Pirates yet again with an American ship

steingar said:
Pirates vow revenge, according to CNN. Lets hear it for brute force!
Click to expand...

Yeah. As a citizen of the only remaining nuclear superpower nation I'm scared ta death. :no:

Welcome to another entrance to Bizzaroworld.
 
jesse said:
ZOMG...A couple pirates in Somali are mad because we shot their pirate friends while they were holding an AK-47 to the back of an American citizen with the intention of bringing in other hostages as human shields. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Doesn't take much to get sucked into a war -- 'specially in that part of the world. :dunno:

jesse said:
Seriously? ...I'm sorry but our response was justified and should be repeated.
Click to expand...

I agree, it was justified. Something tells me the Somalis see it differently, however... and actions have consequences.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
When it comes to the affairs of nations, the "right thing" isn't a factor. It's a complicated concept, I know, and it's not nearly as fun as flexing our muscles while we sit on our couches talking about how we need to stick it to the world, but successful management of international affairs always involves a question of costs and benefits.

Again, any idea of how much piracy costs the U.S.?
Click to expand...


That is one view of things, and others have a differing view.

People talk about morals and "what we stand for" and yet we are to believe that a nation cannot "do the right thing" because it is complicated?

Also...why do we have to get abstract as we "go up in size". Why does money matter so much?
 
tdager said:
That is one view of things, and others have a differing view.

People talk about morals and "what we stand for" and yet we are to believe that a nation cannot "do the right thing" because it is complicated?

Also...why do we have to get abstract as we "go up in size". Why does money matter so much?
Click to expand...

Others can differ all they want - it's still not how things work.

In the history of man, no successful nation has ever successfully based its foreign policy on doing the "right thing," from a moral point of view.

Successful national policy is based on what is in a nation's best interests - which, while it doesn't exclude the possibility of the "right thing," means that doing the "right thing" is at best an ancillary consideration.

Like it or not, successful national policy isn't based on feel good, warm/fuzzy, etc. It's based on numbers, logical assessments, and general detachment from things like emotion.

Emotion, morality, etc. are great tools for mobilizing public support (which is a term McNamara, of all people, actually used), but they're just not considerations for the people at the top who make the successful decisions. The questions up there are: 1) what do we get out of it; 2) what does it cost us to get there; 3) will the public support it; and 4) does what we get outweigh the cost of what we lose.

I'll put it like this. Consideration of issues other than national interests got us things like, I don't know, Somalia Round I - which was something that accomplished nothing that benefited the U.S. Ironic, and perhaps fitting, that it has the potential to embroil us again in that exact same region.

P.S. - the United States, until Somalia Round I, never really stood for "doing the right thing." Hence our general success in international affairs.
 
tdager said:
I have no interest in "fixing the root" cause if that fix involves dumping more cash into the shyte-hole that is Somalia. I would rather spend the money on paying the wages of our men and women in uniform or those aboard the American flagged vessels.
Click to expand...

I do, and in the long run it'll save money since we spend a lot of money maintaining nuclear weapons and disassembling them. We can get them out of inventory by launching them. Anything less is a half as-ed measure.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
In the history of man, no successful nation has ever successfully based its foreign policy on doing the "right thing," from a moral point of view.

Successful national policy is based on what is in a nation's best interests - which, while it doesn't exclude the possibility of the "right thing," means that doing the "right thing" is at best an ancillary consideration.
Click to expand...

I've always looked at it as "Doing the right thing, for us." I was in the UK shortly after the 'Invasion of Afghanistan' started and listened to some of the locals talk about 'what the Amercans are doing' and then whether they agreed or disagreed with it. My answer was "The US will do what is in ITS best interest." The party in power gets to decide what that best interest is. Sometimes that means letting some other country's actions go by without reprisal, sometimes not. Then, we all get to argue about it.
 
Anthony said:
I got a different message. If you take a crew hostage and/or harm them we will track you down and exterminate you.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the message you got, unfortunately, the conclussion reached from that message is that it will end the hostage phase and go directly to the killing phase.
 
Last edited:
How long should we wait before offing pirates who hold an American citizen hostage?

Seems to me, we waited too long. Should be, in the future, that we give them one chance:
"Leave the boat immediately."

If they fail to leave, they lose a large portion of their face.
 
SkyHog said:
How long should we wait before offing pirates who hold an American citizen hostage?

Seems to me, we waited too long. Should be, in the future, that we give them one chance:
"Leave the boat immediately."

If they fail to leave, they lose a large portion of their face.
Click to expand...

Thanks for getting me killed.... The US used to have a reputation for negotiating in good faith, no longer....
 
