PDA

View Full Version : Somali Pirates



Franco
02-22-2011, 06:50 PM
Time to open the season, no permits and no limits!

JDogger
02-22-2011, 07:02 PM
Finally...a thread on which we all can (or should) agree. JD

No...no... It'll be Obamas' fault.

BrianW
02-22-2011, 08:06 PM
From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.

Maybe they thought that power of prayer would protect them?
While I believe prayers are answered, sometimes the answer is "no". :(

charly_t
02-22-2011, 08:12 PM
Are these the same type/nation (?) of pirates that we read about being active in Jeffereson's day. How many generations of them have been operating this way ? Maybe I should ask which countries they operate out of. Or is it just one country anymore ?

Franco
02-22-2011, 08:43 PM
Are these the same type/nation (?) of pirates that we read about being active in Jeffereson's day. How many generations of them have been operating this way ? Maybe I should ask which countries they operate out of. Or is it just one country anymore ?

Back in Jefferson's day we had to deal with the pirates in Tripoli, northwestern shore of African.

Solamia is located on the northeastern shore of Africa.

There is no reason to allow piracy in 2011.

charly_t
02-22-2011, 11:44 PM
Thanks, Franco.

Hew
02-23-2011, 12:48 AM
From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.
These people were sailing the same route that hundreds (thousands?) of sailboats pass each year. They all take precautions (convoying, no radio contact, using their radar to avoid boat traffic, motoring if/when necessary, etc.). Most make it with no problems other than increased anxiety. It's a route that ships have to take to get to the Mediteranean Sea via the Suez/Red Sea. The only other route is around the Horn of Africa. One of the big problems is that the Somali pirates use larger mother ships to extend their operations hundreds of miles or more from Somalia...making it far tougher to give Somalia a wide berth (and impossible to avoid if you're trying to enter the Red Sea). These people weren't religious zealots looking for trouble by trying to convert muslm pirates to Christianity. They were world cruisers who happened to be religious and were trying to get from point a to point b when they were unlucky enough to get caught by scumbags. Here's a link to their website, btw: http://svquest.com/TableOfContents.htm

subroc
02-23-2011, 02:08 AM
From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.

Maybe they thought that power of prayer would protect them?
While I believe prayers are answered, sometimes the answer is "no". :(

Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

ducknwork
02-23-2011, 06:02 AM
Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

There are parts of this town that I live in that I know would not be safe for a white guy to walk around in after dark. If I did that and something happened to me, would it not partially be my fault for being somewhere that I KNEW would greatly increase my risk of something bad happening to me?

BrianW
02-23-2011, 08:12 AM
These people were sailing the same route that hundreds (thousands?) of sailboats pass each year. They all take precautions (convoying, no radio contact, using their radar to avoid boat traffic, motoring if/when necessary, etc.). Most make it with no problems other than increased anxiety. ... These people weren't religious zealots looking for trouble by trying to convert muslm pirates to Christianity. They were world cruisers who happened to be religious and were trying to get from point a to point b when they were unlucky enough to get caught by scumbags. Here's a link to their website, btw: http://svquest.com/TableOfContents.htm

First from the story I read & the reports on the radio, they broke away from their regatta flotilla to sail by themselves. And supposedly they were completely unarmed. Also,I never said they were "zealots" but they reportedly also had a "boatload of Bibles" which they gave away to the poor, along with other sundry items, on their trips, so I think we'll agree they were religious?. Trying to avoid trouble is not protection, imo. Alone and unarmed, like Quakers in "Indian country", what else was there to protect them, except the Lord? Unfortunately, in His plans, in answer to what I'm sure were their prayers to "keep us safe, o Lord", His answer was "no". :(


Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

No, this is not "blaming the victim", but it's also not blaming Obama as JD asserted it would be.
Look, you go where the grizzlies are, with nothing on you but little bells, not even bear spray, you shouldn't be surprised if those bells end up as grizzly scat sometimes.
As was pointed out in previous pirate threads, the Navy (like cops) can't be everywhere and they can only respond after something happens. That they were able to trail the boat, negotiate, respond and provide EMS when the shooting started was a minor miracle in itself.
But until the Congress declares war, the CinC can't issue "shoot on sight" ROE's for suspected pirates. Now, if the Navy decides to "have a friendly chat" with a possible pirate vessel, and they pull out an RPG? Use all necessary, not just "reasonable" :rolleyes: force to vaporize 'em/make fish food, I've got no problem with that. :snipersmile:

Leddyman
02-23-2011, 09:05 AM
How about an RTF cruise off the coast of Somalia?

