Printable View
Aside from his disrespect, my main problem with comments like the ones from DeLux is the joy expressed in response to killing people. It's one thing to argue that the U.S. had a right to defend their citizens (which I also believe) and another to take pleasure in taking others' lives and wishing they had experienced more pain while dying. Killing is sometimes necessary but it shouldn't be treated like a football game--celebrating and cheering when our team beats (kills) theirs.
Those of you who can read know that I’ve posted nothing in this thread accusing the U.S. Navy of belligerence. I have respect for the Navy negotiators (who were obviously hoping for a better outcome) and the Navy sniper(s) who took out the pirates only when they judged Capt. Philips to be in immanent danger. I’ve characterized the incident as one with an unhappy outcome (because of the three deaths), in which at least all the innocent lives involved walked away unharmed. So what is one to make of all the vitriol cast my way? Simply this: I refused to celebrate the taking of three lives. I refuse to characterize the incident as one where once again the U.S. steams in and shows everyone who is boss. That would be applauding an unflattering fantasy. It does my country no favor to depict it as a belligerent bully. It does us no favor to be caught objectifying others as scumbags and fuckers not even worthy of a trial (here I refer to another recent thread), as if all the facts are known & all you have to do to determine guilt is watch the news.
Thank you yosi and Shonuff, for your positive comments. Thank you MacShreach, for your thoughtful, insightful and truthful analysis.
Right, but they're (I am assuming) displaying it for others to see, thus its positioned incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by happychris
I am surprised, I was under the impression you thought pointing a loaded gun at anyone, at any time would be endangering lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. The reason why merchants need forces like the US Navy to respond to situations like this is because armament restrictions do not usually allow merchants to arm themselves to their teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
Anyone remember what caused WW1? It wasn't submarines, it was the armed neutral merchant who started shooting at submarines, all submarines at sight. There were even cases where American armed merchants accidentally shot up American US Navy ships under the fear that it was a German U-Boat, killing dozens of American sailors. The Germans only went to unrestricted submarine warfare after we refused to disarm our merchants.
Suppose we let the merchants do whatever they want, "it's international waters after all"- what do you think will happen? My bet is anytime a fast or low drought vessel got near a cargo freighter near Somalia, it would be shot up- it's not like hijackers wear uniforms so people can distinguish them from fishers, tourists, and other common small ships in the area. If the hijackers are any good at what they do, the merchant crews won't even know the hijackers are armed until they're right next to the cargo ship.
touche'
I agree it is sad that three stupid, greedy teenagers died after choosing to hijack ships on the high seas at gunpoint. I have not relished their deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But your explanation above ignores your perhaps unwitting (although I doubt that) attempts to defend the pirates. First, you legitimized, and minimized, the pirates' crimes by proposing that they should be called "toll-collectors", and that they should have the right to to demand money for passage on the open ocean. That is obscene and offensive... real, innocent people have died from the actions of the action of these criminals, and dozens remain in captivity in lieu of someone paying your "amusing" multi-million dollar toll idea. Later, you suggested that a ransom should have been paid to avoid the deaths, and you wrote, "No one [died] of consequence. It's the profits that are important." Your message was that it was greed that kept a ransom from being paid to the pirates, and thus from preventing bloodshed. But take a step back further... if the pirates had not been sticking guns in the backs of innocent people, to PROFIT from their crimes by demanding millions of dollars in greedy ransoms, there would have been no bloodshed. You also parroted the line that "no hostages have died in the last decade, up until this week" because that gross falsehood fit your bias. And to add further insult, you lamented (at least until you were called out for it) only pirates' families grief, rather than the families of their victims who have died or who remain in captivity.
You would have been more persuasive had you indicated early consideration for the innocent victims, and their families, too. But I doubt they were of real interest to you at the start of this thread... your interest was in making a contrarian defense of the pirates' lives.
I guess we have a different view of history, my friend. It is not illegal to arm merchant ships - read this interesting article in the NY Times regarding the same, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
America was a reluctant to participate in World War 1, in fact in August 1914, when the war broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality. Preferring to remain isolated from the war, America tried to broker peace between the allies and the axis, the war was in Europe; America did not need to get involved.
On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedoes at the British passenger ship Lusitania sinking her in 20 minutes. On board were 128 Americans.
Woodrow Wilson, demanded that Germany stop attacking passenger ships and declared that America was too proud to fight. Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.
Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice.
In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain. Although Wilson broke off diplomatic ties with Germany, he still hoped to avert war by arming merchant vessels as a deterrent. Nevertheless, Germany began sinking American ships immediately.
In February 1917, British intelligence gave the United States government a decoded telegram from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman that had been intercepted en route to his ambassador to Mexico.
The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. However, because Wilson had run for re-election in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.
On 2 April 1917, Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war and four days later all but six senators and fifty representatives voted for a war resolution. The Selective Service Act that was passed the following month, along with an extraordinary number of volunteers, built up the army from less than 250,000 to four million over the course of the conflict. General John Pershing was appointed head of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) and led the first troops to France
On April 6th 1917, America declared war on Germany
DURING THE COURSE OF WORLD WAR I, 116,708 AMERICAN SOLDIERS LOST THEIR LIVES AND 204,002 WERE WOUNDED.
That is not what "caused WW1" !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Besides, merchant vessels have been armed for thousands of years to protect themselves from pirates. Their being armed did not suddenly provoke a world war in 1914.
That's blatantly incorrect. Wilson only pretended to be an isolationist because that's what the people wanted (akin to Bush Jr saying in running for Pres in 2000 that he was against nation building... how many years have we been in Iraq now?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave32111
Wilson was an interventionist, and even the radical revisionist historians admit as much.
Colonel House, Wilson's top aid, was sent to England before US involvement to tell the Brits we GUARANTEED our entrance into the war in the event of a likely German victory. All we needed was an excuse to go to war, and if we didn't get one we'd fabricate one... so while in England House developed a plan for fabricating an excuse for US intervention. Google this, it's common knowledge.
1- The Lusitania was smuggling arms to England, despite Wilson's "just for show" neutrality policies, which is what convinced the Germans that it was a legitimate military targetQuote:
On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedoes at the British passenger ship Lusitania sinking her in 20 minutes. On board were 128 Americans.
2- At the docks the German embassy distributed flyers & notices telling Americans not to board liners shipping armaments to England because they will be targeted.
3- The Whitehouse completely refused to warn Americans about traveling to Europe on ships sending war materials & armaments to England, it would have been very easy for Wilson to say "I want to stay out of this war, so I am telling you all that if you go into the German declared warzone your lives will be in danger"
4- Bryan quit his cabinet position over the Lusitania because he saw it was just being exploited by Wilson as an excuse to enter the war on the British side.
Wilson had earlier gotten the Germans to agree through diplomatic channels to end the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, and chemical warfare... in exchange all Germany wanted for England to stop their blockade of Germany. England refused, and we refused to pressure England to do so. So submarine warfare continued, and chemical warfare continued.Quote:
Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.
Exactly, because he wanted us to enter the war against Germany.Quote:
Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights.
The allies' blockade of Germany was a blatant disregard of our trading rights. England was making up the rules as they went along, redefining absolute and conditional contraband at will, in ways that greatly harmed our international trade on the continent. Yet Wilson didn't tell Americans to try to run the British blockade (a feat that would have surely resulted in the Brits firing on American merchants).
Fact: Everyone but England was wiling to abide by the 1909 Declaration of London. Only England was in favor of ditching international agreements having to deal with blockades. It was only after the abandonment of the 1909 Declaration of London that Germany started their aggressive submarine tactics.
...instead of telling Americans to run the British blockade, after all- they were violating our rights and ignoring our unbinding trade agreements, Wilson told them to keep sending trade through the German declared war zone.
Only after we had given our merchants a blank check to arm themselves to the teeth, and then allowed them to fire at -whatever they thought- were German submarines on sight.Quote:
In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain.
Fact: The allies would have shot at any armed German trading vessel on sight. The allies considered any armaments at all to be "offensive" in nature, even when on a cargo ship.
Fact: The British by 1916 were using plainclothed British soldiers, with British military guns on cargo ships to pose "submarine traps", as soon as a submarine would surface to search the ship for contraband, the British plainclothed soldiers would open fire and try to sink the submarine.
Fact: When Germany sent their first neutral merchant submarine to the US, to Baltimore in 1916... we virtually disassembled it looking for armaments, hoping we could claim it was an offensive warship. If it had any armaments, even ones for "defensive purposes" it would have been deemed a warship, we would not have allowed it to trade, and the 24-hour rule would have applied. After we found the submarine was totally unarmed, our papers plastered that fact to the international community... and we then delayed the submarine until there was a small armada of Allied warships just outside American waters waiting for it to leave Baltimore.
