em. It will only become not worth their while if people don't pay ransoms, or they die...simple. Don't get me wrong, I am enough of a leftie to get your sentiment, but there comes a time when you have to realise you are not dealing with people who have a Western World mindset...Stop thinking, they think like us. They don't...


----------



## editec

My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.

But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.

The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.


----------



## Dr Grump

editec said:


> My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.
> 
> But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.
> 
> The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.



There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...


----------



## catzmeow

Gunny said:


> Agreed.  And we need to take it to them before they do capture another US flagged ship and slaughter its crew.  Might be a writeoff to that poster above, but I'm sure they and their families will feel differently.
> 
> Fact is, we got lucky.  Everything was in our favor, right down to the crew.  usually, these pirates take both ship and crew.  THAT is a completely different scenario with a lot more risks.



Here is one dangerous thing.  The really valuable piece of the equation, from the corporations involved, is the ship and cargo itself.  The crew can be held for ransom, but if you make it clear that the crew can and will retaliate, there is less likelihood that the pirates will capture the crew...they will just kill them out of hand (less mess, less fuss).  That's the next step up the level of escalation.  The step above that is threatening to DESTROY the ship entirely.  How exactly will you defend against multiple swift-moving targets with RPGs, etc.?  Navy war games involving these types of attackers have shown that to be one of our weaknesses.


----------



## catzmeow

auditor0007 said:


> After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here.  The fact is, this may make things worse down the road.  Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it.  We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked.  Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.
> 
> Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed.  That is now very likely to change.



One option would be for the shipping companies to contract with security firms like blackwater who would have no qualms about shooting at the pirates.  But, that will escalate things to another level where the ships will possibly be sunk.  ANd then we are back to olden days again.


----------



## Mr. President

Or we could end their civilization as it is know lay waste to all human life in that vicinity and move in people who are more US friendly.


----------



## Terry

auditor0007 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice. At least, not with us. I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back. They got punked this time. They aren't going to accept that.
> 
> If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast. They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.
> 
> We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.
> 
> That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here. The fact is, this may make things worse down the road. Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it. We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked. Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.
> 
> Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed. That is now very likely to change.
Click to expand...

Maybe if these Pirates knew the ships were loaded with guns and ammo to protect themselves perhaps they will move on to some other "Criminal" endeavor.


----------



## editec

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:

When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
 every problem looks like a nail.​


----------



## WillowTree

Mr. President said:


> Or we could end their civilization as it is know lay waste to all human life in that vicinity and move in people who are more US friendly.







We could put Israel there!


----------



## WorldAHope

Dr Grump said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory.  In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.
> 
> These people want to win the war.  They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay.  All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.
> 
> Some people understand nothing but force.  Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...
Click to expand...

You make an important point. The pirates are hijacking ships for for money, and they know they will not get ransom money for dead hostages. They will continue to attack shipping, since it is so easy to take a ship adn has been so lucrative. 
They currently hold 13 or 14 ships with about 250 hostages. Many of the hostages are Philipino crewmen.  

Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year,  only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.   
Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money. 
Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.  

The navies need to deter the pirates, attack some known pirate bases. COs need to have stronger policing authority, to seize and search and pursue authority. They need to hunt and sink the pirates crappy mother ships. 
Send in marines, occupy a couple key bases, fortify them, take a few of their tribal and business leaders into custody, start talking to the pirate leaders from a position of strength.

Such action will either require getting authority and agreement from the UN, or just going in and doing it with countries who have already been involved. 
The US Fifth Fleet currently operates 2 Combined Task Forces, mixed collection of international military vessels. It has a lot of firepower at its disposal. 
Detailed discussions about going on the offensive have been taking place among those and other nations that have contributed ships to the patrols. The discussions are not so much "if", but when and where, the mission goals and logistics, and by whom.  

The shipping companies are still negotitating, want to pay the ransoms, want to get those innocent hostages and captured ships returned, safely. 
Paying ransom would actually be less expensive than military missions. But the pirates won't stop hijacking ships in one of the world's most important and highly travelled shipping lanes. 
All vessels, large and small,  are at risk in those waters.  
Pirates have made it clear they aren't going to simply stop.


----------



## WorldAHope

Dr Grump said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.
> 
> But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.
> 
> The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
Click to expand...

No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". Somalia is not Grenada or Panama. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion. 
Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.


----------



## WorldAHope

editec said:


> Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:
> 
> When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
> every problem looks like a nail.​


The little General says "We got nukes, lets use them !
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





!"


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Iriemon said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're in for it now...
> 
> LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...
> 
> The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq didn't attack us.
> 
> The pirates attacked first.
> 
> That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.
> 
> See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.
Click to expand...


Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...  Iraq had attacked us on THROUGH ACTS OF PIRACY!  And your ignorance of the many times and many ways Iraq had attacked us doesn't stand as a pass for Iraq, PARTICULARLY given the reality of the post 9-11 US GWOT, where 'attacks by nasty little Muslim concerns' had ratched themselves up to trillion dollar economic losses and thousands of people at a whack.

We have been painted as the agrressor in the killing of those Pirates... BECAUSE KILLING THOSE PIRATES WAS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION... and JUST LIKE OUR LIBERATION OF IRAQ... Killing those Pirates was an act of aggression which was implemented as a means of defense.

And just because YOU presently feel that the US was justified in the aggressive acton of killing those Pirates; imparted as a means of defense from Piracy, doesn't mean that someone else is not looking at those Pirates as innocent victims of the geo-political exploitation of the 3rd world by the Industrialized West; where the Pirates are merely seen as working a sound business model towards _avoiding starvation_... thus the US UNJUSTIFIABLY used lethal force against an otherwise peaceful people, who intended to do no harm, and just wanted to trade the Captain for some dirty western money.

That you may presently see such a perspective as short sighted; where such a perspective missed the over-riding point that the Pirates are by their very NATURE and THROUGH THEIR VERY ACTIONS, usurpers of the RIGHTS of free people...  thus such a perspective is wrong in every respect...  doesn't prevent you from being presently subject to the same conclusion, with respect to your position on the Liberation of Iraq.

Again... Iraq's former Socialist government was a chronic violator of the rights of free people through their chronic use of Islamic Terrorist proxies to attack citizens of the US, along with her interests and allies...  and despite a year and a HALF, post 9-11, wherein the US made every effort to urge Iraq's former socialist government to turn from its terrorist promoting ways... Iraq refused and suffered the aggressive invasion by the US and an international coalition which was a DEFENSE FROM IRAQ'S ATTACKS; designed to REMOVE that government from power and to provide for the Iraqi people THE OPPORTUNITY to build its OWN GOVERNMENT; a government which represents the IRAQI PEOPLE... which HOPEFULLY will not misuse it's power to usurp the rights of free people...