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3617/85/

road kill
02-23-2011, 09:30 AM
How about an RTF cruise off the coast of Somalia?

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3617/85/

Do we get to take our weaponry??:D


RK

IowaBayDog
02-23-2011, 09:45 AM
First from the story I read & the reports on the radio, they broke away from their regatta flotilla to sail by themselves. And supposedly they were completely unarmed.


Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.

Julie R.
02-23-2011, 10:25 AM
Perhaps the victims should've contacted India's navy for some help; this is how they dealt with a recent Somali pirate attempt at hijacking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/south_asia_enl_1227652025/img/1.jpg
'
Or maybe even the British Royal Navy could've been called on to help:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/03/article-1190575-0531D015000005DC-919_634x893.jpg


But don't look for any of these Somali sea thugs to appear on any upcoming episodes of the hit Fox series Cops. Although it does make an amusing mental picture:
Somali criminal: "I aint done nuffin! That aint my RPG, must've been in the pocket of my pants when I bought them."
Cop: "Relax, son; we've got medics coming to look at those injuries before we take you to your 3 hots & a cot."

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/03/article-1190575-0531F8DD000005DC-569_634x403.jpg

BrianW
02-23-2011, 12:25 PM
Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity. While I understand your point (I think), what is the logical extension of that?
Does Obama, through the Navy, need to put extra reources there in the Gulf to protect Americans/intersts?
And even if he does, don't you think the situation would be similar to court rulings here, that the polce have no legal obligation to respond to protect you?

Or does it make even more sense to for private parties, who legally can't be armed & have no commercial intersts in being there, to stay the hell out of that area if at all possible?
{Though I would venture a 'guess" that, as in many gun controlled areas in our country, there are some that do carry "illegal" weapons and would rather take the risk of being "tried" than "buried".}

And how should we decide the priorites of who gets the protection of the limited resources?

Franco
02-23-2011, 12:31 PM
While I understand your point (I think), what is the logical extension of that?
Does Obama, through the Navy, need to put extra reources there in the Gulf to protect Americans/intersts?
And even if he does, don't you think the situation would be similar to court rulings here, that the polce have no legal obligation to respond to protect you?

Or does it make even more sense to for private parties, who legally can't be armed & have no commercial intersts in being there, to stay the hell out of that area if at all possible?
{Though I would venture a 'guess" that, as in many gun controlled areas in our country, there are some that do carry "illegal" weapons and would rather take the risk of being "tried" than "buried".}

And how should we decide the priorites of who gets the protection of the limited resources?

Instead of further burdening tax payers, why not have this situation handled by the private sector/outfitters?

For X amount of dollars, the outfitter will take you on an excursion complete with a 50 cal semi-automatic. The outfitter's boat would look like a yatch complete with bikini clad babes/decoys walking around the deck looking harmless. ;-)

Hew
02-23-2011, 12:50 PM
Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.
Exactly. Another consideration is if they're caught with illegal weapons or ammunition they face confiscation of their sailboat. The vast majority of cruisers go unarmed.

road kill
02-23-2011, 01:06 PM
Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.

Like the pirates??
And.....if they aren't recognized, then that law is working well, isn't it???

RK

charly_t
02-23-2011, 01:16 PM
Like the pirates??
And.....if they aren't recognized, then that law is working well, isn't it???

RK

Yeah, why isn't someone "arresting" the pirates and taking their weapons !
That's just what we will be looking at if they pass gun laws here in the USA.

IowaBayDog
02-23-2011, 02:49 PM
Like the pirates??
And.....if they aren't recognized, then that law is working well, isn't it???

RK

Didn't say it was a good law, but most "boaters" want to stop somewhere along the way for fuel and supplies in foriegn ports. Having weapons on board would be a huge risk.

The pirates likely use Somali ports for refueling, re-supply where there is no law. They are in smaller boats and can stay away from larger vessels. If they are flying a Somali flag and in International waters they can't be boarded by another country's military either legally.