So, why did the Germans send the Zimmerman telegraph? You think the Kaiser woke up one day and thought, out of the blue that Mexico would want to fight the United States?Quote:
In February 1917, British intelligence gave the United States government a decoded telegram from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman that had been intercepted en route to his ambassador to Mexico.
The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. However, because Wilson had run for re-election in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.
Fact: Before the Zimmerman telegraph there was a major international incident that ruined US-Mexican relations. A bunch of US saliors on leave in a Mexican port got drunk, raped a few locals, got in some fights, and otherwise were causing chaos to the quiet port city. The local mexican police arrested the US sailors involved and demanded an apology. The US response under the Wilson admin was to tell our Mexican diplomats that the Mexicans would release them immediately, apologize to those detained US sailors immediately, and... would then fire of a cannonade salute to the American flag to apologize to the country... or else we'd use military force to release them & extract revenge ourselves. Mexico was horrified at our response, offered to compromise (for instance, offering to use a cannonade salute to both flags at once, to show there was no bad blood and everyone was still friends). Wilson hard lined, demanded what he had earlier stated... the Mexicans eventually agreed to the terms fearing invasion, and US-Mexican relations were the worst they'd been in almost a hundred years.
...that's when the Kaiser proposed an alliance with Mexico.
Anyone who can claim with a straight face that Wilson was an isolationist hasn't read anything on WW1 beyond the crap (and I do mean crap) in our k-12 public schooling textbooks.
So you choose to take seriously a scenario which I intentionally entitled an “amusing solution”; i.e. one not to be taken seriously. You even twist your language to make it appear the pirates are carrying out my “multimillion dollar toll idea.” How can we believe anything you have to offer on this subject when you’re so willing to cherry pick and misstate other people’s positions?
In these posts I have not lamented anyone’s grief and I have not offered my sympathies to anyone. Do you really think this is the place for lamentations? There have been half a dozen posts in thread that have boasted that no one will miss three dead pirates. I pointed out those claims may be false, and for that I’m disrespectful of the families of the abducted and not offering them their fair share of sympathy!
What bugs you, phobun, is that someone would dare pipe up and ruin the fun while everyone is shouting about how we kicked ass and killed some no good fuckers. I’m impressed, you’re a real man.
Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
That is why the suggestion has been made that maritime security companies should get involved. These would provide protection ONLY while in international waters and therefore would not cause a problem. The security would be removed from the ship as it entered national waters.
Furthermore, to attempt to equate what is happening now, regarding the criminal activities of pirates in peacetime, to the situation in wartime, is not really helpful.
And from all of that - you pick out what you want to and decide that the main thrust of my argument was that Wilson was an isolationist?Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Wow!
To get back to (somewhat) the topic - you claimed that the arming of merchant ships "caused WWI" - your words, not mine. Since WWI had already started, and we're clearing talking about what brought the US into WWI, I think you have yet to prove your case.
You never refuted any substantial points I was making in my case to show your error.
Germany declared they would destroy all ships heading to England before merchant ships began arming in earnest.
Which is a big point considering that this ship was sailing into Somalia with relief aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
There was no way, this specific ship, could have legally armed itself to fight off Somalian pirates, if somalia cares about such things (I could see someone making the case they don't care, even if there is regulations on the subject on the books- because there is no functioning government).
Edit:
Other curious dimensions of this could be whether the shipper's insurance policies would or could allow armaments on the scale needed to fight off pirates, whether the vessel's status delivering relief aid brings more regulations into the picture, whether having armaments on board would influence what American ports the ship could leave from...
Sorry, that was in error- to clarify I meant it caused American intervention in WW1. That was a brain fart on my part and I fully admit it was in error. I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave32111
On the contrary, I had showed that the only reason why Germany engaged in unrestricted warfare was because of calculated British and American maneuvers aimed at bringing about those ends.Quote:
You never refuted any substantial points I was making in my case to show your error.