So no... with regard to the principles at play, there is nearly no distinction; with the sole distinction being that where the US aggressively took the lives of the individual Pirates, she has yet to strike at those WHO SENT THOSE PIRATES... which must inevitably come... where you will inevitably fail to see the logical extension of that which you find perfectly acceptable and reject the invasion of Somalia, on the grounds that 'Somalia never attacked us...'

It's not complicated... the principles are precisely the same... only the names and the grids have changed.


----------



## editec

WorldAHope said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.
> 
> But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.
> 
> The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". *Somalia is not Grenada or Panama*. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion.
> Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.
Click to expand...

 
There you go...raining on their parade.

Look a lot of people here think that every problem involving bad guys can be solved in 90 minutes because that's how long it takes Steven Segal to solve problems in the movies.

they're all over the military solution because they THINK they understand the military solution.

And then when the problem rears its ugly head again, they're all over the solution of sending OTHER PEOPLE into harms way _again_, because it satisfies their longing for vicarious violence.

A question for any of you gus who actually ever were in harms way...

Would you WANT to go into a shithole like Somalia to kick ass and then have to STAY THERE to keep the peace?

Because sans some REAL solution to that broken nation, that's about what would happen.

If we want Somalia to stop spawning deperate men who will do whatever it takes to make a living, we ought to get the SOMOLIANS to do that job.

I know that's not nearly as satisfying for those of you who like to imagine glorious American troops out there kicking bad guys asses, but it is the cheaper and more lasting approach to solving a problem like this.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Dr Grump said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory.  In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.
> 
> These people want to win the war.  They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay.  All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.
> 
> Some people understand nothing but force.  Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...
Click to expand...


This idiot reminds me of the Leftist that were all OUTRAGED the morning of 9-11... but who by the afternoon of 9-11 were already rationalizing reasons to NOT take action to seek out, close with and destroy those who were BEHIND 9-11...

We can be sure that this same member will be crying about US policy in the following American Administration... who will take measures to free the US Crews which resulted from the FAILURE OF KING HUSSEIN TO EFFECTIVELY SHUT DOWN PIRACY, through his attempts to 'understand them and to 'talk it out...'  

I see "DAY 1 - 10- 100... 444 American HELD HOSTAGE!" repeating itself...  and this fool will be crying "COWBOY DIPLOMACY" when an American again comes to power and begins the unenviable work of DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM and not the symptom.

Set your watch... it begins here, where History begins to repeat itself.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

editec said:


> Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:
> 
> When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
> every problem looks like a nail.​



ROFLMNAO... Of course it does... because you oppose hammers...  they're loud and violent and those nails are after all just innocent voctims of the industrialized world that seeks to exploit their nature and resources.

It reminds me of the old saying: A Bag of nails is vastly more INTELLIGENT and exponentially more useful, than the individual WHO USES A FLOWER FOR A HAMMER!


----------



## Iriemon

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also.  What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"?  Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists?  _"We were only creating more terrorists."_
> 
> Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"?  Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out?  And now we're killing them.
> 
> Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing.  Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.
> 
> The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement.  PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE.  And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq didn't attack us.
> 
> The pirates attacked first.
> 
> That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.
> 
> See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...
Click to expand...


No it didn't



> Iraq had attacked us on THROUGH ACTS OF PIRACY!  And your ignorance of the many times and many ways Iraq had attacked us doesn't stand as a pass for Iraq, PARTICULARLY given the reality of the post 9-11 US GWOT, where 'attacks by nasty little Muslim concerns' had ratched themselves up to trillion dollar economic losses and thousands of people at a whack.



Oh Lord.  Let me guess.  Iraq was involved in 9-11, right?



> We have been painted as the agrressor in the killing of those Pirates...



Who has said that?



> BECAUSE KILLING THOSE PIRATES WAS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION... and JUST LIKE OUR LIBERATION OF IRAQ... Killing those Pirates was an act of aggression which was implemented as a means of defense.



LOL -  "Agressor" means the party that initiate the conflict.  



> And just because YOU presently feel that the US was justified in the aggressive acton of killing those Pirates; imparted as a means of defense from Piracy, doesn't mean that someone else is not looking at those Pirates as innocent victims of the geo-political exploitation of the 3rd world by the Industrialized West; where the Pirates are merely seen as working a sound business model towards _avoiding starvation_... thus the US UNJUSTIFIABLY used lethal force against an otherwise peaceful people, who intended to do no harm, and just wanted to trade the Captain for some dirty western money.



I didn't say anything about what I feel.  I just pointed out that unlike Iraq, the pirates were the aggressor.  The point seemed to be lost on you.



> That you may presently see such a perspective as short sighted; where such a perspective missed the over-riding point that the Pirates are by their very NATURE and THROUGH THEIR VERY ACTIONS, usurpers of the RIGHTS of free people...  thus such a perspective is wrong in every respect...  doesn't prevent you from being presently subject to the same conclusion, with respect to your position on the Liberation of Iraq.



You have me wrong.  I reached the opposite conclusion with the pirates.  Unlike Iraq, the pirates attacked us.  



> Again... Iraq's former Socialist government was a chronic violator of the rights of free people through their chronic use of Islamic Terrorist proxies to attack citizens of the US, along with her interests and allies...



First I've heard of that, what terrorist proxies of Iraq attacked US citizens.  Reliable sources please.

Was Iraq a socialist government?  What difference does that make?



> and despite a year and a HALF, post 9-11, wherein the US made every effort to urge Iraq's former socialist government to turn from its terrorist promoting ways... Iraq refused and suffered the aggressive invasion by the US and an international coalition which was a DEFENSE FROM IRAQ'S ATTACKS; designed to REMOVE that government from power and to provide for the Iraqi people THE OPPORTUNITY to build its OWN GOVERNMENT; a government which represents the IRAQI PEOPLE... which HOPEFULLY will not misuse it's power to usurp the rights of free people...



I've heard about that.   The Bush administration said Iraq had WMD and mistakenly attacked.  Yes, that is my point, that is why it is different that the pirates.  That is why the mistaken US attack on Iraq motivated the creations of terrorists who were fighting against an unjustified aggressor, versus the pirates where no one could reasonable call the US the aggressor. 



> So no... with regard to the principles at play, there is nearly no distinction; with the sole distinction being that where the US aggressively took the lives of the individual Pirates, she has yet to strike at those WHO SENT THOSE PIRATES... which must inevitably come... where you will inevitably fail to see the logical extension of that which you find perfectly acceptable and reject the invasion of Somalia, on the grounds that 'Somalia never attacked us...'



