Declare war on the Somalia pirates

[Garfield]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

[Dr BloodMoney]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

Read about the two, vast differences.....

[MadazzVeteran]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)
We don't have to "declare war" all we have to do is send the US Navy (7th Fleet) in with the instructions "Eliminate the Piracy Threat". As long as these turds are operating on the high seas, they are fair game.

[Oddball]

See: Letters of marque and reprisal.

[Vaard]

things are a bit different than they were in 1803.........

it order to get the funding from congress to fight the pirates back then, a declaration of war was needed........

today, it should be a covert operation where whole villages are taken out.......

[treadmill]

Obama and his gang will do nothing. we have to wait for the next GOP president.

[MadazzVeteran]

Obama and his gang will do nothing. we have to wait for the next GOP president.
You got that right!

[spinach]

We don't have to "declare war" all we have to do is send the US Navy (7th Fleet) in with the instructions "Eliminate the Piracy Threat". As long as these turds are operating on the high seas, they are fair game.


actually they are fair game after the first act of piracy. Once they have committed piracy, they are essentially walking dead men. Any nation can capture or kill them, no trial.

I agree...send over a few ships and a battalion of marines.
a few helicopter gunboats too.

erase the pirates.

[goeagles]

Obama and his gang will do nothing. we have to wait for the next GOP president.
But can we afford to wait another generation before we act?

[Garfield]

Obama and his gang will do nothing. we have to wait for the next GOP president.

Just quickly glanced on this article that our wannabe president (John Kerry) wants to hold congressional hearings on the pirate issue. Like what is there to debate about?

See article at: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kerry-calls-for-pirate-hearings-as-drama-continues-2009-04-09.html

[Garfield]

Why can't each ship sailing through this area have sufficient defenses to ward off the pirates? How much would it really take to stop seven or eight pirates in small boats? I think I could do pretty well by myself with one automatic weapon. Just get the word out that any small boat approaching a commercial ship will be blown out of the water. Let this happen a few times and the problem is solved. Am I missing something?

You are missing nothing. I think this is possible, if Obama will allow merchant ships to be armed.

[ChazBedlam]

See: Letters of marque and reprisal.

Oddball, let's go to the gubmint and ask them to cut us a check. We can outfit a couple of seaworthy vessels with steel plates, a 20mm cannon, and a .50 cal.

Privateers are back!!!!

[hap]

Maybe we'll give then some stimulus money to help their economy.

[Dacarlo]

These Somali pirates are holding 200 hostages at the moment and somebody should try to save them.

Start with this poor soul.
MOGADISHU --Amanda Lindhout, a Canadian journalist who was abducted by habar-gidir .. hawiye al-shabaab wing gunmen in the Somali capital Mogadishu about eight months ago is reportedly pregnant after she was apparently raped by her abductors, Sources say the Canadian journalist Amanda and an Australian photojournalist are being held by the militia in the northeastern neighbourhood of Suqa Holaha habar-girir hawye Terrorist neighborhood in Mogadishu. The abductors have demanded $2.5 million of ransom from the two journalists to release.
Amanda and the Australian photojournalist once escaped from a house in Suqa Holaha neighnourhood and entered a mosque near by, but they were recaptured again. militia who kidnapped the journalists claims they are al-shabab Terrorist Hawiye wing . Some reports suggest that one the abductors made Amanda as his wife.
The journalists were kidnapped between the Afgoye district and the capital city with their Somali photojournalist, Abdifatah Mohammed Elmi a hawiye man , who was acting as a translator for the two in September 2008, but Abdifitah was released after 5 months. Abdiftah said that he did not see Amanda and colleague since the militia abducted them.

read the rest
http://freeamandalindhout.blogspot.com/2009/04/somalia-abducted-canadian-journalist-is.html

[I_cant_vote_yet]

things are a bit different than they were in 1803.........

it order to get the funding from congress to fight the pirates back then, a declaration of war was needed........

today, it should be a covert operation where whole villages are taken out.......

Teddy Roosevelt did that once. Some tiny country took a few American citizens hostage. teddy gave them like 2 days to release the prisoners, or he would wipe them out. They didn't believe him, and promptly disappeared.

[Nashville]

Hillary says we're asking the UN what to do.

[Mohawk5]

No war declaration needed. We have laws on the books already that can deal with them.

[RickRhetoric]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

Avast me hearties!

Declare war on us? Did you not see 'Pirates of the Caribbean'?

We are the salt of the earth. We're cute, mischievous, impish, romantic, daring ... and noble too! We rob the rich to give to the poor. The world loves us!

Go pick on somebody else.

[muhadeeb99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by treadmill http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=52354341#post52354341)
Obama and his gang will do nothing. we have to wait for the next GOP president.



You got that right!

Yep, A crisis gone to waste.

[czzzaar]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

We don't need a declaration of war against pirates, they should simply be killed on sight without mercy. Catch 'em and kill 'em, simple really.

[Vaard]

You are missing nothing. I think this is possible, if Obama will allow merchant ships to be armed.

why do merchant ships need obams permission to have arms on board?

[Oddball]

Oddball, let's go to the gubmint and ask them to cut us a check. We can outfit a couple of seaworthy vessels with steel plates, a 20mm cannon, and a .50 cal.

Privateers are back!!!!
Hell, I'm sure they even have a few dozen WWII era destroyers, or even Coast Guard cutters, that're in mothballs that they can get up off of. :mrgreen:

[Mohawk5]

why do merchant ships need obams permission to have arms on board?


He is in control of all of the world didn't you know that?

[Mohawk5]

Oddball, let's go to the gubmint and ask them to cut us a check. We can outfit a couple of seaworthy vessels with steel plates, a 20mm cannon, and a .50 cal.

Privateers are back!!!!


I better get a call to be on board before that ship leaves the dock!

[kilwil888]

AARRGGGHHHH matey's, lets give em all peglegs!! Savvy? ;)

[pdmike]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

Absolutlely! Declare war on the Somalia pirates! Not just a namby-pamby war, either. We go to war on the basis of a Congressial declaration of war! No messing around. We commit our entire Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force to the effort.

Think of the advantages to the industial-military complex. The Huge Machine could once again swing into action, churning billions of dollars for the benefit of Big Business in America.

Never mind, of course, that we would be declaring war on a group no larger than several hundred people at best. Never mind that we might have some difficulty in identifying who they are - that never stopped us before. Just wipe out an entire coastline! Collateral damage is unavoidable in WAR, you know.

Best of all - President Obama could point out that HIS administration is declaring war here and ONLY HE will keep the American People safe from the pirates, while those cowardly, unpatriotic Republicans are doing nothing to contribute to the War Effort. In fact, they are actually Soft on Pirates. He could point out that if the Amereican People want to get their throats slit while they sleep by the Somalia pirates, then just fail to vote Democratic in 2012 and turn the country over to those do-nothing Republicans.

I love it.

[Guvnah]

You are missing nothing. I think this is possible, if Obama will allow merchant ships to be armed.