Dah, I think the solutions discussed by a bunch of landlocked pilots could get sailors dead.
 
steingar said:
Dah, I think the solutions discussed by a bunch of landlocked pilots could get sailors dead.
Click to expand...

It is amusing that what amounts to a crime like a New York mugging has the whole country wagging and demanding solutions.

There have been more school kids killed in Chicago so far this year than sailors in that area all of last year. :dunno:
 
Henning said:
Thanks for getting me killed.... The US used to have a reputation for negotiating in good faith, no longer....
Click to expand...


From the report read, we didn't do anything until the hostages were in imminent danger. I don't know what is more immenent than looking down the barrel of an AK-47.

Negotiating ENABLES these terrorists and puts you at more risk.
 
steingar said:
Dah, I think the solutions discussed by a bunch of landlocked pilots could get sailors dead.
Click to expand...
Give in to bullies much? That's exactly what this is. They're beating up the small kid and taking his lunch money.

The only way to deal with bullies is harshly.
 
It seems to me that the Pirates have had a "open book" on vessels with very little recourse. Well, pirates "business as usual" has changed, effective today, courtesy of the US armed forces. I believe that a serious, overdue message was sent. Some may question the actions and motives but the bottom line is an American Captain was saved! Hats off to a job well done!
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
From the report read, we didn't do anything until the hostages were in imminent danger. I don't know what is more immenent than looking down the barrel of an AK-47.

Negotiating ENABLES these terrorists and puts you at more risk.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking big picture, not individual occurrence. Saving this one person will perpetuate a system that will kill scores. This is not a new problem, just a new M.O.. All that will happen is that the M.O. will change to "All Dead" and at that point there will not be the drama of a hostage situation and you will never hear the names of those killed because it won't sell commercial slots. As a professional seaman, I would much prefer a mandate requiring the ship owners to equip them for point defense, but until they have to spend that $1MM for sound or microwave weapons, only the cruise ships will, because when you figure the odds of loss, it's cheapest to just gamble with the crews lives. Get it yet?
 
jmaynard said:
Give in to bullies much? That's exactly what this is. They're beating up the small kid and taking his lunch money.

The only way to deal with bullies is harshly.
Click to expand...

But it's the little guy who has to run off the bully. If Big Brother steps in and smacks the bully around , the bully gets humiliated and finds the little guy in a dark alley without big brother there and kills him. The answer is to mandate defensive systems on the vessels.
 
jmaynard said:
Give in to bullies much? That's exactly what this is. They're beating up the small kid and taking his lunch money.

The only way to deal with bullies is harshly.
Click to expand...

Seems like there's probably a wider lesson to be learned from this post... But I'm not going to speculate what it is.

CT Arrow said:
It seems to me that the Pirates have had a "open book" on vessels with very little recourse. Well, pirates "business as usual" has changed, effective today, courtesy of the US armed forces. I believe that a serious, overdue message was sent. Some may question the actions and motives but the bottom line is an American Captain was saved! Hats off to a job well done!
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody can really argue with the immediate outcome of this particular situation. But it's going to have wider consequences -- some probably good, some probably bad.
 
CT Arrow said:
It seems to me that the Pirates have had a "open book" on vessels with very little recourse. Well, pirates "business as usual" has changed, effective today, courtesy of the US armed forces. I believe that a serious, overdue message was sent. Some may question the actions and motives but the bottom line is an American Captain was saved! Hats off to a job well done!
Click to expand...

Damn, y'all gotta quit watching so many movies, y'all have no grip whatsoever of what the reality of this situation will bring, none whatsoever. What happened courtesy of the US Armed Forces (and French) is to seal the death warrants of all future victims of piracy in the area. You think they're afraid now? Not a chance in hell. We did nothing to end piracy, we just caused a new "lesser of evils" group to join the rest of the "Full Evil" group of pirates which we have not ever been able to have a punitive effect on. Great, 'preciate it. Give the owners one more excuse to not equip their vessels with defensive equipment, "The navy is there to take care of it, see what happened last time..." Do y'all think it's going to continue on this way? This was a freak occurrence.
 
Henning said:
Damn, y'all gotta quit watching so many movies, y'all have no grip whatsoever of what the reality of this situation will bring, none whatsoever. What happened courtesy of the US Armed Forces (and French) is to seal the death warrants of all future victims of piracy in the area. You think they're afraid now? Not a chance in hell. We did nothing to end piracy, we just caused a new "lesser of evils" group to join the rest of the "Full Evil" group of pirates which we have not ever been able to have a punitive effect on. Great, 'preciate it. Give the owners one more excuse to not equip their vessels with defensive equipment, "The navy is there to take care of it, see what happened last time..." Do y'all think it's going to continue on this way?
Click to expand...