Where did I say any position on attacking the pirates?  



> It's not complicated... the principles are precisely the same... only the names and the grids have changed.



No, the pirates attacked us first.  See the difference?


----------



## WorldAHope

A lot of people in the pirate security profession are unemployed. These guys are available  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



as long their Captain comes along


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

editec said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
> 
> 
> 
> No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". *Somalia is not Grenada or Panama*. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion.
> Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go...raining on their parade.
> 
> Look a lot of people here think that every problem involving bad guys can be solved in 90 minutes because that's how long it takes Steven Segal to solve problems in the movies.
> 
> they're all over the military solution because they THINK they understand the military solution.
> 
> And then when the problem rears its ugly head again, they're all over the solution of sending OTHER PEOPLE into harms way _again_, because it satisfies their longing for vicarious violence.
> 
> A question for any of you gus who actually ever were in harms way...
> 
> Would you WANT to go into a shithole like Somalia to kick ass and then have to STAY THERE to keep the peace?
> 
> Because sans some REAL solution to that broken nation, that's about what would happen.
> 
> If we want Somalia to stop spawning deperate men who will do whatever it takes to make a living, we ought to get the SOMOLIANS to do that job.
> 
> I know that's not nearly as satisfying for those of you who like to imagine glorious American troops out there kicking bad guys asses, but it is the cheaper and more lasting approach to solving a problem like this.
Click to expand...


ROFL... 'SOMOLIA IS A BATTLE HARDNED FORCE... IT'S THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!...'

LOL... Leftists...

The voices of appeasement have used this farce MANY TIMES... the last two times, resulted in the two most decisive military victories in human history and the establishment of two Constitutional Representative Republics being established where there was formerly tyrannical Islamic regimes...

What you see there friends is precisely what I just spoke to above...  the rationalization to NOT go after the problem... but to merely treat the symptom.  Where they HAIL the use of aggressive force int he killing of the Pirates, they will very inevitably reject the use of aggressive force to kill those who sent them... and to establish a government which understands the principles on which sustainable human rights rest...

The subversion begins through the advocacy of such species of reasoning and where it is lent credence sets the path to the fast track to catastrophe.  

"DAY 444- AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE!"...  Children, who do not recognize that... ask an adult American.


----------



## catzmeow

WorldAHope said:


> Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year,  only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
> Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
> Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.




An infinitessimally small percentage of those impacted are Americans.  It appears to me to be a primarily European problem.  Perhaps THEY should be the ones to launch the naval action against piracy, instead of America always being the one to take the responsibility.


----------



## WorldAHope

PubliusInfinitum said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:
> 
> When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
> every problem looks like a nail.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Of course it does... because you oppose hammers...  they're loud and violent and those nails are after all just innocent voctims of the industrialized world that seeks to exploit their nature and resources.
> 
> It reminds me of the old saying: A Bag of nails is vastly more INTELLIGENT and exponentially more useful, than the individual WHO USES A FLOWER FOR A HAMMER!
Click to expand...

Speaking of tools.....

Pubes - your toolbox definitely has a few screws that need to be tightened. You are funny.


----------



## WorldAHope

catzmeow said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year,  only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
> Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
> Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An infinitessimally small percentage of those impacted are Americans.  It appears to me to be a primarily European problem.  Perhaps THEY should be the ones to launch the naval action against piracy, instead of America always being the one to take the responsibility.
Click to expand...

Alas, we has the most boats and planes and guns. The US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is in command of the motley fleet that is patrolling the pirate zone. 
The French are hot to fight the pirates, have sent ships on this. In fact a French Admiral just took command of the small international fleet known as CTF 150 that is responsible for patrols in the Red Sea and Staits of Aden and Gulf of Aden. He reports to the US RADM in command of the US 5th Fleet. 
Japan is sending a large frigate. One of South Korea's destroyers just arrived, is operating with the USS Bainbridge and USS Boxer off the coast of Somalia under the command of an American RADM. Germany, India, Russia, Britain have all sent ships. Our navy has the best ships, and the most.  
And we are paying for a lot of this.


----------



## catzmeow

WorldAHope said:


> *Alas, we has the most boats and planes and guns. *



So?  We are also carrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Let someone else buck up for a change.



> The French are hot to fight the pirates, have sent ships on this. In fact a French Admiral just took command of the small international fleet known as CTF 150 that is responsible for patrols in the Red Sea and Staits of Aden and Gulf of Aden. He reports to the US RADM in command of the US 5th Fleet.



I say let them.  I'd be happy to see the French fight for a change.



> Our navy has the best ships, and the most.
> And we are paying for a lot of this.




And our economy is in the shitter and we are the least impacted by this.  let other nations step up and do something for a change.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq didn't attack us.
> 
> The pirates attacked first.
> 
> That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.
> 
> See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...
Click to expand...




Iriemon said:


> No it didn't



Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...  Iraq had DIRECTLY FUNDED AND HAD OTHERWISE PROMOTED  ISLAMIC TERRORISM, using such as PROXIES TO ATTACK THE US HER INTERESTS AND ALLIES through OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF INTELLIGENCE, TRAINING AND DIRECT DIPLOMATIC ASISTANCE...  The balance of your argument thus is founded directly upon this failure and as such is summarily dismissed.

To wit: The Hijackers (PIRATES) of the greek passenger vessel "Achille Lauro" were protected through their possessing IRAQI DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS...  Passports which identified them as IRAQI DIMPLOMATS...  that act of Piracy resulted in the execution death of the American Citizen: Leon Klinghoffer...  A wheel chair bound American retiree on a final Mediterranean cruise with his wife...






And the list goes ON AND ON...


----------



## sealybobo

I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship.  Not worth it.

I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked.  Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.

PS.  Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly.  They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!   

And not one congrats from the GOP?


----------



## Indiana Oracle

Install passive repellant measures on the ships and wait.  If the pirates up the ante with more lethal attacks, militarily take out the shore line from the air and proceed from there.  This is not complicated.  The service with air strike capability than can most easily reach the targets will be the main thrust of any formal military response.

The wholly unwarranted remarks about the Navy, etc. are just "thuds".


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

catzmeow said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year,  only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
> Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
> Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An infinitessimally small percentage of those impacted are Americans.  It appears to me to be a primarily European problem.  Perhaps THEY should be the ones to launch the naval action against piracy, instead of America always being the one to take the responsibility.
Click to expand...

The Europeans are governed through Secularist Relativism...  thus they have no understanding of the principles of sustainable human rights... thus they rationalize that the symptom of Piracy is best handled through appeasement...  foolishly believeing that a few bucks here and there is far better a solution than recognizing that Pircacy is a usurpation in MASS of the HUMAN RIGHTS... thus an intolerable scourge which must be destroyed at every point, to the extent of the means of every free individual... as a function of the sacred duty to DEFEND the divinely endowed rights... 