Does Obama disallow it?

How can he do that for, say, a South African ship? Or Chinese?

It has been my understanding that the limitation on arming ships has been an insurance issue. Insurers are often the ones paying the ransom. They'd rather pay a few million in ransom than have to deal with the insurance implications of a battle breaking out in the ship they are insuring.

I'm hot on the idea of having a few decoy ships out there. Not governed by insurance regulations, but rather under the control of some military outfit (USA or some other country. Maybe several differnet countries.) Have them heavily armed with concealed weaponry. Looking like a basic freighter, but ready to do battle. Once a couple of pirate landing parties get chopped up, the piracy business will become a whole new game. They'll never know which freighter is armed and which is not.

[Oddball]

Absolutlely! Declare war on the Somalia pirates! Not just a namby-pamby war, either. We go to war on the basis of a Congressial declaration of war! No messing around. We commit our entire Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force to the effort.

Think of the advantages to the industial-military complex. The Huge Machine could once again swing into action, churning billions of dollars for the benefit of Big Business in America.

Never mind, of course, that we would be declaring war on a group no larger than several hundred people at best. Never mind that we might have some difficulty in identifying who they are - that never stopped us before. Just wipe out an entire coastline! Collateral damage is unavoidable in WAR, you know.

Best of all - President Obama could point out that HIS administration is declaring war here and ONLY HE will keep the American People safe from the pirates, while those cowardly, unpatriotic Republicans are doing nothing to contribute to the War Effort. In fact, they are actually Soft on Pirates. He could point out that if the Amereican People want to get their throats slit while they sleep by the Somalia pirates, then just fail to vote Democratic in 2012 and turn the country over to those do-nothing Republicans.

I love it.

Was good enough rationale for Wilson in WWI....and Truman in Korea....and LBJ in 'Nam.

Nope, not a dime's worth of difference.........

[DaveKlassix]

I love the excuses as to why vessels don't carry weapons to protect themselves is because "for the well being of somali pirates".

[pattyk]

why do merchant ships need obams permission to have arms on board?

I heard the explanation.

it's an old rule that no weapons on board to prevent mutiny.

I think the merchant marines could change that.

my dad was a merchant marine.....:cry:

[HumanNumber107T]

I heard somewhere that some of these ships have a device that emits some kind of high frequency sound that drives you nuts.

[pdmike]

Was good enough rationale for Wilson in WWI....and Truman in Korea....and LBJ in 'Nam.

Nope, not a dime's worth of difference.........

In WWI (and WWII, for that matter), Korea and Vietnam, we were fighting the military forces of other NATIONS.

No comparison.

[roger teekell]

Absolutlely! Declare war on the Somalia pirates! Not just a namby-pamby war, either. We go to war on the basis of a Congressial declaration of war! No messing around. We commit our entire Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force to the effort.

Think of the advantages to the industial-military complex. The Huge Machine could once again swing into action, churning billions of dollars for the benefit of Big Business in America.

Never mind, of course, that we would be declaring war on a group no larger than several hundred people at best. Never mind that we might have some difficulty in identifying who they are - that never stopped us before. Just wipe out an entire coastline! Collateral damage is unavoidable in WAR, you know.

Best of all - President Obama could point out that HIS administration is declaring war here and ONLY HE will keep the American People safe from the pirates, while those cowardly, unpatriotic Republicans are doing nothing to contribute to the War Effort. In fact, they are actually Soft on Pirates. He could point out that if the Amereican People want to get their throats slit while they sleep by the Somalia pirates, then just fail to vote Democratic in 2012 and turn the country over to those do-nothing Republicans.

I love it.


This would not be a "War"...

This would be a "Special Ops" mission that would be carried out by Navy Seals and the whole operation would take about 72 hours,,

Will Obama allow it???

Doubt it.

Don't want to "upset" anyone..:rolleyes:

But IF something bad happens to this Captain???

Lord help Obama...

[pdmike]

This would not be a "War"...

This would be a "Special Ops" mission that would be carried out by Navy Seals and the whole operation would take about 72 hours,,

Will Obama allow it???

Doubt it.

Don't want to "upset" anyone..:rolleyes:

But IF something bad happens to this Captain???

Lord help Obama...

I would be in favor of a special ops mission as you describe - and I hope Pres. Obama does allow it. Don't get me wrong - I don't like sea-faring thugs any more than anyone else.

The thread topic is talking about "declaring war" - that's an entirely different matter.

[B' en Natuf]

See: Letters of marque and reprisal.Yes, beause Captain Stubing is sure to get him.:rolleyes:

[tinydancer]

:clap:What is amazing is that the crew took this ship back with no firepower.

I just got this off of Reuters. God bless our men and women merchant marines. We are talking beyond testicular fortitude.

But others said the crew's decision to confront the pirates was an act of bravery typical of U.S. merchant mariners, who are routinely trained so that in times of war they can form part of the country's defense.

"Merchant mariners are America's unsung heroes," said Barbara Yeninas, a maritime consultant. "They don't aggressively seek trouble, but it is not unusual that they would defend themselves, their flag and their cargo."


:flag::flag::flag:

[bloods vs crips]

you don't need permission from anyone to do it. Anyone of you guys could strap up and sit out there. When you are confronted by pirates you have all the right to kill them. You could do it for free or start a company and charge the shipping companies for your service.

[bloods vs crips]

:clap:What is amazing is that the crew took this ship back with no firepower.

I just got this off of Reuters. God bless our men and women merchant marines. We are talking beyond testicular fortitude.

But others said the crew's decision to confront the pirates was an act of bravery typical of U.S. merchant mariners, who are routinely trained so that in times of war they can form part of the country's defense.

"Merchant mariners are America's unsung heroes," said Barbara Yeninas, a maritime consultant. "They don't aggressively seek trouble, but it is not unusual that they would defend themselves, their flag and their cargo."


:flag::flag::flag:

unfortunately they took an potentially unecessary risk, and created an uncontrolable situation. Tactically, what they did was not smart.

[ModerateVoice]

unfortunately they took an potentially unecessary risk, and created an uncontrolable situation. Tactically, what they did was not smart.

Why do you guys on the left always think that throwing up your hands in surrender is the "smart thing" to do?

They took a risk, it took courage to take that risk. Yes, there is a hostage crisis going on right now, and if the liberal administration would get the hell out of the way, Navy sharpshooters could probably end this thing & free the captain unharmed in a matter of minutes.

[Guvnah]

unfortunately they took an potentially unecessary risk, and created an uncontrolable situation. Tactically, what they did was not smart.

Wha ???

Uncontrollable?

Pirates have one hostage. JUST ONE hostage. And they're just drifting in a dead-in-the-water lifeboat.

The alternative would be for the pirates to have 20 hostages AND a freighter.

Which is more uncontrollable?

[Oddball]

In WWI (and WWII, for that matter), Korea and Vietnam, we were fighting the military forces of other NATIONS.