Its just like gun laws here as someone else said, protects the criminals puts innocents at risk.

Roger Perry
02-23-2011, 03:19 PM
While I understand your point (I think), what is the logical extension of that?
Does Obama, through the Navy, need to put extra reources there in the Gulf to protect Americans/intersts?
And even if he does, don't you think the situation would be similar to court rulings here, that the polce have no legal obligation to respond to protect you?

Or does it make even more sense to for private parties, who legally can't be armed & have no commercial intersts in being there, to stay the hell out of that area if at all possible?
{Though I would venture a 'guess" that, as in many gun controlled areas in our country, there are some that do carry "illegal" weapons and would rather take the risk of being "tried" than "buried".}

And how should we decide the priorites of who gets the protection of the limited resources?

I wouldn't mind seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) some American submarines patroling the area and taking out a "Mother ship" or two.;-)

dnf777
02-23-2011, 08:44 PM
Exactly. Another consideration is if they're caught with illegal weapons or ammunition they face confiscation of their sailboat. The vast majority of cruisers go unarmed.

That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.

Blackstone
02-23-2011, 10:56 PM
I saw an interview with the ex-husband of one of the women. He said she was aware of the danger. He said she contacted him and gave him instructions on what to do if something happened to them. If it was that dangerous, why go?

Blackstone
02-23-2011, 10:59 PM
Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.

Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.

Hew
02-23-2011, 11:56 PM
That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.
I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

M&K's Retrievers
02-24-2011, 12:07 AM
I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

'cause he said

dnf777
02-24-2011, 04:45 AM
I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

I'm sorry. Since the thread was about a private cruising yacht, I assumed your comments referred to private boaters, when you said "cruisers". If you were referring to Carnival Cruise Lines or the like, then I'll take your word for it.

As for the "vast majority", I don't know if there are even any stats to check, but if you follow the "firearms on board" threads on the sailing nets, I'm not so sure about that. Just like here, to a lesser extent, there are those who are passionate about self defense and right to carry. I wouldn't say they're a "vast minority".

take care

ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

pps...MK, thank you for your intelligent, useful comments, again.

road kill
02-24-2011, 05:42 AM
Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.

If I were going to sea, in those waters, I'd prefer a .50 cal.:cool:
(been there, done that;-))


The equalizer, you know, reach out and touch someone!

RK

ducknwork
02-24-2011, 06:22 AM
ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?


Depends on the arsenal on board...:cool:


As far as the no weapons thing, do most countries search your boat upon entry? I suspect on a boat that size, there are PLENTY of places to hide a few AKs. There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.

BrianW
02-24-2011, 08:50 AM
...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

Depends on the arsenal on board...:cool:

And if they followed Col. Cooper"s "Principle of Personal Defense" ie
Be Alert; Act with Decisiveness, Aggressiveness, & Speed; Keep your Cool; Be Ruthless; Achieve tactical Surprise - one might be surprised what a minority of defenders could do! :shock:
(Though a Barrett 82A1 wouldn't hurt to have at all ;))


There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.That's what all "goblins" count on, that the "law abiding" will remain that way and "if we just do what they say Martha, maybe they won't hurt us?!?":roll:

Ok so now the pirates are vowing revenge -
Pirates vow revenge (from MSNBC)
Two Somali pirates who spoke with Reuters by telephone Tuesday said the hostages were ordered killed since the pirates themselves were under attack by U.S. forces.
"Our colleagues called us this morning, that they were being attacked by a U.S. warship," Mohamud, a Somali pirate, told Reuters. "We ordered our comrades to kill the four Americans before they got killed."
Pirate leader Farah, speaking from Bayla, a pirate haven in the northern semi-autonomous region of Puntland, vowed to avenge the deaths and capture of his comrades.
"I lost the money I invested and my comrades. (awww) No forgiveness for the Americans. Revenge. Our business will go on," he said, adding he had spent $110,000 so far in the hijacking, including on weapons and food and salaries.-

In my view that's a declaration of war, whether it's from a recognized leader of a country or not. So what does the CinC do now?