Waiting on a Leftist to solve a problem can only result in subjecting one's self to dealing with the ENDLESS stream of 'unintended consequences' which must comes in the wake of their calamitous 'resolutions'...  

Disregard the input of leftist, reject their idiocy and SOLVE THE PROBLEM...

Pirates have no rights... kill them, ALL OF THEM and be done with it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

WorldAHope said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:
> 
> When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
> every problem looks like a nail.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Of course it does... because you oppose hammers...  they're loud and violent and those nails are after all just innocent voctims of the industrialized world that seeks to exploit their nature and resources.
> 
> It reminds me of the old saying: A Bag of nails is vastly more INTELLIGENT and exponentially more useful, than the individual WHO USES A FLOWER FOR A HAMMER!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of tools.....
> 
> Pubes - your toolbox definitely has a few screws that need to be tightened. You are funny.
Click to expand...



You're an idiot of the first order...  and most certainly: PART OF THE PROBLEM.


----------



## rcajun90

catzmeow said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here.  The fact is, this may make things worse down the road.  Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it.  We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked.  Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.
> 
> Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed.  That is now very likely to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One option would be for the shipping companies to contract with security firms like blackwater who would have no qualms about shooting at the pirates.  But, that will escalate things to another level where the ships will possibly be sunk.  ANd then we are back to olden days again.
Click to expand...


How hard can this be?  It amounts to a bunch of thugs in bass boats.  Arm the crew and ships and make it more dangerous for them then what it is worth.


----------



## Iriemon

PubliusInfinitum said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq didn't attack us.
> 
> The pirates attacked first.
> 
> That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor.  In the latter case, we had every right to act.  In Iraq, we were the invaders.
> 
> See the difference?  I know its a subtle distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...
Click to expand...


No it didn't.  Quit making stuff up. 


> Iraq had DIRECTLY FUNDED AND HAD OTHERWISE PROMOTED ISLAMIC TERRORISM, using such as PROXIES TO ATTACK THE US HER INTERESTS AND ALLIES through OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF INTELLIGENCE, TRAINING AND DIRECT DIPLOMATIC ASISTANCE...  The balance of your argument thus is founded directly upon this failure and as such is summarily dismissed.



Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US.  No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet. 



> To wit: The Hijackers (PIRATES) of the greek passenger vessel "Achille Lauro" were protected through their possessing IRAQI DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS...  Passports which identified them as IRAQI DIMPLOMATS...  that act of Piracy resulted in the execution death of the American Citizen: Leon Klinghoffer...  A wheel chair bound American retiree on a final Mediterranean cruise with his wife...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the list goes ON AND ON...



They had Iraqi diplomatic passports?  That's a new one to me.  Reliable source please.


----------



## Iriemon

I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.

But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships?  A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

sealybobo said:


> I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship.  Not worth it.
> 
> I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked.  Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.
> 
> PS.  Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly.  They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!
> 
> And not one congrats from the GOP?



ROFLMNAO...  yet another illustration of the abyss of ignroance on which Leftism rests...

So ya figure that the Pirates are just walking up the old ladder hangin' over the side of these slow moving ships, do ya?  

therefore the solution is EASY... just drag up the ladder!  PERFECT!  


Oh your widom knows no bounds and it's clear that you're experience at sea is VAST!  

I hope you've zipped off an E-mail to tip those Captains of those freighters off...   

"Stow the ladders and FULL SPEED AHEAD!"

ROFLMNAO...

Leftists...

PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived.  Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:

American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.

Yep... that's it... we're good.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Iriemon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  Quit making stuff up.
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had DIRECTLY FUNDED AND HAD OTHERWISE PROMOTED ISLAMIC TERRORISM, using such as PROXIES TO ATTACK THE US HER INTERESTS AND ALLIES through OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF INTELLIGENCE, TRAINING AND DIRECT DIPLOMATIC ASISTANCE...  The balance of your argument thus is founded directly upon this failure and as such is summarily dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US.  No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To wit: The Hijackers (PIRATES) of the greek passenger vessel "Achille Lauro" were protected through their possessing IRAQI DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS...  Passports which identified them as IRAQI DIMPLOMATS...  that act of Piracy resulted in the execution death of the American Citizen: Leon Klinghoffer...  A wheel chair bound American retiree on a final Mediterranean cruise with his wife...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the list goes ON AND ON...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had Iraqi diplomatic passports?  That's a new one to me.  Reliable source please.
Click to expand...


Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...


October 14, 1985 UPI story: &#8220;Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport&#8230;The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.&#8221; 

Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italy&#8217;s prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates...  such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way... 

Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem...  your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.

Your argument *FAILS*


----------



## WorldAHope

catzmeow said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Alas, we has the most boats and planes and guns. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  We are also carrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Let someone else buck up for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French are hot to fight the pirates, have sent ships on this. In fact a French Admiral just took command of the small international fleet known as CTF 150 that is responsible for patrols in the Red Sea and Staits of Aden and Gulf of Aden. He reports to the US RADM in command of the US 5th Fleet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say let them.  I'd be happy to see the French fight for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our navy has the best ships, and the most.
> And we are paying for a lot of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And our economy is in the shitter and we are the least impacted by this.  let other nations step up and do something for a change.
Click to expand...

We could make those shippers pay the US tribute. Collect 'protection' money from them, only board and collect from every ship, not just a few slow weakly defended ships, here and there. That might be a way to pay down our national debt.


----------



## sealybobo

PubliusInfinitum said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship.  Not worth it.
> 
> I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked.  Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.
> 
> PS.  Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly.  They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!
> 
> And not one congrats from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...  yet another illustration of the abyss of ignroance on which Leftism rests...
> 
> So ya figure that the Pirates are just walking up the old ladder hangin' over the side of these slow moving ships, do ya?
> 
> therefore the solution is EASY... just drag up the ladder!  PERFECT!
> 
> 
> Oh your widom knows no bounds and it's clear that you're experience at sea is VAST!
> 
> I hope you've zipped off an E-mail to tip those Captains of those freighters off...
> 
> "Stow the ladders and FULL SPEED AHEAD!"
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Leftists...
> 
> PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived.  Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:
> 
> American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.
> 
> Yep... that's it... we're good.
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama is good.

And you are such an argumentative prick.  A woman on the radio said that commercial shippers can do more to protect themselves, like speed up and lift up their ladders.  Why would you argue that?  These pirates are coming out on some small crappy boats that aren't fast.  And why don't you just lower the ladder for them stupid.  Make it easier rather than harder.  