No comparison.
The targets of the idiotic policy are irrelevant to the idiocy of the policy.

[Oddball]

Yes, beause Captain Stubing is sure to get him.:rolleyes:
My nomination for on sequitur of the month.

[Garfield]

Wha ???

Uncontrollable?

Pirates have one hostage. JUST ONE hostage. And they're just drifting in a dead-in-the-water lifeboat.

The alternative would be for the pirates to have 20 hostages AND a freighter.

Which is more uncontrollable?

Why not have the navy get in a small boat alongside the pirates and give them a choice: 1) turn over the American captain and be arrested, or 2) if you harm this American (kill), then we will kill you (pirates).

Simple choice. I do not understand these negioations, what are they negoiating?

[bloods vs crips]

Wha ???

Uncontrollable?

Pirates have one hostage. JUST ONE hostage. And they're just drifting in a dead-in-the-water lifeboat.

The alternative would be for the pirates to have 20 hostages AND a freighter.

Which is more uncontrollable?

I'm talking about the passengers, they couldn't control the hostage situation they created, which has been escalated.

[bloods vs crips]

Why do you guys on the left always think that throwing up your hands in surrender is the "smart thing" to do?

They took a risk, it took courage to take that risk. Yes, there is a hostage crisis going on right now, and if the liberal administration would get the hell out of the way, Navy sharpshooters could probably end this thing & free the captain unharmed in a matter of minutes.

Don't make assumptions, it just makes you look stupid. I'm not on the left, and have experience with these situations. The passengers did take a risk, and that did take courage. It isn't always smarter to try and attack just because it is brave. You should only react with force when your life is on the line, or when you can control the outcome. Neither one of those conditions existed, therefore it was not the best decision. Hopefully the Captain isn't killed.

[tjvh]

All America has to do is have the Navy maintain watch on Freighters passing through these International waters. When the degenerates go after those ships, then use them for target practice. Problem solved.

[bloods vs crips]

All America has to do is have the Navy maintain watch on Freighters passing through these International waters. When the degenerates go after those ships, then use them for target practice. Problem solved.

increasing our military presence around the world isn't a solution, nor should it even be desired.

If these freighters want support, they can pay for it. They could easily hire mercs to police the waters, and or proactively search them for pirates.

[Oddball]

If these freighters want support, they can pay for it. They could easily hire mercs to police the waters, and or proactively search them for pirates.
Given the ransoms being paid to recover ships and crews, I'd say that a small privateer navy could make a tidy sum offering escort services.

[NVG]

Why doesn't the Navy just blow them out of the water? (Of course, after they secure the Captain) Somalia REALLY needs to be dealt with or we may see ourselves with this same problem over and over again. I'd like to slap everyone of these f**ing pirates!

[Creefer]

Man, the navy should just monitor this thread. The situation has been fully analyzed and the easy solutions presented. I wonder why they didn't think of just "blowing them out of the water."

[gdoane]

Man, the navy should just monitor this thread. The situation has been fully analyzed and the easy solutions presented. I wonder why they didn't think of just "blowing them out of the water."

The Air Force came up with the idea first, with their policy of "IF IT FLIES, IT DIES" pursuit of air supremacy.

Just do the same thing to Somali territorial waters. Patrol a dead man's stretch of ocean within 30 miles of Somali shores with C-130's, Helo gunships and F-14's armed with anti-ship missiles to sink and kill any vessel floating in Somali waters.

Destroy all Somali ports and load the water in their harbors with mines. Make it impossible for them to use the ocean. No fishing, no trade vessels, nothing allowed and nothing allowed out. Declare the area a free-fire zone where every vessel is assumed hostile and will be sunk without warning and without exception save for marked military vessels flying flags and they'd best not be Somali flags.

I hope those dumbass Somali pirates like eating dirt because fishing won't be an option anymore.

[Oddball]

Um....dude......F-14s were all retired in 2006.


And they were interceptors that didn't often go for the surface attack role.

[Creefer]

The Air Force came up with the idea first, with their policy of "IF IT FLIES, IT DIES" pursuit of air supremacy.

Just do the same thing to Somali territorial waters. Patrol a dead man's stretch of ocean within 30 miles of Somali shores with C-130's, Helo gunships and F-14's armed with anti-ship missiles to sink and kill any vessel floating in Somali waters.

Destroy all Somali ports and load the water in their harbors with mines. Make it impossible for them to use the ocean. No fishing, no trade vessels, nothing allowed and nothing allowed out. Declare the area a free-fire zone where every vessel is assumed hostile and will be sunk without warning and without exception save for marked military vessels flying flags and they'd best not be Somali flags.

I hope those dumbass Somali pirates like eating dirt because fishing won't be an option anymore.

So no fishing for Somalia...I guess they'll just rely on their other forms of food...like sand or something. Got it.

[Voxpopuli]

why do merchant ships need obams permission to have arms on board?

Merchant ships do not need Obamas permission to carry arms aboard their ships. They do need the permission of the insurance companies that insure them. From what I understand this has more to do with the financial risk associated with arming merchant vessels than anything else.

[mrsc696]

Can anyone name the last president that had a hostage crisiss and did nothing for 444 days?

[Kook]

I see a lot of similarities here with these pirates and our Congress holding us hostage.

[ND Sicilian]

Can anyone name the last president that had a hostage crisiss and did nothing for 444 days?

Ronald Reagan. Oh wait, his crisis lasted longer than 444 days.

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

Bailouts, bad

Military support of corporations, good

You people never cease to amaze me.

[jimjames418]

History may be repeating itself.
From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;
First the trouble with Mexico and now?????????????

[gdoane]

So no fishing for Somalia...I guess they'll just rely on their other forms of food...like sand or something. Got it.

Why would you even care what they eat? They're a nation of outlaws. They haven't had a functional government since 1991. They're worse than crooks, because they're downright anarchists.

This would be a perfect time to make an example of anarchists and pirates, plus a really nice payback for the BlackHawk Down incident in Mogadishu. These bastards are racking up a debt in blood they really need to start making payments on. They've committed several acts of war on us, they've shot down our aircraft, boarded our flagged merchant vessels, killed our soldiers and kidnapped our citizens and we're supposed to care about their welfare exactly why?

Do you think they have a humanitarian bone in their bodies? A lick of decency? If you do then you're seriously overestimating the enemy. These creeps are animals, we've been provoked by them several times and they're not even a nation; they're a camp of thieves and terrorists and brigands at best.

There are penalties for lawlessness. The international penalty is war.

We have no reasonable option other than putting a stop to this lawless piracy. We're obviously not going to legalize piracy and kidnapping so we have to fight it fierce and furious.

It's going to suck to be in Somalia, but I don't think that's really much of a change in circumstances. Somalia ain't fit to live in today anyways.

[tobybear]

:))

I love when Liberals and Democrats who want to ban any gun that slightly looks dangerous suggest that ordinary citizens go out and buy military hardware powerful enough to sink Somali Pirate ships!