Inform Congress, followed by an EO declaring the pirates "a clear & present danger"?
Maybe then have one of our "highly ethical reporters" (like the one that called Gov. Walker) call Farah for an "interview" followed by a Predator/Hellfire lock on to his cell phone signal? :cool:
I hate to say it but Roger's suggestion of having a mother ship "develop a mysterious & permanent leak" doesn't sound half bad either.

dnf777
02-24-2011, 08:56 AM
Maybe then have one of our "highly ethical reporters" (like the one that called Gov. Walker) call Farah for an "interview" followed by a Predator/Hellfire lock on to his cell phone signal? :cool:
I hate to say it but Roger's suggestion of having a mother ship "develop a mysterious & permanent leak" doesn't sound half bad either.

Agree. I hope we never know what happens to all the pirates. If done properly, we won't. What we don't need is a lot of public chest thumping and d$%$ waving machismo. How does it go? Speak softly.....

Davey Jones regards....

road kill
02-24-2011, 09:05 AM
Agree. I hope we never know what happens to all the pirates. If done properly, we won't. What we don't need is a lot of public chest thumping and d$%$ waving machismo. How does it go? Speak softly.....

Davey Jones regards....


If lightning struck a pirate and killed him, Obama would be on TV tonight taking all the accolades!!!:D


RK

dnf777
02-24-2011, 09:10 AM
If lightning struck a pirate and killed him, Obama would be on TV tonight taking all the accolades!!!:D


RK

What better way to put the fear of God into those goons than to make them believe we control the Heavens! Brilliant idea!

road kill
02-24-2011, 09:11 AM
What better way to put the fear of God into those goons than to make them believe we control the Heavens! Brilliant idea!

Yes, but the frightening part is, I think he and some of his minions beleive he does.


RK

Julie R.
02-24-2011, 09:19 AM
That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.

In fact there is a governing body of maritime law, a U.N. treaty called Law of the Sea. In which a U.N. tribunal would no doubt find a gun-toting U.S. flag ship owner/crew guilty even though we are not signatories to the treaty. As we did before Congress voted not to sign it, the U.S. does abide by most of what it codified such as territorial seas, sovereign economic zones for fisheries and minerals as well as international rights of passage.

The reasons the U.S. didn't ratify it were mainly because of the usual U.N. grab for U.S. money and technology mandated by the high seas mining provisions as well as the creation of yet another diplomatic bureaucracy of overpaid underworked U.N. cannibals, err, diplomats. But most of the rest of the world, including all the banana republics, are signatories.

Just sayin' ;-)

dnf777
02-24-2011, 09:29 AM
In fact there is a governing body of maritime law, a U.N. treaty called Law of the Sea. In which a U.N. tribunal would no doubt find a gun-toting U.S. flag ship owner/crew guilty even though we are not signatories to the treaty. As we did before Congress voted not to sign it, the U.S. does abide by most of what it codified such as territorial seas, sovereign economic zones for fisheries and minerals as well as international rights of passage. Just sayin' ;-)

Thanks for clarifying. As we are not signatories, like I said, there is no governing body. Its when entering ports that issues are likely to arise. Then obviously, you are subject to the host nation's laws.

I have a CWP, and when using it, my first and foremost policy is conflict avoidance! These yachtsmen did not show good judgement in my opinion. They were apparently in a flotilla (safety in numbers) but then for some reason chose to wander into known hostile waters alone. It is tragic, and I feel for thier loss, but this was entirely avoidable by all accounts. I don't think its disprespectful to say that.

ducknwork
02-24-2011, 10:42 AM
Yes, but the frightening part is, I think he and some of his minions beleive he does.


RK

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/sedwards_08/misc/untitled-3.jpg

Julie R.
02-24-2011, 11:59 AM
As we are not signatories, like I said, there is no governing body. Its when entering ports that issues are likely to arise. Then obviously, you are subject to the host nation's laws.

You're correct that the U.S. did not ratify the treaty, but not because we were in disagreement with the international maritime law that it codified. As we did before the treaty, we still abide by international maritime law. The only difference is prior to the treaty, we only had (and recognized) 3 mi. territorial waters, now we have and recognize 12 miles. We simply chose not to participate in yet another U.N. boondoggle, that being the transfer of U.S. technology and money for deep sea mining that the treaty mandated.




but this was entirely avoidable by all accounts. I don't think its disprespectful to say that.