New Urgency In Washington About Piracy : NPR

Gortney says commercial shippers must do more to protect themselves against pirates, including arming their crews and sailing farther away from known pirate locations.


----------



## sealybobo

PubliusInfinitum said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship.  Not worth it.
> 
> I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked.  Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.
> 
> PS.  Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly.  They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!
> 
> And not one congrats from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived.  Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:
> 
> American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.
> 
> Yep... that's it... we're good.
Click to expand...


No, you wanted Obama to fail, and you know it.


----------



## WorldAHope

Iriemon said:


> I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.
> 
> But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships?  A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.


Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun. 
In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection. 
Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.


----------



## Iriemon

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  Quit making stuff up.
> 
> 
> Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US.  No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To wit: The Hijackers (PIRATES) of the greek passenger vessel "Achille Lauro" were protected through their possessing IRAQI DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS...  Passports which identified them as IRAQI DIMPLOMATS...  that act of Piracy resulted in the execution death of the American Citizen: Leon Klinghoffer...  A wheel chair bound American retiree on a final Mediterranean cruise with his wife...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the list goes ON AND ON...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had Iraqi diplomatic passports?  That's a new one to me.  Reliable source please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...
> 
> 
> October 14, 1985 UPI story: Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passportThe plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.
> 
> Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italys prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates...  such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way...
> 
> Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem...  your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.
> 
> Your argument *FAILS*
Click to expand...


Sorry, No.

You claimed that hijackers had Iraqi passports.  They did not.  The hijackers were detained and tried in Ital. 

Fail Number 1.

Abbas had the Iraqi diplomatic passport.  Abbas was not on board when the ship was hijacked or when Klinghoffer was shot.   He was released by the Italians for lack of evidence, and utlimately tried in abstentia.

Abbas was later given free reign to travel in and out of Israel because of his involvment in peace negotiations.

Fail number 2. 

None of this proves that Iraq was had any involvement with this incident.  There was no retaliation against Iraq by the Reagan administration (which had given it the means to acquire WMD) or any other organization that I'm aware of.

Fail Number 3.  

And I don't even have to use big red letters.  

Any other "proof" you want to try to support your claim that "Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES" or is that the best you could come up with?


----------



## WorldAHope

Indiana Oracle said:


> Install passive repellant measures on the ships and wait.  If the pirates up the ante with more lethal attacks, militarily take out the shore line from the air and proceed from there.  This is not complicated.  The service with air strike capability than can most easily reach the targets will be the main thrust of any formal military response.
> 
> The wholly unwarranted remarks about the Navy, etc. are just "thuds".


There is a whole lot of air power on the nearest US Navy vessels. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The USS Boxer has about 2,000 Marines aboard, Vertical landing fighter aircraft, a large contingent of a couple differnt types of assault and recon helos, and the ability to launch a fast strike force with landing craft. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



We really don't want to occupy or get into a ground camapign in Somalia.


----------



## rayboyusmc

They would only have neede one Marine Sniper.


----------



## WorldAHope

Iriemon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  Quit making stuff up.
> 
> 
> Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US.  No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.
> 
> 
> 
> They had Iraqi diplomatic passports?  That's a new one to me.  Reliable source please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...
> 
> 
> October 14, 1985 UPI story: Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passportThe plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.
> 
> Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italys prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates...  such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way...
> 
> Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem...  your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.
> 
> Your argument *FAILS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, No.
> 
> You claimed that hijackers had Iraqi passports.  They did not.  The hijackers were detained and tried in Ital.
> 
> Fail Number 1.
> 
> Abbas had the Iraqi diplomatic passport.  Abbas was not on board when the ship was hijacked or when Klinghoffer was shot.   He was released by the Italians for lack of evidence, and utlimately tried in abstentia.
> 
> Abbas was later given free reign to travel in and out of Israel because of his involvment in peace negotiations.
> 
> Fail number 2.
> 
> None of this proves that Iraq was had any involvement with this incident.  There was no retaliation against Iraq by the Reagan administration (which had given it the means to acquire WMD) or any other organization that I'm aware of.
> 
> Fail Number 3.
> 
> And I don't even have to use big red letters.
> 
> Any other "proof" you want to try to support your claim that "Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES" or is that the best you could come up with?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Pubes is certifiably insane. He's belligerent as hell, redfaced yelling all the time, and is a  chronic blatant liar. 
I'd wager he never served in the armed forces, or if he did, he was expelled from boot camp. The military doesn't keep obvious nutcases.


----------



## catzmeow

WorldAHope said:


> We could make those shippers pay the US tribute. Collect 'protection' money from them, only board and collect from every ship, not just a few slow weakly defended ships, here and there. That might be a way to pay down our national debt.



Or they could be held responsible to pay for their own private security.  I hear there are some highly qualified blackwater folks who will be looking for employment soon.  And, they have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, which is precisely what is needed here.  They also have first rate equipment and training.


----------



## catzmeow

worldahope said:


> we really don't want to occupy or get into a ground camapign in somalia.



true story.


----------



## Tech_Esq

WorldAHope said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.
> 
> But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships?  A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
> In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
> Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
Click to expand...


It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them. 

Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.

Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....


----------



## WorldAHope

catzmeow said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could make those shippers pay the US tribute. Collect 'protection' money from them, only board and collect from every ship, not just a few slow weakly defended ships, here and there. That might be a way to pay down our national debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they could be held responsible to pay for their own private security.  I hear there are some highly qualified blackwater folks who will be looking for employment soon.  And, they have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, which is precisely what is needed here.  They also have first rate equipment and training.
Click to expand...

If the Black water (XE ?) guys will take the massive paycut from being US taxpayer subsidized bodyguards to standing guard on ships. They'll be paid deckhand base rate. Shippers are as cheap as retail chains. 
I smell a movie.......Magniifcent Seven redone on the high seas......7 Blackwater guards, expert hired guns, laid off.....now working for peanuts, hired by merchant marine to fight off the desperate pirates.....throw in some sappy love scenes, a few good shootouts. And a sequel, if we can make the piracy last a few more years.


----------



## WorldAHope

Tech_Esq said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.
> 
> But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships?  A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
> In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
> Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them.
> 
> Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.
> 
> Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....
Click to expand...

Souinds expensive. Who is gonna pay for all that ?


----------



## del

WorldAHope said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
> In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
> Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them.
> 
> Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.
> 
> Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Souinds expensive. Who is gonna pay for all that ?
Click to expand...


all of us, eventually.


----------



## Tech_Esq

WorldAHope said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
> In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
> Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them.
> 
> Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.
> 
> Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Souinds expensive. Who is gonna pay for all that ?
Click to expand...