England set the stage by setting the precedent of making up contraband definitions at will. Since we let this fly for England, it would only stand to reason that the Germans could engage in the same practice. So they defined their own contraband rules to trade headed for England, and enforced it (using the same methods the Brits used, searching said ships for contraband, using prize courts etc- the only difference was that the Germans did it with submarines instead of destroyers... and went by traditional contraband definitions despite the strong argument they would have had to simply blockade everything from reaching England).
But since submarines are weak at surface engagement, the British started using plainclothes soldiers on merchant ships to fire on submarines trying to search for contraband (the legal way under maritime law), the Wilson Admin allowed shippers to try to run absolute contraband passed the German blockade on liners full of American passengers, and the Wilson admin allowed neutral merchants to fire at submarines on sight (illegal... act of war) even after there were incidents where Americans fired on American US Naval forces by accident, killing American sailors. Either the Wilson admin was grossly incompetent, or they were making decisions intending for it to lead to gross loss of American life... to act as a catalyst in forcing American involvement.
Would there still have been WW1? Absolutely but without American involvement it would have ended sooner, and with a German victory.
Neutrality is not a policy of being neutral, but it is a policy of nonintervention in the physical fighting sense. Therego Wilson did not actually follow neutrality, he merely pretended to do so for the American voters. Sending House to plan for a "fake" way into the war, trying to get Americans killed on liners running guns passed the German blockade- that's not an act of neutrality, it's the exact opposite.
If Wilson were truly following neutrality he would have wanted America to stay out from the fighting, even if it meant a German victory. Anything else- asymmetrical loaning, asymmetrical trade, asymmetrical diplomacy would have been fair game... provided it wasn't used as grounds (fake or not) to enter the war.
This came only after England & the US made intentional, collaborated efforts to push the Germans to unrestricted warfare. That's why Germany was following traditional contraband rules at first! If they had just wanted to sink merchant ships headed to England, they'd never have surfaced to do so, they'd have never have spent years of the war searching merchants for contraband (per intentional law's definitions, not England's "whatever we say, on this given moment is contraband").Quote:
Germany declared they would destroy all ships heading to England before merchant ships began arming in earnest.
In other words, you have no idea whether there are regulations of this type covering Somali national waters or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Secondly, it is the specific duty of the naval forces of the country whose national waters we are discussing, whichever one that is, to protect merchant shipping saiing through those waters.
Thirdly, if the cargo was destined for Somali ports, the Captain would have been entirely within his rights to refuse to enter Somali waters until naval protection was in place (indeed it is arguable that he was actually obliged to, because of his duty to protect his ship and crew,) and if such protection was not forthcoming, he or the owners would have been quite within their rights, again, probably legally obliged, to insist that, if an armed security escort had been aboard, it stayed aboard until the ship docked.
To put it another way, this specific ship could indeed have armed itself and maintained that armed security throughout the time it was in Somali waters. Or are you suggesting that the Somali Government is about to turn away aid ships because they are equipped to defend themselves against Somali pirates?
No one who goes to sea either professionally or for pleasure wants to see armed guards on ships--but we are in a mounting crisis and something will have to be done to prevent more bloodshed.
Having said all that, I reiterate-- Brenda is right, the solution can only come with strong and capable govt in Somalia-- but armed security, whether provided by what are effectively mercenaries or national navies, is the only available protection until that happens.
That is why I wrote that it would probably be best to allow them to. I'm not sure what our Maritime law states, and as some other poster noted many countries do not allow ships to enter their territorial waters with weapons (which is understandable). Of course there are treaties that could be drawn up to reach some common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
When the nearest military vessel might be a day or two away at best speed you need to have alternatives for ships to defend themselves. Leaving them with no choice but to surrender, and be taken hostage, is not reasonable. Perhaps some less lethal technologies could be a reasonable alternative.
Haven't a few cruise ships tried nonlethal weapons against pirates in recent years? Has anyone heard anything recent about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
I vaguely remember a few liners successfully used nonlethal weapons to get rid of pirates trying to hijack the ship.