I'm curious if its possible for the United States Military to do anything positive in your eyes, Henning....

That said, we may lose some sailors because of this, but in the long run, if we keep it up, the pirates will have no reason to continue, because they'll be dying in large numbers.

I find it ironic for you to traipse out the "movie" bit and then go over the top on drama.

"In a world, where the United State Military signed the death warrants of sailors around the world, one man had the courage to stand up for the rights of the sailor.....

This Summer, its Pirates of the International Waters near Somalia."
 
SkyHog said:
I'm curious if its possible for the United States Military to do anything positive in your eyes, Henning....
Click to expand...

Yes, they can, they can do something effective. I say they have two options, nuclear and covert. This is the only way that the US Military has any way of preventing acts of piracy. Keep the pirates from getting on a boat. Once they are at sea, the only thing the Navy will be able to do is react.
 
SkyHog said:
I'm curious if its possible for the United States Military to do anything positive in your eyes, Henning....

That said, we may lose some sailors because of this, but in the long run, if we keep it up, the pirates will have no reason to continue, because they'll be dying in large numbers.
Click to expand...

Problem is, there is precisely zero indication through history that that would happen. None. In fact, history indicates the opposite.

SkyHog said:
I find it ironic for you to traipse out the "movie" bit and then go over the top on drama.

"In a world, where the United State Military signed the death warrants of sailors around the world, one man had the courage to stand up for the rights of the sailor.....

This Summer, its Pirates of the International Waters near Somalia."
Click to expand...

I don't think having a concern for the very real, very likely ramifications of this action is "over the top on drama" -- especially when they could affect Henning directly.
 
SkyHog said:
That said, we may lose some sailors because of this, but in the long run, if we keep it up, the pirates will have no reason to continue, because they'll be dying in large numbers.
Click to expand...

As for that, LOL, check out their effectiveness in the Straits of Malacca area and off South America, tell me how many pirates are dying there? The only reason these ones did is because they took hostages. Tell me how many pirates the Navies of the world have killed over the last 100 years and what percentage that is of the acts of piracy committed.... The facts are not going to go your way.
 
Seems to me a guy has to pick his spots. I flew to the mideast for a number of years, knew where the Hezbollah lived and stayed out of their neighborhood. When things heated up and the killings started, I got the hell out of Dodge and didn't go back. Could get shot in Dallas tomorrow too, but that's another story.

Henning said:
As for that, LOL, check out their effectiveness in the Straits of Malacca area and off South America, tell me how many pirates are dying there? The only reason these ones did is because they took hostages. Tell me how many pirates the Navies of the world have killed over the last 100 years and what percentage that is of the acts of piracy committed.... The facts are not going to go your way.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Yes, they can, they can do something effective. I say they have two options, nuclear and covert. This is the only way that the US Military has any way of preventing acts of piracy. Keep the pirates from getting on a boat. Once they are at sea, the only thing the Navy will be able to do is react.
Click to expand...

Henning, I don't know if you ignored it because it's a stupid idea or missed it - but what, if any, incentive is there for a private group to recover a ship that's been taken by pirates?

For instance, say I found a bunch of guys who had recently been discharged and, at my own expense (and presumably with whatever permission would make it necessary, if any), stuck them in a fast boat off the coast of Somalia. And then, say an oil tanker was hijacked by a group of these pirates, carrying $X of oil.

If my enterprise were to retake the ship, would we have any rights in/to it? Assume I'd be acting entirely on my own, not under direct contract with any insurance companies, shipowners, etc.
 
wsuffa said:
Anyone else recall why the words...

are in the USMC anthem?
Click to expand...
While you're at it, look at why "Bainbridge" is an ironic name for the ship involved in the operation...

Ron Wanttaja
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Henning, I don't know if you ignored it because it's a stupid idea or missed it - but what, if any, incentive is there for a private group to recover a ship that's been taken by pirates?

For instance, say I found a bunch of guys who had recently been discharged and, at my own expense (and presumably with whatever permission would make it necessary, if any), stuck them in a fast boat off the coast of Somalia. And then, say an oil tanker was hijacked by a group of these pirates, carrying $X of oil.

If my enterprise were to retake the ship, would we have any rights in/to it? Assume I'd be acting entirely on my own, not under direct contract with any insurance companies, shipowners, etc.
Click to expand...