The shippers will add 12.5 cents per pound to everything they ship through the area to pay for the security. This isn't rocket science, just look to what the airlines did when fuel costs went up. This is just another cost that needs to be accounted for. Maybe they will charge a "security surcharge" to entities wishing to send stuff through the region.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Send over a couple of helo carriers (like they have now), or, better yet.....the USS NASHVILLE, you know......the one with the Bushmaster weapon that fires magnetic shells that can be programmed to explode in midair (nice weapon by the way, will fire over 100 rpm).

Send up a couple of Predator and Reaper drones (the Reaper is the one equipped with Hellfire missiles).  When a pirate ship is seen to come within 10 miles of a commercial vessel, blow 'em into kindling and fish food.

And.......since my service isn't allowed to use that island over in Puerto Rico as a target anymore......what the hell.........ships going over to Iraq and Iran need target practice.  

I'd say Somalia (the entire fucking country, people included) looks like a good place to fire off a couple of conventional rounds.  Hey.....we Sailors need practice time too!


----------



## manu1959

WorldAHope said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
> In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
> Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them.
> 
> Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.
> 
> Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Souinds expensive. Who is gonna pay for all that ?
Click to expand...


use the money you were paying in ransom.....and of course the delay time of being a hostage costs money....


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lets see..........the pirates were asking for 2 million for the Maersk captain........

That amount would probably pay for escort service for a month.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Send over a couple of helo carriers (like they have now), or, better yet.....the USS NASHVILLE, you know......the one with the Bushmaster weapon that fires magnetic shells that can be programmed to explode in midair (nice weapon by the way, will fire over 100 rpm).
> 
> Send up a couple of Predator and Reaper drones (the Reaper is the one equipped with Hellfire missiles).  When a pirate ship is seen to come within 10 miles of a commercial vessel, blow 'em into kindling and fish food.
> 
> And.......since my service isn't allowed to use that island over in Puerto Rico as a target anymore......what the hell.........ships going over to Iraq and Iran need target practice.
> 
> I'd say Somalia (the entire fucking country, people included) looks like a good place to fire off a couple of conventional rounds.  Hey.....we Sailors need practice time too!



It's time to recommission the Battleships New Jersey and Iowa. Start heaving VW sized shells into their ports.

I'm not sure I would waste a Hellfire on pirate skiff, maybe a "mothership" though. Doesn't the Navy have Apaches or Cobras or something? Maybe the Marines off of one of their support ships. Those would be nice to cover a chunk of ocean with. Drop some 20mm HE on the skiffs.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Why risk a pilot when a Reaper will do the job nicely?

You also realize that they can detect things up to a 250 mile radius, right?  So........patrol the gulf with about 10 or so.........

Work REAL nice!


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Why risk a pilot when a Reaper will do the job nicely?
> 
> You also realize that they can detect things up to a 250 mile radius, right?  So........patrol the gulf with about 10 or so.........
> 
> Work REAL nice!



I'm not saying do one and not the other. Bring all the toys. There's a time and place for everything. You could use Predator to id targets approaching a ship and I think an ideal role for the attack helos is to disrupt an attack in progress. I'm not sure Reaper, being one shot would be as effective in that role. 3 or 4 Apaches swarming around the pirates would be VERY effective though.


----------



## Peejay

It is definitely brute force time with this issue.  These people aren't terrorist with political goals,  that takes a ton of issues of the table.  There is no diplomacy to be engaged.  Just dealing with criminals.  Alot of good suggestions here and I'm sure these things are all being looked at.  There will be action to put an end to this.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk a pilot when a Reaper will do the job nicely?
> 
> You also realize that they can detect things up to a 250 mile radius, right?  So........patrol the gulf with about 10 or so.........
> 
> Work REAL nice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying do one and not the other. Bring all the toys. There's a time and place for everything. You could use Predator to id targets approaching a ship and I think an ideal role for the attack helos is to disrupt an attack in progress. I'm not sure Reaper, being one shot would be as effective in that role. 3 or 4 Apaches swarming around the pirates would be VERY effective though.
Click to expand...


Reapers ARE NOT just one shot.......



> Specifications
> Image:Aero-stub img.svgThis aircraft article is missing some (or all) of its specifications. If you have a source, you can help Wikipedia by adding them.
> MQ-9 Reaper taxis.
> 
> Several minor variations of the RQ-9/MQ-9 exist; these values are indicative.
> 
> GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
> 
> * Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
> * Crew(remote): 2 (Pilot plus a sensor operator)[43]
> * Landing Type: runway
> * Launch Type: runway
> * Power Plant: Honeywell TP331-10T turboprop engine, 950 SHP (712 kW)
> * Fuel Capacity: 1815 kg (4,000 lb)
> * Length: 11 m (36 ft)
> * Wingspan: 20 m (66 ft)
> * Height: 3.8 m (12.5 ft)
> * Empty weight: 2223 kg (4,900 lb)
> * Max takeoff weight: 4760 kg (10,500 lb)[44]
> 
> PERFORMANCE
> 
> * Service ceiling: 15 km (50,000 ft)
> * Operational altitude: 7.5 km (25,000 ft) [45]
> * Endurance: 1428 hours (14 hours fully loaded) [46]
> * Range: 5,926 km (3,200 nmi, 3,682 mi)
> * Payload: 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)
> * Maximum speed: 482 km/h (300 mph, 260 knots)
> * Cruise speed: 276-313 km/h (172-195 mph, 150-170 knots) [47]
> 
> ARMAMENT
> 
> * 6 Hardpoints
> o 1,500 lb (680 kg) on the two inboard weapons stations
> o 500600 lb (230270 kg) on the two middle stations
> o 150200 lb (6891 kg) on the outboard stations
> 
> * Up to 14x AGM-114 Hellfire air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. The ability to carry the JDAM in the future is also possible, as well as the AIM-9 Sidewinder.
> 
> SENSORS
> 
> * AN/APY-8 Lynx II radar[48]
> * MTS-B
> 
> COST
> 
> * Unit cost: USD 6.5 million for one aircraft with sensors [49]



MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides.........Apaches for all their use over ground aren't as good as Reapers and Predators are over the sea.

And.........no risk to pilot, and 6.5 million is a hell of a lot cheaper than an Apache Longbow D.

Cheaper to operate as well, or did you not hear about the recession?


----------



## Tech_Esq

My bad for not staying on top of it. That sounds pretty compelling. I wish they could mount a chin gun on it though. It would be a nice video game for the operators too....

Maybe you can do it all with drones. True about ops costs, but your ordinance costs are going to be higher if you have to shoot Hellfires at everything.