Actually, last year one marine security company was proposing a portfolio of defence techniques ranging from the fairly mild-- water cannons and laser dazzlers-- to the very lethal indeed, so this has been thought about. Their proposal IIRC was to run a convoy system with a dedicated marine security vessel carrying two helicopters and 3 RIBs with a full range of devices and weapons to protect the convoy-- it sounds a little inflexible, but would certainly be an impressive show of force.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
Also remember that the pirates don't just target big ships-- just in the last few days they took two Egyptian fishing boats and recently a French yacht. (I have to say I wonder wtf the yotties were thinking being in that area at all, but never mind.) So even if we protect the big vessels, and we should, until the political situation in Somalia is brought under control, smaller vessels will still be targets.
for just a decade, huh trish? Never one life lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Excuse me, but please tell how it is that you know there's never been a life lost from those hijackers. OH RIGHT! The Americans are bad people, these pirates are really just tollcollectors misunderstood. What a solution you proposed, too bad it would never work. These people are pirates, not toll collectors, they are criminals.
For all of you who seem to be anti-American, wtf are you doing in this country? What a joke. Like you have the solution to all the problems and could run everything so much better. Your ridiculous trish, move over to Africa or Mexico if you think they're so much better over there.....what a joke.
There it is. touche*.Quote:
Originally Posted by phobun
To trish, your latest response shows how ignorant you are. You just try to justify criminal acts by making the criminals seem to be the victims and the US is just some bully. Your ridiculous and not very bright.
From my very first post in this thread my complaint has been about the bloodlust and belligerence of a certain segment “onlookers” following this particular event. I admit nothing pushes my buttons like a collection of boisterous, belligerent assholes. Now I understand no one wants to be interrupted while they’re cheering the deaths of three scumbags the world will never miss. So chiming in was a mistake. For not sharing in the blood lust, I been berated for sympathizing with the pirates, not sympathizing with the abductees, insulting the abductees (as if they’re regulars visitors to HA), allowing hypothetical thieves to steal me blind without so much as firing a shot, accusing the U.S. Navy of belligerence, etc. etc.
Well, [I'm] happy to say the Navy wasn’t belligerent and the innocent escaped peril. Still the outcome is not a happy one. Three people, who might have lived, died. It’s their own fault, yes. I don’t dispute that. But that’s no cause for celebration. Somalia is a tragic State. It’s been in economic ruin for decades. It seems a common place to subscribe to the Somali pirates the motive of “greed”. I think that’s probably correct. Yet I think it is a greed born out of deprivation. “Oh shit, there she goes again sympathizing with the enemy!” No, attempting to understand the deeper motivations of behavior is not sympathizing. It’s just the rational thing to do if you want to solve social, political and economic problems. The unfortunate deaths did not solve anything but the most immediate problem, saving the innocent life of Capt. Phillips. I will trust the Navy sniper’s judgment that that was the only solution to the immediate problem as it came to a head. But those deaths will only exasperate the problems of piracy off the coast of Somalia. I don’t think any amount Naval power can keep those waters safe until something is done to [lift] Somalia out of it economic situation.
[edits in square brackets]
The whole pirate controversy is what provoked Thomas Jefferson into forming an active on going Naval force along with a Corps of Marines.
It's in our antham, from the shores of Tripoli... the Marines before me fought pirates on their own for 15 years. Many great battle stories indeed!
Look, we tried to help Somolia, that one I didn't miss out on. It was a fiasco, their own people stealing the food shipments out from under them. In the end, we weren't welcome there, and the numbers were huge. So starve you stupid mother fuckers! That's what I say, geesh!
Those early Marines, now they were the shit! Swinging from ropes onto the other ships, or boarding from a little dingy. You had one shot back then, the guns of the time were muzzle loaders, no time to reload, so after that one shot, they fought with swords, knives, hand to hand. The sword is still a strong part of our ceremonial heritage.
Huh? I thought the anthem was from the halls of Montezuma TO the shores of Tripoli. Dude! You're going backwards! I guess that's why they had to call in the swabbies to handle it this time. :lol:Quote:
It's in our antham, from the shores of Tripoli...
Trish,
You need to get with the program.
Except the Maersk Alabama was sailing to Mombasa, Kenya with relief aid for Uganda, Somalia and Rwanda.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
And the attack occurred in international waters
Surely you did not expect anyone to take your trite analogy seriously, but who except a very flippant person would joke like this, even as people lay dead or are still held captive?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Car-jackers are about the closest thing on land to which pirates can be compared. If a series of car-jackings had resulted in the sort of mayhem we've seen over the past few months, would you callously call the car-jackers something benign and suggest they were entitled to their crimes, as you did with the pirates.
Go back and read your posts.