The service already exists, although by the time the vessel is recovered, it is already under another name and flag with a crew that doesn't know anything about the vessels history, all the stolen cargo is gone and the former crew all dead. Like I said, there is nothing new to any of this except the hostage M.O. and there's no great epiphany that someone is going to come up with as how to deal with it. The best solution is to equip the ships with energy weapons currently available and proven effective in a couple of attempts on cruise ships. The answer is to mandate that the owners properly equip the vessels. If the insurance companies pay out a ransom or three they will require the shipping companies to outfit the vessels.


BillS:
The "shores of Tripoli" came about from a time in the USMCs history when they hunted pirates, and note the word "shore" was the operative word in that phrase. I'm all for a mandate for the military to hunt pirates and destroy any infrastructure they have, but last time around, the USMC didn't have a s--t load of luck securing Somalia.... To mandate them to be reactive defense for ships at sea... Thanks, but no thanks, save your money.
 
wanttaja said:
The ironic aspect, of course, was that William Bainbridge was the captain of the last US Navy ship to be captured by pirates....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...



And he was from the Philadelphia area and died there. Bainbridge Street is named after him. Little trivia. "Doncha know". :smile:
 
tdager said:
I have no interest in "fixing the root" cause if that fix involves dumping more cash into the shyte-hole that is Somalia. I would rather spend the money on paying the wages of our men and women in uniform or those aboard the American flagged vessels.
Click to expand...
While the rescue felt good and saved the life of the captain, in the big picture it did nothing to improve the situation of the horn. just one day later there were three more acts of piracy and a hijacking of another ship. If you do not fix the root cause this is not going to get better, just worse.

The issue is the lack of a strong government in Somali. I am not in favor of dumping a bunch of troops into Somali, we have other places that we still have to fix first that are a bigger issue for us. But something has to be done there or else SSDD will be the SOP there. We do nto have the resources to give a naval escort to every American flagged ship going around the horn. Even if we did who should be paying for it? The American people/ Why should they be taking on an even larger burden for supporting a private business?
 
smigaldi said:
While the rescue felt good and saved the life of the captain, in the big picture it did nothing to improve the situation of the horn. just one day later there were three more acts of piracy and a hijacking of another ship. If you do not fix the root cause this is not going to get better, just worse.

The issue is the lack of a strong government in Somali. I am not in favor of dumping a bunch of troops into Somali, we have other places that we still have to fix first that are a bigger issue for us. But something has to be done there or else SSDD will be the SOP there. We do nto have the resources to give a naval escort to every American flagged ship going around the horn. Even if we did who should be paying for it? The American people/ Why should they be taking on an even larger burden for supporting a private business?
Click to expand...

Which all why piracy is a criminal matter, rather than a military one. Even the military is saying that it won't be very effective against piracy, esp. at sea alone.
 
smigaldi said:
While the rescue felt good and saved the life of the captain, in the big picture it did nothing to improve the situation of the horn. just one day later there were three more acts of piracy and a hijacking of another ship. If you do not fix the root cause this is not going to get better, just worse.

The issue is the lack of a strong government in Somali. I am not in favor of dumping a bunch of troops into Somali, we have other places that we still have to fix first that are a bigger issue for us. But something has to be done there or else SSDD will be the SOP there. We do nto have the resources to give a naval escort to every American flagged ship going around the horn. Even if we did who should be paying for it? The American people/ Why should they be taking on an even larger burden for supporting a private business?
Click to expand...

Yesterday, I heard some comments from a guy much smarter than I. His contention - Somalia has no government, so no way to enforce its own sovereignty, especially with respect to its international waters. His claim is that Somalia used to rely on fishing for its one sole resource, but without being able to enforce fishing regulations, Chinese and Italian factory boats are fishing the waters around Somalia dry. There are no other valid opportunities for employment, so they have resorted to something that pays (even if it costs a few lives here and there). His recommendation is that if the UN really wants something done, the UN can enforce fishing regulations and the US can stay out of it.

I don't know if he's right or not, but his suggestion makes more sense to me than using the full military force of the US to chase after some thugs until the end of time.
 
Matthew said:
Yesterday, I heard some comments from a guy much smarter than I. His contention - Somalia has no government, so no way to enforce its own sovereignty, especially with respect to its international waters. His claim is that Somalia used to rely on fishing for its one sole resource, but without being able to enforce fishing regulations, Chinese and Italian factory boats are fishing the waters around Somalia dry. There are no other valid opportunities for employment, so they have resorted to something that pays (even if it costs a few lives here and there). His recommendation is that if the UN really wants something done, the UN can enforce fishing regulations and the US can stay out of it.