----------



## user_name_guest

Somalia have more guns than cattle. They think if they haVe the US military in Mogapiratissue they could win a battle.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Tech_Esq said:


> My bad for not staying on top of it. That sounds pretty compelling. I wish they could mount a chin gun on it though. It would be a nice video game for the operators too....
> 
> Maybe you can do it all with drones. True about ops costs, but your ordinance costs are going to be higher if you have to shoot Hellfires at everything.



Actually, they can mount Gatling guns (3,000 rpm) on their hard points (the weapons stations), as well as other things.

And.......a pod of Hellfires ain't really that expensive.  Check out the Military Channel sometime and watch FutureWeapons.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad for not staying on top of it. That sounds pretty compelling. I wish they could mount a chin gun on it though. It would be a nice video game for the operators too....
> 
> Maybe you can do it all with drones. True about ops costs, but your ordinance costs are going to be higher if you have to shoot Hellfires at everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they can mount Gatling guns (3,000 rpm) on their hard points (the weapons stations), as well as other things.
> 
> And.......a pod of Hellfires ain't really that expensive.  Check out the Military Channel sometime and watch FutureWeapons.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised about both of those. I wouldn't have thought a drone would have the ass to support a gattling gun. I just remember watching an A-10 fire its gun and how it slowed it etc. But things in the air and things that float are a little out of my wheelhouse.

I'm an infantry guy. More at home in the mud and in my Bradley. That's the only Bushmaster I know. The 25 mm main gun of the Bradley.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Coolest thing about the Bushmaster is their magnetic shells that can explode in midair.

Watched that thing fire off 5 shots once and swiss cheesed a van as well as totally destroyed 2 wooden dummies.

Nice weapon!


----------



## Bootneck

Couple of points we seem to have forgotten here people. Im all for taking out the wasps nest, rather than swatting them one by one, but to date  and including the four vessels captured today  the pirates are holding 17 ships and almost 300 crew members. Surely those crew members must be the first priority before we flatten the pirate hub town of Eyl, where it is believed the hostages are held. In my view that would require a special forces op. SBS, SAS, SEALS.

Secondly, the pirates are operating further and further south of Somalia. The targeted area now encompasses over a quarter of the Indian Ocean! Now, those of you who have sailed through those seas will know that is one motherload of ocean to cover with patrols. In fact, its probably impossible to police effectively. This in itself seems to support the argument for attacking the hub.

So, as you can see, it aint simply a case of going in with all guns blazing. Not unless, of course, you are prepared to sacrifice 300 hostages.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said........Predators and Reapers to prevent any more hostages.

Then........send in the Teams.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bootneck said:


> Couple of points we seem to have forgotten here people. Im all for taking out the wasps nest, rather than swatting them one by one, but to date  and including the four vessels captured today  the pirates are holding 17 ships and almost 300 crew members. Surely those crew members must be the first priority before we flatten the pirate hub town of Eyl, where it is believed the hostages are held. In my view that would require a special forces op. SBS, SAS, SEALS.
> 
> Secondly, the pirates are operating further and further south of Somalia. The targeted area now encompasses over a quarter of the Indian Ocean! Now, those of you who have sailed through those seas will know that is one motherload of ocean to cover with patrols. In fact, its probably impossible to police effectively. This in itself seems to support the argument for attacking the hub.
> 
> So, as you can see, it aint simply a case of going in with all guns blazing. Not unless, of course, you are prepared to sacrifice 300 hostages.



Most of the hostages are Filipino. Which is why the VP of the Philippines was out this week pleading that if we do anything we ensure the safety of the hostages as a first priority.

You forgot Delta Force. I'm sure just an oversight. These are not hardcore terrorists for the most part. My uninformed guess is that, provided we can sneak in (which we can) and get good intel (which we can), we could mount a proper special ops assault to free the hostages. The key will be coming in large enough to ensure a bridgehead back to the boats 'cuz that's the only way to bring out 300 people plus your assault force.

That sounds like SEALS and Marines taking and securing the harbor/port whatever with heavy gunboat support to ensure that once taken, it is held for the duration. Delta doing the assault and and getting the hostages and Rangers securing the area and providing support/firepower where needed. The Marines would then project from their area toward the hostage area with sufficient force to link up with the Delta/Ranger/Hostage contingent.

This might be a mess with hardened terrorists, but if executed with sufficient violence of action and at night, it should be successful.


----------



## catzmeow

WorldAHope said:


> If the Black water (XE ?) guys will take the massive paycut from being US taxpayer subsidized bodyguards to standing guard on ships. They'll be paid deckhand base rate. Shippers are as cheap as retail chains.



The 2 mill in ransom would pay for a lot of security.  And, if we refused to subsidize their shipping costs as a country...then they might actually have to pay what it costs do do business.


----------



## Xenophon

Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.


----------



## user_name_guest

Xenophon said:


> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.



What is the cost of sinking every row boat?  We should do a cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Xenophon said:


> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.



TM would just accuse us of conducting more dumping off the coast of Somalia if we sank all the those boats.


----------



## user_name_guest

Tech_Esq said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM would just accuse us of conducting more dumping off the coast of Somalia if we sank all the those boats.
Click to expand...


TM is writing a report on that as we speak.


----------



## Tech_Esq

user_name_guest said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM would just accuse us of conducting more dumping off the coast of Somalia if we sank all the those boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TM is writing a report on that as we speak.
Click to expand...


Oh I get it, first she writes it on Wikipedia, then posts us the link to it as a source.


----------



## user_name_guest

Tech_Esq said:


> user_name_guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> TM would just accuse us of conducting more dumping off the coast of Somalia if we sank all the those boats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM is writing a report on that as we speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I get it, first she writes it on Wikipedia, then posts us the link to it as a source.
Click to expand...


TM then goes to the local psych ward and gets someone to play as the UN.


----------



## mash107

Xenophon said:


> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.



Why not just let every ship actually carry weapons as per the second amendment and our early history with piracy dictates? Pirates would definitely think twice if all the ships were armed. If only we learned from our history with piracy....


----------



## rcajun90

Xenophon said:


> Cheaper to just sink every row boat that takes to the water from Somalia.



We should have an open dialogue with the pirates and try to understand why they are reduced to pirating to earn a living.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

sealybobo said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship.  Not worth it.
> 
> I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked.  Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.
> 
> PS.  Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly.  They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!
> 
> And not one congrats from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived.  Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:
> 
> American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.
> 
> Yep... that's it... we're good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you wanted Obama to fail, and you know it.
Click to expand...



Hussein is a Marxist, thus she will fail... without regard to what one wants her to do.