Just wait until someone sipping a Mai Tai on the pool deck of a Carnival Cruise ship has a stinger missile fly overhead, because some rent a cop yahoo is upset that the Steel Drum band on the Lido deck of the boat 500 yards from his keeps playing "Hot Hot Hot!" :))

[Its any henna]

...It has been my understanding that the limitation on arming ships has been an insurance issue. Insurers are often the ones paying the ransom. They'd rather pay a few million in ransom than have to deal with the insurance implications of a battle breaking out in the ship they are insuring.

I'm hot on the idea of having a few decoy ships out there. Not governed by insurance regulations, but rather under the control of some military outfit (USA or some other country. Maybe several differnet countries.) Have them heavily armed with concealed weaponry. Looking like a basic freighter, but ready to do battle. Once a couple of pirate landing parties get chopped up, the piracy business will become a whole new game. They'll never know which freighter is armed and which is not.
Guvnah, great post. Very interesting ideas. I've got a few questions and thoughts. First, can you give me a link showing that it is primarily insurers that facilitate under-arming of ships?

Second, I'm really intrigued with the idea of decoy ships. I wonder, though, whether the Somalis would be able to quickly identify most of the decoys. Are the pirates acting alone when they choose their targets? For example, was it an accident when they hijacked the ship carrying all those tanks several months ago? Or did they have knowledge of the ships contents? If so, where did they get it? And if they have a way to ID cargo in some ships, wouldn't they have a way to ID most decoys?

Third, I like your decoy idea because I think it is cheaper than trying to patrol the entire Somali coastline, which is 3025 km (link here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html#Geo)),or 1,880 miles. By way of comparison, the entire west coast of the US is only about 1,300 miles (link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_coastline)). Thus, the cost of patrolling such a large coastline would be enormous. However, I wonder whether funding a sufficient number of decoy boats, and keeping their identity secret, would be prohibitively expensive. If so, I wonder whether it wouldn't be cheaper to just divert US ships around Africa rather than using the Suez.

Fourth, I suppose the insurers know best what is the cheapest solution. If they think it is more expensive to arm ships than to pay ransom, they are probably correct, since their business model viability depends on their calculations being correct. However, I wonder whether their cost estimates will be warped if the US starts providing security? US military interventions are a giant subsidy to insurers because it provides a free source of protection, which reduces ransom payments. Thus, the taxpayer foots the bill. This essentially lets the insurer externalize the cost of doing business onto the US taxpayer. That is a recipe for disaster. I would feel better about withdrawing US military support and forcing the insurance firms to internalize their own costs of doing business. This avoids distorting the market's pricing mechanism, and will best encourage the cheapest solution.

[Guvnah]

I'm talking about the passengers, they couldn't control the hostage situation they created, which has been escalated.

First of all, they weren't "passengers". They were merchant marines.

And the options (as it has played out) was for ALL OF THEM (and their ship) to be held hostage, or just one of them and no ship.

THEY WERE THE HOSTAGE SITUATION before they overpowered the pirates.

The current situation is far more controlled than it was before they fought back.

[McCoyFan]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

let nuke them
into the modern age

[Guvnah]

Guvnah, great post. Very interesting ideas. I've got a few questions and thoughts. First, can you give me a link showing that it is primarily insurers that facilitate under-arming of ships?


Sorry, no. I saw it in some of the articles I read throughout the day yesterday. I don't have the time to retrace. If I come across a reference, I'll try to find this post and update.


Second, I'm really intrigued with the idea of decoy ships. I wonder, though, whether the Somalis would be able to quickly identify most of the decoys. Are the pirates acting alone when they choose their targets? For example, was it an accident when they hijacked the ship carrying all those tanks several months ago? Or did they have knowledge of the ships contents? If so, where did they get it? And if they have a way to ID cargo in some ships, wouldn't they have a way to ID most decoys?


I have no idea.



I wonder whether funding a sufficient number of decoy boats, and keeping their identity secret, would be prohibitively expensive. If so, I wonder whether it wouldn't be cheaper to just divert US ships around Africa rather than using the Suez.


Again, I have no idea.

It seems to me that all it would take would be for 2 or 3 such boardings to be thwarted (maybe even just one!) by a surprise armed defense to achieve the result of making the pirates have to second-guess every subsequent boarding.



However, I wonder whether their cost estimates will be warped if the US starts providing security? ...

I have no idea.

[jprin]

Declare war on criminals extorting money? Heck, the drug wars just over the border in Mexico are far, far more dangerous and costly to Americans than a handful of glorified thugs in the Indian Ocean. Might as well declare war on Mexico before bothering with the so-called pirates.

[Thanatos144]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

I thought we were already at war with terrorists?

[Chuangtzu]

What a genuinely awful idea. This is not 1803, with months long supply chains and communication conduits.

This is 206 years later. Cut throats in the night and be done with it. Then address some root causes - the foreign decimation of Somalia's fishing grounds.

http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4060

[pdmike]

The targets of the idiotic policy are irrelevant to the idiocy of the policy.

Interesting comment. I would say yes and no - depending.

If one is a pacifist, then yes - killing others in the name of "war," regardless of the propriety of the action or the nature of the targets involved, would be an idiotic policy.

On the other hand, if one is not a pacifist, and feels that there are such things as legitimate and justifiable wars, then the targets of the policy are very relevant to the "idiocy" or "non-idiocy" of the policy.

[B' en Natuf]

What a genuinely awful idea. This is not 1803, with months long supply chains and communication conduits.

This is 206 years later. Cut throats in the night and be done with it. Then address some root causes - the foreign decimation of Somalia's fishing grounds.

http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4060Only a lib could blame thugs being thugs on poor fishing. They are thugs because they are thugs.

No war need be declared on pirates, admiralty laws make killing them outright perfectly legal. They don't need trials, they don't need to be captured, they don't need their "greivances uttered". just kill them. Whenever you see them, no matter what they're doing... just kill them.

[bloods vs crips]

First of all, they weren't "passengers". They were merchant marines.

And the options (as it has played out) was for ALL OF THEM (and their ship) to be held hostage, or just one of them and no ship.

THEY WERE THE HOSTAGE SITUATION before they overpowered the pirates.

The current situation is far more controlled than it was before they fought back.

everyone on ship is a passenger, but whatever that is just semantics and irrelevant to the point. As to the real issue, the hostage situation was known to everyone. They know that they risk being taken hostage for ransom. Now the situation is a life and death scenario, and if the pirates get him to Somolia, this could become a nightmare.

[jimjames418]

Only a lib could blame thugs being thugs on poor fishing. They are thugs because they are thugs.

No war need be declared on pirates, admiralty laws make killing them outright perfectly legal. They don't need trials, they don't need to be captured, they don't need their "greivances uttered". just kill them. Whenever you see them, no matter what they're doing... just kill them.
That is what Tzu said "cut throats in the middle of the night" seems to cover it. And then address the problem that led to them thugs to keep others from following in their foot steps.