Your last statement is blatantly dishonest. Try to find where I was revelling in the bloodlust. Take note of my preface in the last thread, where I wrote that it is sad the 3 teens died.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I still maintain that you're a not-very-bright sheep who took up for pirates.
I believe you called them stupid greedy teenagers, but whose quibbling? I tried to be a clear as can be, correcting misconceptions and misrepresentations of my position. If you refuse to believe my position is what I say it is, that's now your affair. Maintain away.
Somalia is a mess, with severe deprivation and without a legitimate Government or legislature attempting to address these underlying povity.
The Solami Pirates were originally considered some kind of joke, but they're desperate people who are well equipped and know these waters. Now that blood has been spilled I wonder whether companies will be prepared to risk lives as well as ransom.
Surely the solution lies in helping rebuild the country and negotiating arrangements with the pirates.
I know you mean well, but pirates are never considered a joke; even the most incompetent ones are dangerous. If you heard the 2cnd Mate of the Maersk speaking after the rescue, he was pretty respectful of the abilities of the pirates. Otherwise I agree--attempts to extirpate piracy by force have been going on since the days that Rome raided pirate nests on the North African coast, and we still have the problem. The solution is not force but adequate ship defence and much more importantly, supporting the local Govts to get control of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave32111
Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.
The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.
Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.
I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".
Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
You know, it would be that wouldn't keep the US private citizens from giving more foreign aid than their government does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clind
*sigh*
So have you come up with that government system that's better?
And where are you from, since you seem to be very opinionated without coming up with a solution, or even suggestion.
OMG, trish, look out- if you question the actions of the US Navy you'll turn into a vampire!Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
:lol: lmfao
That, I didn't know. The first report I watched on this case said they weren't in international waters... but you know what they say: if you don't care about the news you're uninformed, but if you read/watch the news you're misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
I m from Greece, sugestion about what? about how we will stop the Somalian pirates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave32111
Yes i have lets rise up, against capitalists who gain from our work, rise up against the puppets goverments who serve this class, lets share the global resourses, lets share the result of our work , lets stop steel third world , and WHEN we do all that , yes i will have sugest about the Dumb ass Somalian pirates.
My friend you see the tree and you dont see the forest .
If the US were following strict capitalism, we would not allow our military to go fight the pirates in the first place. The pirates have not directly entwined themselves with official federal gov affairs (that is to say, the stuff in the constitution itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Clind
If we were truly strictly capitalist, we'd simply tell the merchants to go hire mercenaries like Black Water for defense in the region. And if you can afford it, great, if not- their loss.
And the escalation continues...
Quote:
French nab 11 pirates as threats mount on US ships
AP
MOMBASA, Kenya – A pirate gang that launched an abortive attack on a second U.S. ship loaded with food aid said Wednesday they were singling out American vessels and would kill their crews, while French forces detained 11 other hijackers in a high-seas raid.
Pirates fired grenades and automatic weapons at the Liberty Sun, but its American crew successfully blockaded themselves inside the engine room. The ship was damaged in Tuesday's attack but escaped and was heading to Kenya under U.S. Navy guard.
A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.
"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.
"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun.
The move comes after U.S. Navy sharpshooters killed three pirates Sunday to win the release of a hijacked American sea captain, Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama.
The French forces, meanwhile, launched an early morning attack on a pirate ship after spotting it Tuesday with a surveillance helicopter and observing the pirates overnight. The raid thwarted the bandits' planned attack on the Liberian cargo ship Safmarine Asia, the French Defense Ministry said.
The statement called the pirate vessel a "mother ship" — usually a seized foreign ship that pirates use to transport speedboats far out to sea and resupply them. The ship was intercepted 550 miles (900 kilometers) east of the Kenyan city of Mombasa.
The 11 detained pirates were being held on the Nivose, a French frigate among the international fleet trying to protect shipping in the Gulf of Aden.
France has traditionally been aggressive in fighting piracy — this was its ninth military operation against pirates. Three Somali pirates were in the French city of Rennes on Wednesday facing judicial investigation after being captured in a hostage rescue Friday. Several other pirates are also in French custody after being seized last year.
Tuesday's attack on the Liberty Sun foiled the reunion between Phillips and the 19-man crew he saved with his heroism. Phillips had planned to meet his crew in Mombasa and fly home with them Wednesday, but was stuck on the USS Bainbridge when it was diverted to help the Liberty Sun.
The crew left without him, flying to Andrews Air Force base in Maryland in a chartered plane.