As a result, since Marxism MUST FAIL, what I and every other American want her to fail at, is her attempt to implement Marxist policy...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Peejay said:


> It is definitely brute force time with this issue.  These people aren't terrorist with political goals,  that takes a ton of issues of the table.  There is no diplomacy to be engaged.  Just dealing with criminals.  Alot of good suggestions here and I'm sure these things are all being looked at.  There will be action to put an end to this.



ROFLMNAO... 

OH yeah.. 'cause terrorists with political goals, is SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX...

LOL...  Leftists...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Bootneck said:


> Couple of points we seem to have forgotten here people. Im all for taking out the wasps nest, rather than swatting them one by one, but to date  and including the four vessels captured today  the pirates are holding 17 ships and almost 300 crew members. Surely those crew members must be the first priority before we flatten the pirate hub town of Eyl, where it is believed the hostages are held. In my view that would require a special forces op. SBS, SAS, SEALS.
> 
> Secondly, the pirates are operating further and further south of Somalia. The targeted area now encompasses over a quarter of the Indian Ocean! Now, those of you who have sailed through those seas will know that is one motherload of ocean to cover with patrols. In fact, its probably impossible to police effectively. This in itself seems to support the argument for attacking the hub.
> 
> So, as you can see, it aint simply a case of going in with all guns blazing. Not unless, of course, you are prepared to sacrifice 300 hostages.



Yep... 

Thus it's a milti-faceted operation, as are most...  it's not all that complex... those being held hostage are screwed... any ship which enters those waters without security... is screwed and the patrols, both air and surface tend to thier respective grids dicing up any vessel which falls within the profile.

Preventing a boarding is the easiest part of this entire equation and there are PUHLENTY of people out there willing to take on the job, who are supremely qualified to do so.

Piracy isn't going anywhere, it's been around nearly as long as whores... and like whoring, the ONLY THING that curtails it is when engaging in it becomes more of a hassle than engaging in something else.  

This is human nature 101...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Ya know PI, that was a really good response.

Personally?  Since the boat tally is now up to 4, I think the UN should declare open season on Somali pirates, as well as all the warlords.

Like I said.......instead of Puerto Rico being used as a target practice point, I think Somalia would be a PRIME choice.

Start by leveling Mogadishu.


----------



## Indiana Oracle

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said........Predators and Reapers to prevent any more hostages.
> 
> Then........send in the Teams.


 
Agree. Ground operations are inappropriate at this stage.

Start with passive protection devices aboard the merchant ships such as electrified anti-boarding fences and or sonic devices.  If later needed, heavily distrupt from the air against their shore positions and take out all boats within x distance from commercial vessels.

Stay off the ground until this phase has advanced.  They will likely move fairly quickly to using hostages as shields.  There will be losses, and I am not sure every country's hostages are solely our problem, but the captive ships will need to either be taken or abandoned.


----------



## cbi0090

Looks like the pirates are upping the ante.  Time for the navy to move in and do some housekeeping along the entire coast.


Somali pirates vow to kill American sailors


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know what?  I kinda think that these guys could use a bit of target practice right about now...........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsaRHf7zHQI]YouTube - AC-130 Gunships[/ame]

Start by turning the pirate boats into kindling and fish food.


----------



## ABikerSailor

And.....because of this........they are also called the Angel of Death........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFCudNNG30&feature=related]YouTube - AC130 Gunship dropping Flares[/ame]


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> And.....because of this........they are also called the Angel of Death........
> 
> YouTube - AC130 Gunship dropping Flares



Also known as Spectre.

Spooky, and in the AC-47 version Puff the Magic Dragon a la the John Wayne movie "The Green Berets"

Several 7.62 mm mini-guns each firing 6,000 rounds per minute and a 120 mm Howitzer for good measure. It would lay waste to anything it found in seconds. But, it's an area weapon. I'm not sure they would unleash it in the shipping lanes. Tempting though. 

Maybe in the ports.....


----------



## ABikerSailor

Naaahhhhh........fuck it.  Any pirate ship gets within 1 mile of any commercial vessel?

Blow the fuckers outta the water.

You do realize that these planes are capable of keeping ammo falling on the same place, right?

Figure around 70-20,000 rounds per boat oughta do it.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Naaahhhhh........fuck it.  Any pirate ship gets within 1 mile of any commercial vessel?
> 
> Blow the fuckers outta the water.



I can't argue with that.

What happened to your Reaper with a mini-gun and Hellfire pod though? You upped the ante?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Why not?  They've attacked yet another American flagged ship.  The Spooky's are close by (I think there are a couple over in Iraq), so why not?

Predators and Reapers are good for finding out and quick response.

But..........

If ya really wanna destroy something?  Send in Spooky.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Naaahhhhh........fuck it.  Any pirate ship gets within 1 mile of any commercial vessel?
> 
> Blow the fuckers outta the water.
> 
> You do realize that these planes are capable of keeping ammo falling on the same place, right?
> 
> *Figure around 70-20,000 rounds per boat oughta do it.*



LOL....at that point you'd be hitting the nuclear waste at the bottom of ocean TM was so worried about. The first 200 rounds would disintegrate those skiffs they ride around in. The mothership (captured freighters) might require some attention from the 120 mm.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well......ya know........water stops bullets at around 10 ft.

Explosives?  Maybe down to 30 ft.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Well......ya know........water stops bullets at around 10 ft.
> 
> Explosives?  Maybe down to 30 ft.



LOL.....I know. I was just engaging in a little hyperbole.

Yes, Spooky is definitely the way to go if you want to make a serious impression on the pirates about fire power. So would the New Jersey though.

What's the status on those new naval guns they were testing that shoot like 120 miles?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Not sure........Tomahawks have a range of over 1000 miles though.


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Not sure........Tomahawks have a range of over 1000 miles though.



I think this is it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Still like Spooky and Reapers though..........


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Dr Grump said:


> People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was.



Well there ya have it kids... 17 US troops wasted their lives fighting for their nation according to this piece of shit.

She's the CLASSIC SUPPORTER of The Lord of the Idiots; King Hussein her high secular holiness...

She's an ANTI-American... plain and simple.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> well, it actually started out like something i might actually agree with...
> 
> which is that the pirates sound like idiots and that it's the same lack of reality that says terrorist acts are retaliation for another country having the nerve to stop bombs from being lobbed at it.
> 
> and then you went all psycho on us.
> 
> bummer.



How much do you suppose it would cost us to get them to take Pubicus hostage?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Better yet......trade him for the next batch of hostages........


----------



## editec

So it's agreed then?

We send Pubie to teach the pirate a lesson.

He's obviously such a bad ass and all, I'm sure he'll take care of it for us.


----------