Now stop it, I don't normally agree with Tzu about anything. :wall:

[BigBagel]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)
Declare war? We don't even declare war on a country before we invade it. I think we erased that part of the Constitution.

[B' en Natuf]

That is what Tzu said "cut throats in the middle of the night" seems to cover it. And then address the problem that led to them thugs to keep others from following in their foot steps.

Now stop it, I don't normally agree with Tzu about anything. :wall:You misunderstand. I agree with the "cut throats" angle. I disagree with addressing anything except the funeral plans of the rest of them. What their greivances are is irrellevent. Whatever their "victimization" angle is is irrellevant. I don't care what their feelings are. If they're pirates... just kill them.

[skprtod914]

You misunderstand. I agree with the "cut throats" angle. I disagree with addressing anything except the funeral plans of the rest of them. What their greivances are is irrellevent. Whatever their "victimization" angle is is irrellevant. I don't care what their feelings are. If they're pirates... just kill them.

Absolutely. Victimhood is no excuse for murder.

[B' en Natuf]

Declare war? We don't even declare war on a country before we invade it. I think we erased that part of the Constitution.Don't want to rehash the whole thing but if your talking about Iraq and A-stan an authorization to use force IS a declaration of war. Supreme court said so about 220 years ago.

[Thanatos144]

Don't want to rehash the whole thing but if your talking about Iraq and A-stan an authorization to use force IS a declaration of war. Supreme court said so about 220 years ago.

I voted for it before I voted against it. :))

[Its any henna]

You misunderstand. I agree with the "cut throats" angle. I disagree with addressing anything except the funeral plans of the rest of them. What their greivances are is irrellevent. Whatever their "victimization" angle is is irrellevant. I don't care what their feelings are. If they're pirates... just kill them.
This is silly. You act like there is no cost to mounting ad hoc operations to kill the pirates. Responding to emergencies is extraordinarily expensive. Furthermore, their grievances and motivations are not irrelevant: those circumstances determine the degree to which the pirates can be deterred. Further, those circumstances determine the frequency with which dead pirates will be replaced.

Think about this rationally and economically. There are at least 5 options, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive, that come to mind:
1. Do more of the same. Keep sending ad hoc responses to emergencies whenever an American gets picked up and kill the pirates.
2. Encourage ships to carry greater protection.
3. Provide military patrol of the Somali coast.
4. Encourage ships to avoid the Suez Canal.
5. Fix Somalia with nation-building.
Which solution, or combination of solutions is best is an empirical question. From your posts it sounds like you'd favor 1. If so, I suggest that it may be cheaper to do some combination of 2 and 4. The most expensive options would be 5 and then 3.

[B' en Natuf]

This is silly. You act like there is no cost to mounting ad hoc operations to kill the pirates. Responding to emergencies is extraordinarily expensive. Furthermore, their grievances and motivations are not irrelevant: those circumstances determine the degree to which the pirates can be deterred. Further, those circumstances determine the frequency with which dead pirates will be replaced.

Think about this rationally and economically. There are at least 5 options, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive, that come to mind:
1. Do more of the same. Keep sending ad hoc responses to emergencies whenever an American gets picked up and kill the pirates.
2. Encourage ships to carry greater protection.
3. Provide military patrol of the Somali coast.
4. Encourage ships to avoid the Suez Canal.
5. Fix Somalia with nation-building.
Which solution, or combination of solutions is best is an empirical question. From your posts it sounds like you'd favor 1. If so, I suggest that it may be cheaper to do some combination of 2 and 4. The most expensive options would be 5 and then 3.Millions for war ships... not one penny in tribute.

How quickly we forget who we are.

If you want to "fix" somalia... I have a few ideas.:twisted:

Personally I like Jeffersons solution. Attack them at their source.

"From the halls of Montezuma... to the shore of Somali"

[jimjames418]

You misunderstand. I agree with the "cut throats" angle. I disagree with addressing anything except the funeral plans of the rest of them. What their greivances are is irrellevent. Whatever their "victimization" angle is is irrellevant. I don't care what their feelings are. If they're pirates... just kill them.
If you don't address the underlying cause of the problem, it will just keep reoccurring.

I agree with you, kill the pirates, but provide others who are not yet pirates a chance to make a living without turning into pirates.

[Thanatos144]

This is silly. You act like there is no cost to mounting ad hoc operations to kill the pirates. Responding to emergencies is extraordinarily expensive. Furthermore, their grievances and motivations are not irrelevant: those circumstances determine the degree to which the pirates can be deterred. Further, those circumstances determine the frequency with which dead pirates will be replaced.

Think about this rationally and economically. There are at least 5 options, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive, that come to mind:
1. Do more of the same. Keep sending ad hoc responses to emergencies whenever an American gets picked up and kill the pirates.
2. Encourage ships to carry greater protection.
3. Provide military patrol of the Somali coast.
4. Encourage ships to avoid the Suez Canal.
5. Fix Somalia with nation-building.
Which solution, or combination of solutions is best is an empirical question. From your posts it sounds like you'd favor 1. If so, I suggest that it may be cheaper to do some combination of 2 and 4. The most expensive options would be 5 and then 3.

Whats the price tag for your freedom and safety? There must be one. Cause you seem to think we should just let these terrorists doing what they do cause it might cost a few pennies. being Greedy is not how to make a country great.

[bloods vs crips]

here's my question. What was going on during his attempted escape? How is it that the pirates weren't killed immediately by US forces during the gap he created?

[gdoane]

here's my question. What was going on during his attempted escape? How is it that the pirates weren't killed immediately by US forces during the gap he created?

Probably for the same reason the Captain returned to the lifeboat after the AK-47 convinced him that the pirates still could and would kill their hostage unless he can swim faster than a speeding bullet.

The effective range of an AK-47 is 400 Meters.

Michael Phelps holds the world's record swimming the 400 Meters in 4:08.26 and four minutes with pirate AK-47's firing at you like a duck in the water is probably longer than your remaining lifespan.

The pirates had nothing to lose if the Captain escaped because they'd have no options left but to surrender and face an American death penalty offense or to fight against a US Navy Man-0-War from a lifeboat with small arms. Either way, they're dead men. So, they'd have definitely shot the Captain to prevent his escape.

[RWReaganfan]

I agree...send over a few ships and a battalion of marines.
a few helicopter gunboats too.

erase the pirates.

What would the Marines do? Storm the beach?

This is a job assigned to Navy SEALS.

BTW, *** is a helicopter "gunboat"? I'd like to see one of those!

[Penrod]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)
Also over through the government of Tripoli through invasion.

Gave us Marines the first words in our Hymn :)

What an invasion force that was LOL.

Presley O'Bannon, a 29-year-old Irish-American from Marshall, in Fauquier County, Virginia, was a Marine lieutenant serving on the USS Argus. The young officer was given command of one Navy midshipman and seven Marines and assigned the daunting task of accompanying Eaton and Hamet and their motley force on the perilous five-hundred-plus mile trek from Alexandria to Derna.So 8 Marines and 1 Navy Midshipmen invaded and took a nation and Obuma cant handle four dudes in a row boat.