"We are very happy to be going home," crewman William Rios of New York City said before departing Wednesday. "(But) we are disappointed to not be reuniting with the captain in Mombasa. He is a very brave man."
Third mate Colin Wright, from Galveston, Texas told ABC's "Good Morning America" that fighting off pirates gave him a new appreciation for life.
"I'll just love to hug my mother," Wright said. "Everybody out there give your mother a hug. Yeah, don't wait. Life is precious. And what a beautiful world."
The Liberty Sun had left Houston with a crew of 20 American sailors and a load of aid for the U.N. World Food Program. It warded off the pirates with evasive maneuvers, according to U.S. Navy Lt. Nathan Christensen of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.
"We are under attack by pirates, we are being hit by rockets. Also bullets," Liberty Sun crewman Thomas Urbik, 26, wrote his mother in an e-mail. "We are barricaded in the engine room and so far no one is hurt. (A) rocket penetrated the bulkhead but the hole is small. Small fire, too, but put out."
By the time the Bainbridge arrived five hours later, the pirates had left. A small group of armed U.S. sailors from the Bainbridge went aboard the Liberty Sun to ensure its safe journey to Mombasa.
Despite President Barack Obama's vow to take action against the rise in banditry and the deaths of five pirates in French and U.S. hostage rescues, brigands have seized four vessels and more than 75 hostages since Sunday's dramatic rescue of Phillips.
Pirates released a Greek-owned cargo ship Wednesday and Greek authorities said all 24 crewmen on the Titan were in good health. The ship had been hijacked March 19 in the Gulf of Aden.
In all, Somali pirates are holding over 280 sailors on 15 ships — at least 76 of those sailors captured in the last few days. Pirates have attacked 79 ships this year and hijacked 19 of them, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a piracy watchdog.
Pirates can extort $1 million or more for each ship and crew seized off the Horn of Africa — and Kenya estimates they raked in $150 million last year.
The United States has asked the International Committee of the Red Cross and Somali officials to help locate the families of the three pirates slain Sunday by Navy snipers so their remains can be returned, a senior U.S. official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
The difficulties in getting food aid delivered could leave some Somalis hungry.
World Food Program spokesman Peter Smerdon said more food aid was to have been delivered by another cargo ship hijacked Tuesday, the Lebanese-owned MV Sea Horse. It was headed to Mumbai, India, to pick up 7,327 tons of WFP food for Somalia.
"WFP is also extremely concerned that people in Somalia will go hungry unless the Sea Horse is quickly released or a replacement ship can be found," he said.
Hours before the attack on the Sea Horse, pirates seized the Greek-managed bulk carrier MV Irene E.M. in an unusual nighttime raid. They also captured two Egyptian fishing trawlers carrying 36 fishermen.
Pirates say they are fighting illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters but now operate hundreds of miles from there in a sprawling 1.1 million square-mile danger zone.
A flotilla of warships from nearly a dozen countries has patrolled the Gulf of Aden and nearby Indian Ocean waters for months. They have halted many attacks but say the area is so vast they can't stop all hijackings.
The Gulf of Aden, which links the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, is the shortest route from Asia to Europe. More than 20,000 ships cross the vital sea lane every year.
Pirate attacks in the region have rapidly increased lately, according to the International Maritime Bureau. In less than four months this year, there have been 79 attacks, compared to 111 for all of 2008.
In 2003, there were only 21 attacks by Somalis in this expanse of water.
Last year pirates took 815 sailors hostage and hijacked 42 ships.
Hopefully we shall see a bit less of the unwarranted prejudice shown against the French, for a day or two or so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8000447.stm
No, about a government or economic system that differs significantly from capitalism that actually works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clind
Greece is without problems? There are captured ships under Greek flag as well - see the above post. 8% unemployment? (2007) Still dealing with problems with Turkey? Cyprus?
Surely you don't suggest another failed communist country?
actually, it's been completely within the warlords MO to send kids to do the dirty work. It was the same when I was there. I'll never forget the little kid who was posturing up to fire off an RPG at the embassy, could barely handle the damn thing. He took one to the head too. Sad, very sad!
\Quote:
Originally Posted by Clind
You really should stop with this communist b.s. The far left has run Greece how many times in the last few decades and your nation is a Basketcase. The whole country needs to get its shit together.