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.