'To the Shores of Tripoli': Presley Neville O'Bannon --
(http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/obannonp.html)

[B' en Natuf]

If you don't address the underlying cause of the problem, it will just keep reoccurring.

I agree with you, kill the pirates, but provide others who are not yet pirates a chance to make a living without turning into pirates."provide them with a way to make a living"? What kind of international socialist BS is that. Let them find their own LEGAL way to make a living. If you want to stop piracy... kill pirates. If you want to stop initiative... kill capitalism.

[RWReaganfan]

Patrol a dead man's stretch of ocean within 30 miles of Somali shores with C-130's, Helo gunships and F-14's armed with anti-ship missiles to sink and kill any vessel floating in Somali waters.



C-130s are unarmed and where would they fly from?

Helos require support ships.

F-14s are all retired and never carried anti-ship missiles.

[bloods vs crips]

Probably for the same reason the Captain returned to the lifeboat after the AK-47 convinced him that the pirates still could and would kill their hostage unless he can swim faster than a speeding bullet.

The effective range of an AK-47 is 400 Meters.

Michael Phelps holds the world's record swimming the 400 Meters in 4:08.26 and four minutes with pirate AK-47's firing at you like a duck in the water is probably longer than your remaining lifespan.

The pirates had nothing to lose if the Captain escaped because they'd have no options left but to surrender and face an American death penalty offense or to fight against a US Navy Man-0-War from a lifeboat with small arms. Either way, they're dead men. So, they'd have definitely shot the Captain to prevent his escape.

The US is within M16 range currently, much less sniper rifle range. He evidently established a little range between the pirates and himself. Personally, my knowledge of rifles tells me that they don't even need him to create space at that distance. 4 snipers could end this immediately without harming the hostage. They simply must not have authorization to shoot, because the second he dove in the water, those 4 should have been shot on the spot, no question about it.

[B' en Natuf]

here's my question. What was going on during his attempted escape? How is it that the pirates weren't killed immediately by US forces during the gap he created?That was my question too.

I imagine the Navy was given instructions not to shoot and they were trying to get some beaurcrat to ask for permission to take action. It's Clinton all over again.

[bloods vs crips]

What would the Marines do? Storm the beach?

This is a job assigned to Navy SEALS.

BTW, *** is a helicopter "gunboat"? I'd like to see one of those!

gunship is the term

[bloods vs crips]

That was my question too.

I imagine the Navy was given instructions not to shoot and they were trying to get some beaurcrat to ask for permission to take action. It's Clinton all over again.

they should have just killed them and dealt with the paper screw after the fact.

[bloods vs crips]

C-130s are unarmed and where would they fly from?

That's completely false.

[B' en Natuf]

they should have just killed them and dealt with the paper screw after the fact.Orders are orders ad I can imagine the current appeaser in chief probobly did issue such. Thinking of course that he could find a "peaceful" solution with his words and charisma. Why you'd want "peace" with pirates is beyond me.

Apu Kabar!!

[RWReaganfan]

Also over through the government of Tripoli through invasion.

Gave us Marines the first words in our Hymn :)
What an invasion force that was LOL.

So 8 Marines and 1 Navy Midshipmen invaded and took a nation and Obuma cant handle four dudes in a row boat.


'To the Shores of Tripoli': Presley Neville O'Bannon --
(http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/obannonp.html)

You must not be a Marine. The first words are "From the halls of Montezuma, ..." which refers to the Mexican-American War.:wall:

[bloods vs crips]

Orders are orders ad I can imagine the current appeaser in chief probobly did issue such. Thinking of course that he could find a "peaceful" solution with his words and charisma. Why you'd want "peace" with pirates is beyond me.

Apu Kabar!!

I highly doubt Obama has issued any orders for this. The problem here is that there are like 300 other people being held hostage as we speak. The thought is likely that we might escalate their situations by attacking these guys.

[jimjames418]

C-130s are unarmed and where would they fly from?
How little knowledge is passed down in our educational system.

Lockheed AC-130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130)
The C-130 Hercules was selected to replace the AC-47 Gunship I (known as Spooky or Puff the Magic Dragon) during the Vietnam War, to improve gunship ...
Video of a AC-130 Gunship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk).

The gunship flys on its side while firing the big guns, and is pushed about 3,000 feet higher due to the recoil. Depends on the number of rounds fired.

[bloods vs crips]

How little knowledge is passed down in our educational system.

Lockheed AC-130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130)

Video of a AC-130 Gunship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk).

The gunship flys on its side while firing the big guns, and is pushed about 3,000 feet higher due to the recoil. Depends on the number of rounds fired.

I've been on armed C-130 gunships many times lol

[B' en Natuf]

I highly doubt Obama has issued any orders for this. The problem here is that there are like 300 other people being held hostage as we speak. The thought is likely that we might escalate their situations by attacking these guys.We ar responsible only for those people captured on an American flagged ship. Let Liberia worry about Liberian charges.

BTW, I don't know if he did or not... but it would fit the profile for the current appeaser in chief.

[bloods vs crips]

We ar responsible only for those people captured on an American flagged ship. Let Liberia worry about Liberian charges.

BTW, I don't know if he did or not... but it would fit the profile for the current appeaser in chief.

that ruins the integrity of the discussion.

[gdoane]

The US is within M16 range currently, much less sniper rifle range. He evidently established a little range between the pirates and himself. Personally, my knowledge of rifles tells me that they don't even need him to create space at that distance. 4 snipers could end this immediately without harming the hostage. They simply must not have authorization to shoot, because the second he dove in the water, those 4 should have been shot on the spot, no question about it.

It's a covered lifeboat, and snipers aren't very good at shooting through walls in the blind. Besides, a basic rule of shooting a gun is to know what your target is. Did they know it was the Captain and not the pirates throwing a Mutineer overboard? They'd look pretty stupid shooting the four people on board when the Captain is one of the four and the guy overboard is a Mutineer whom the pirates made walk the plank.

Besides, the Navy doesn't have snipers. I was in the Navy for 8 years and never met one sniper. The reason why is because sniping requires a very steady platform and I speak from experience with seasickness and some 40,000 miles of ocean travel that you're not going to find much in the way of steadiness on the high seas either on the ship doing the shooting or the lifeboat being shot at.

[doublehelix]

We really shouldn't be decalaing war on any more folks.

[akuma]

Why can't each ship sailing through this area have sufficient defenses to ward off the pirates? How much would it really take to stop seven or eight pirates in small boats? I think I could do pretty well by myself with one automatic weapon. Just get the word out that any small boat approaching a commercial ship will be blown out of the water. Let this happen a few times and the problem is solved. Am I missing something?
yeah
one many many many restrictions are in place on ships having arms aboard due to the various restrictions that exist in the various countries win which they will make port.

secondly the pirates use RPGs and have pretty good radar and global satillite ablities - they can see where they are JUST as well as any ship.

thirdly to blow a small boat out of the water would require something a bit more than a carbine

lastly the boats move much faster than the ships they are attacking - so if someone does get it in their heads to start trying to outgun a boat load of automatic weapons RPGs and heavy guns they wind up floating in the middle of the ocean with a sunk ship

[chumley]

The targets of the idiotic policy are irrelevant to the idiocy of the policy.