I don't know if he's right or not, but his suggestion makes more sense to me than using the full military force of the US to chase after some thugs until the end of time.
Click to expand...
Somali has a small and weak government, basically he is correct and I agree. The intrusion of their territorial waters is also part of the issue. I agree with his assessment of what the UN could be doing but the Catch 22 is that Somali has no advocate in the UN to call for such sanctions. This is where we could expend a little of our UN muscle and force the issue to the floor of the UN and make the SecGen step up and do something to stop the intruders into their water. That might also build a little good will with the people of Somali.
 
Matthew said:
Yesterday, I heard some comments from a guy much smarter than I. His contention - Somalia has no government, so no way to enforce its own sovereignty, especially with respect to its international waters. His claim is that Somalia used to rely on fishing for its one sole resource, but without being able to enforce fishing regulations, Chinese and Italian factory boats are fishing the waters around Somalia dry. There are no other valid opportunities for employment, so they have resorted to something that pays (even if it costs a few lives here and there). His recommendation is that if the UN really wants something done, the UN can enforce fishing regulations and the US can stay out of it.

I don't know if he's right or not, but his suggestion makes more sense to me than using the full military force of the US to chase after some thugs until the end of time.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, how shall the UN enforce fishing territory? What Naval contingent does the UN have? How many ships do they have sailing? Anything that the UN wants at sea, defacto goes to the US Navy as well as a few others, except they're all out protecting their own waters from the Japanese. The UN can't even manage to stop the Japanese whaling, Paul Watson is the only guy out there doing it right now, and he gets no UN funding for filling a UN mandate.

The UN is Worthless on it's own, it has no self enforceable power. It relies on member nations to cooperate, and many of the member nations may not agree and/or don't have the capabilities or budgets to do anything substantial, leaving the US as the only "superpower" to carry 90% of the burden.

The UN can't enforce a damned thing and is such a freaking mess at the leadership level it should just be disbanded. The politics within the UN is so corrupt it makes Illinois politicians look like Mother freakin' Theresa.

Just Nuke Africa finally and be done with it...
 
Henning said:
Pray tell, how shall the UN enforce fishing territory? What Naval contingent does the UN have? How many ships do they have sailing? Anything that the UN wants at sea, defacto goes to the US Navy as well as a few others, except they're all out protecting their own waters from the Japanese. The UN can't even manage to stop the Japanese whaling, Paul Watson is the only guy out there doing it right now, and he gets no UN funding for filling a UN mandate.

The UN is Worthless on it's own, it has no self enforceable power. It relies on member nations to cooperate, and many of the member nations may not agree and/or don't have the capabilities or budgets to do anything substantial, leaving the US as the only "superpower" to carry 90% of the burden.

The UN can't enforce a damned thing and is such a freaking mess at the leadership level it should just be disbanded. The politics within the UN is so corrupt it makes Illinois politicians look like Mother freakin' Theresa.

Just Nuke Africa finally and be done with it...
Click to expand...

..and, since China has veto power, they'll just constipate the system even more.

Now we're right back to "What's in the best interest of the US?". Republic or Empire? Protect our own shores and interests or be the international police?
 
Henning said:
Pray tell, how shall the UN enforce fishing territory? What Naval contingent does the UN have? How many ships do they have sailing? Anything that the UN wants at sea, defacto goes to the US Navy as well as a few others, except they're all out protecting their own waters from the Japanese. The UN can't even manage to stop the Japanese whaling, Paul Watson is the only guy out there doing it right now, and he gets no UN funding for filling a UN mandate.

The UN is Worthless on it's own, it has no self enforceable power. It relies on member nations to cooperate, and many of the member nations may not agree and/or don't have the capabilities or budgets to do anything substantial, leaving the US as the only "superpower" to carry 90% of the burden.

The UN can't enforce a damned thing and is such a freaking mess at the leadership level it should just be disbanded. The politics within the UN is so corrupt it makes Illinois politicians look like Mother freakin' Theresa.

Just Nuke Africa finally and be done with it...
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis of the fundamental flaw with the UN. But, keep in mind that it's not *necessarily* a flaw - if it were otherwise, we and everyone else would be giving up sovereignty to another government(s) (the UN, after all, is both its own government, yet comprised of the governments of others).
 
Matthew said:
Now we're right back to "What's in the best interest of the US?". Republic or Empire? Protect our own shores and interests or be the international police?
Click to expand...



Well the problem with being isolationist is that it is now impossible as our interests are all over the world just like many other countries. We can't be isolationist and when we have been in the past, other countries have become aggressive and attacked us.

Its a difficult balancing act. Protect your security interests but try not to be so intrusive as to bee seen as empire building.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top