Awesome line! I may have to use it some time - pithy and so much intelligence in one line of english! Kudos to you. Your brain is on fire!!

PS Love the movie, love Oddball, love sig line!
(Fond memories of watching that movie with late father!)

[bloods vs crips]

It's a covered lifeboat, and snipers aren't very good at shooting through walls in the blind. Besides, a basic rule of shooting a gun is to know what your target is. Did they know it was the Captain and not the pirates throwing a Mutineer overboard? They'd look pretty stupid shooting the four people on board when the Captain is one of the four and the guy overboard is a Mutineer whom the pirates made walk the plank.

Besides, the Navy doesn't have snipers. I was in the Navy for 8 years and never met one sniper. The reason why is because sniping requires a very steady platform and I speak from experience with seasickness and some 40,000 miles of ocean travel that you're not going to find much in the way of steadiness on the high seas either on the ship doing the shooting or the lifeboat being shot at.

ah, see that's good info on the lifeboat. I though they were open. As for snipers, there should be a Marine on board with sniper training, you're right about the stability issue, but depending on wind and wave conditions and proximity, it's a makeable shot.

[jimjames418]

We really shouldn't be decalaing war on any more folks.
On come on. Just one more little war. I promise to be home by dinner time. :D

Actually somebody will have to take care of the problem. And guess what, I am somebody, you are somebody, and everybody is somebody.

The sooner a problem is taken care of, the less the cost in terms of lives and money. From the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

[muhadeeb99]

Besides, the Navy doesn't have snipers. I was in the Navy for 8 years and never met one sniper. The reason why is because sniping requires a very steady platform and I speak from experience with seasickness and some 40,000 miles of ocean travel that you're not going to find much in the way of steadiness on the high seas either on the ship doing the shooting or the lifeboat being shot at.

I hear tell that snipers have adapted motion stabilisers just like the motion picture cameras have. It's a gimble with gyros. I think I saw this on the military channel. They may have them independant of the sniper but can be used like a UAV.

[gdoane]

I hear tell that snipers have adapted motion stabilisers just like the motion picture cameras have. It's a gimble with gyros.

I'm a Navy trained satcom tech, I worked on a system that used stabilizers and gimbles linked to the ship's gyro and used synchros and servos to stabilize the satellite dishes pointed at NAVSATS.

They were actually pretty cool because you'd give them an altitude and azimuth and they'd lock onto that sucker like a bulldog, but they still required constant adjustment because we live in a three-dimensional world where height and location change too. The ocean rises with tides and the direction changes with location, and ships change location a lot. That's sort of what they're for.

Even if you had such a system, it's not going to compensate for the other boat doing all the same things in the rocking, rising and falling with the waves and all.

[BillBrown]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

We didn't declare war on the Barbary Pirates.

[Ceasar]

I'm talking about the passengers, they couldn't control the hostage situation they created, which has been escalated.

WHAT? All but one is free, & that's a bad thing to you? Well...liberal logic IS an oxymoron!

[bloods vs crips]

WHAT? All but one is free, & that's a bad thing to you? Well...liberal logic IS an oxymoron!

poor logic. I'm not a liberal. Your opinions doesn't equate to the entire right sided view, therefore some that disagrees with isn't automatically from the left.

Furthermore, the situation wasn't life threatening before hand, now it is. And if they get him to the shores of Somalia, it's all over.

[Chuangtzu]

If you don't address the underlying cause of the problem, it will just keep reoccurring.

I agree with you, kill the pirates, but provide others who are not yet pirates a chance to make a living without turning into pirates.

We must both feel unclean, right now - having agreed on this matter. The message must be sent, and it's an old one (even Hercules and Caesar cut their teeth, this way). But, it's not enough (as Henna notes) to keep reacting. It's expensive, and it's stupid.

And some grievances are legitimate, whether or not we benefit immediately from the recognition of that claim. These pirates are mostly fisherman. Once, they weren't pirates.

If we only throw ordinance at them, what we'll get is something worse than pirates. This is not a soft or hippie sentiment. It's sober, as I see it. Too much fighting often enough makes for opponents who learn us faster, and are meaner about it.

The Romans knew this - they cursed inept commanders who taught Roman war to Roman enemies by too much contact in arms.

As did Sun Tzu.

[BillBrown]

We really shouldn't be decalaing war on any more folks.

Any "more" folks?
We haven't declared war on anyone since WWII.

[Its any henna]

Whats the price tag for your freedom and safety? There must be one. Cause you seem to think we should just let these terrorists doing what they do cause it might cost a few pennies. being Greedy is not how to make a country great.
Bravery is a lousy principle on which to base business decisions; it is adolescent. If you want bravery, go watch Braveheart, but leave the shipping of the world's goods to adults. We should be aiming for the lowest cost way to continue shipping goods around the world. This is a business problem. The pirates are a business obstacle. The military shouldn't even be involved in this.

Also, you are flat-out wrong about greed. Greed is what made America the richest country in the world. The Framers of our Constitution structured it around the principle that all people behave greedily, selfishly, like devils rather than angels. Politicians must be constrained with checks and balances because their natural greed and lust for power would lead to tyranny. And in addition to political "greed", our markets are structured around the idea that people should be allowed to be as greedy as they want to be within the rule of law. That's what made this country great.

[JohnRandolph]

Declare war on Somali pirates?What a completely dumbass notion. Lots of belligerent keyboard warriors always ready to send somebody else to get shot at. As henna has smartly pointed out:

We should be aiming for the lowest cost way to continue shipping goods around the world. This is a business problem. The pirates are a business obstacle. The military shouldn't even be involved in this.

These shipping companies know where their ships are going to be at any given time. The problem with Somali piracy isn't new and isn't a secret. The logical solution is for shippers to hire, at their own expense, private security prepared to repel boarders at any time.

The pirates have operated as they have because there has been a profit in doing so. If they know that there is a chance they will be blown away the next time they go over the rail on an "unarmed" cargo ship, the payoff doesn't look quit as nice.

[Thanatos144]

Bravery is a lousy principle on which to base business decisions; it is adolescent. If you want bravery, go watch Braveheart, but leave the shipping of the world's goods to adults. We should be aiming for the lowest cost way to continue shipping goods around the world. This is a business problem. The pirates are a business obstacle. The military shouldn't even be involved in this.

Also, you are flat-out wrong about greed. Greed is what made America the richest country in the world. The Framers of our Constitution structured it around the principle that all people behave greedily, selfishly, like devils rather than angels. Politicians must be constrained with checks and balances because their natural greed and lust for power would lead to tyranny. And in addition to political "greed", our markets are structured around the idea that people should be allowed to be as greedy as they want to be within the rule of law. That's what made this country great.

protecting US interests are a business decision? How wrong you are. I all those dieing for you are just mindless drones in the big corporate machine.

[Creefer]

There are obviously a lot of people on this board who have never fired weapons, especially at range for accuracy, and who have also never been on the high seas, because to suggest that 4 snipers on board a ship, even if it wasn't a covered lifeboat, could make those shots, simultaneously at that, is beyond assinine.

[msny]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

Yes we should, and other countries that have
a vested interest should also.

The American taxpayer should not shoulder
all the cost.

[RobertBrake]

I see no reason why we should not!

[Its any henna]

Yes we should, and other countries that have
a vested interest should also.

The American taxpayer should not shoulder
all the cost.
The American taxpayer should not shoulder any of the cost. There is a lower cost solution to pirates than sending in the military: private security. They can also reroute the ships around Africa, if that is cheaper than providing private security.

It amazes me that people think that the government can provide a cheaper solution to the international shipment of goods than the private sector. I lack that confidence in the government's ability to provide lowest-cost solutions to business decisions. Perhaps we should simply nationalize all American-owned ships if the government is the ideal actor to optimize this industry?

[Thanatos144]

What does it matter? Obama will wuss out cause he is weak.

[msny]

What a completely dumbass notion. Lots of belligerent keyboard warriors always ready to send somebody else to get shot at. As henna has smartly pointed out:



These shipping companies know where their ships are going to be at any given time. The problem with Somali piracy isn't new and isn't a secret. The logical solution is for shippers to hire, at their own expense, private security prepared to repel boarders at any time.

The pirates have operated as they have because there has been a profit in doing so. If they know that there is a chance they will be blown away the next time they go over the rail on an "unarmed" cargo ship, the payoff doesn't look quit as nice.

You dont know international law very well then.

If you add armed guards to the ships then most
nations will either not allow them to dock, or require
on board inspections before docking. To many just
the idea of armed guards, will block commerce.

That is impractical and expensive with every cargo ship
at sea.

The way you deal with this monster is to cut it off at
its source. go after them in there havens and kill them
all.

[Thanatos144]

The American taxpayer should not shoulder any of the cost. There is a lower cost solution to pirates than sending in the military: private security. They can also reroute the ships around Africa, if that is cheaper than providing private security.

It amazes me that people think that the government can provide a cheaper solution to the international shipment of goods than the private sector. I lack that confidence in the government's ability to provide lowest-cost solutions to business decisions. Perhaps we should simply nationalize all American-owned ships if the government is the ideal actor to optimize this industry?

Grow up! This is what the government is for. We can not isolate ourselves from the world. We never could. No mater how much you want it otherwise and money sometimes must be spent.

[Creefer]

FRENCH COMMANDO RAID ON PIRATES RESULTS IN DEATH OF HOSTAGE (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/11/2009-04-11_fatal_french_commando_rescue_of_pirate_hostages _underscores_risk_of_sneak_attack.html)

I think we do need to up our naval patrols in the area, in international waters. It has long been in the interest of the Unitied States to ensure safe and navigable international waters. I'd also give no quarter to pirates in international seas. I don't think this would cost the US any additional money. After all, ensuring international waters remain open is one of the reasons we have our standing navy to begin with.

I don't think we need another ground war or police action in Somalia. Businesses need to consider if it is safe to do business there for themselves.

[gdoane]

What a completely dumbass notion. Lots of belligerent keyboard warriors always ready to send somebody else to get shot at. As henna has smartly pointed out:



These shipping companies know where their ships are going to be at any given time. The problem with Somali piracy isn't new and isn't a secret. The logical solution is for shippers to hire, at their own expense, private security prepared to repel boarders at any time.

The pirates have operated as they have because there has been a profit in doing so. If they know that there is a chance they will be blown away the next time they go over the rail on an "unarmed" cargo ship, the payoff doesn't look quit as nice.

The pirates hope to escape to a lawless place. They operate because they have an anarchy. Blow up the damned anarchy. Nuke Somalia. About 5000 nuclear missiles will ensure the damned pirates have no escape plan left available to them and since Somalia has no government then nuking the bastards isn't any violation of treaties or the Geneva convention.

One American life is worth more than the entire population of the planet and one drop of American blood is worth the destruction of a nation.

We're better than they are. Why are we treating them as equals? They're criminals.

They hope to escape to Somalia. They'll kill to get back to Somalia. The logical response is to destroy Somalia utterly. Nuke it. Leave the pirates with no place to retreat to and show them that no matter how vicious they may be, we'll be more vicious and we will win this no holds barred.

We need to start dropping Nukes on Somalia. It's the easiest and cheapest fix for this stupid drama.

[johnrocks]

You dont know international law very well then.

If you add armed guards to the ships then most
nations will either not allow them to dock, or require
on board inspections before docking. To many just
the idea of armed guards, will block commerce.

That is impractical and expensive with every cargo ship
at sea.

The way you deal with this monster is to cut it off at
its source. go after them in there havens and kill them
all.
Sounds like there is a problem with international law:confused:

[Dale in GA]

We don't have to "declare war" all we have to do is send the US Navy (7th Fleet) in with the instructions "Eliminate the Piracy Threat". As long as these turds are operating on the high seas, they are fair game.


Pirates have operated for quite a while in modern days, both in the Caribbean and off the Somalian coast. I'm aware of piracy in Southeast Asian waters as well.

I don't understand why a stronger line hasn't been taken against them, although I'm not surprised that suddenly it's President Obama who's being put on notice to get tough with them.

I guess the pirates just sort of laid low after GWB was elected bacause they knew how tough he was, huh?

[jimjames418]

Pirates have operated for quite a while in modern days, both in the Caribbean and off the Somalian coast. I'm aware of piracy in Southeast Asian waters as well.

I don't understand why a stronger line hasn't been taken against them, although I'm not surprised that suddenly it's President Obama who's being put on notice to get tough with them.

I guess the pirates just sort of laid low after GWB was elected bacause they knew how tough he was, huh?
The last American flagged ship taken by pirates was in 1804.

It could be because they were afraid of what the U.S. would do in return, or it could be because of the low number of ships flying the U.S. flag.

Either way it is not something that the U.S. government should let pass without some serious pay back.

[Liability]

Declare war on the Somalia pirates

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson did declare war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast, (not a country).

Does Barack Obama have the fortitude to declare war on the Somalia pirates? (not a country)

President Jefferson declared no war as he had no ability to do so.

He did fight the pirates, however.

And, as has already been noted, piracy is already criminal in international law and in the traditional law of the sea. Pirates may be summarily executed in fact.

If the new President had the capacity to lead in any meaningful manner, he would have (and may already have) issued orders to the Navy to take out the pirates using such force as is necessary, consistent with the desire to provide for the safety of our innocent sailors or any other innocent sailors.