No argument from me on that point.

WRL
02-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Thanks for clarifying. As we are not signatories, like I said, there is no governing body. Its when entering ports that issues are likely to arise. Then obviously, you are subject to the host nation's laws.

I have a CWP, and when using it, my first and foremost policy is conflict avoidance! These yachtsmen did not show good judgement in my opinion. They were apparently in a flotilla (safety in numbers) but then for some reason chose to wander into known hostile waters alone. It is tragic, and I feel for thier loss, but this was entirely avoidable by all accounts. I don't think its disprespectful to say that.

You are right. This could of been avoided.

The US could have gone in and wiped Somalia from the map. Paved the whole damn country and then set up the UN there. Is there ANTYHING redeeming about that country?

I think that all the UN folks would love all the sun.

Isn't it funny, that the UNITED NATIONS is headquartered in the United States? What are they afraid to be headquartered in say Libya or Somalia or some other nation?

WRL

Julie R.
02-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Isn't it funny, that the UNITED NATIONS is headquartered in the United States? What are they afraid to be headquartered in say Libya or Somalia or some other nation?

WRL

Ahhh but Lee, those little cannibals, errrr, diplomats represent the best and brightest of the banana republics and tin pot dictatorships and well, the U.N. just could never attract any qualified folks if they were forced to live in the ever-multiplying masses and squalor south of the Equator that they all are fleeing. Plus, what good would "diplomatic immunity" do in a cesspool like Somalia, where there are no attractive women to rape, no fancy stores to steal from and no laws to break?

WRL
02-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Ahhh but Lee, those little cannibals, errrr, diplomats represent the best and brightest of the banana republics and tin pot dictatorships and well, the U.N. just could never attract any qualified folks if they were forced to live in the ever-multiplying masses and squalor south of the Equator that they all are fleeing. Plus, what good would "diplomatic immunity" do in a cesspool like Somalia, where there are no attractive women to rape, no fancy stores to steal from and no laws to break?
Too funny that we get "taken to task" but yet they don't feel "safe enough" to be headquartered in those places.

WRL

gman0046
02-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Remember when the pirates captured the Captain of the Maersk freighter and the Navy sharpshooters blew the heads of the pirates to rescue the Captain? This didn't happen until Obongolo gave the order to shoot. They had to wait for his OK. What's with that? I hope the U.S. Navy is still not under those rules of engagement. I guess Obongolo could always apologize to the pirates as he's done to the rest of the world.

Julie R.
02-24-2011, 04:04 PM
Remember when the pirates captured the Captain of the Maersk freighter and the Navy sharpshooters blew the heads of the pirates to rescue the Captain? This didn't happen until Obongolo gave the order to shoot. They had to wait for his OK. What's with that? I hope the U.S. Navy is still not under those rules of engagement. I guess Obongolo could always apologize to the pirates as he's done to the rest of the world.


Not exactly correct, but they were instructed not to act until the POTUS got "his" team in place over there. The SEALs were deployed in minutes and arrived within the day; the POTUS hand-picked "team" was still packing, dithering and hand-wringing while the Navy snipers were glassing the pirates. Fortunately they didn't "wait" for the official order because there's that pesky little imminent danger provision. They shot when it appeared the Maersk Captain's life was in danger. BAM BAM BAM! Then the POTUS claimed credit.

Wonder how the 4th pirate is doing on his U.S.-supplied 3 hots & a cot? Obama will probably pardon him....:rolleyes:

dnf777
02-24-2011, 05:49 PM
You are right. This could of been avoided.

The US could have gone in and wiped Somalia from the map. Paved the whole damn country and then set up the UN there. Is there ANTYHING redeeming about that country?


WRL

Actually, I was referring to staying in a group, and avoiding known hot spots......but yes, your scenario would also work.

Googled "somalia redeeming" and got ZERO hits in 0.0001 seconds. ;)

Franco
02-24-2011, 06:50 PM
Wonder how the 4th pirate is doing on his U.S.-supplied 3 hots & a cot? Obama will probably pardon him....:rolleyes:

And soon to be on unemployment living in a tax payer funded Section 8.

Getting captured by the USA is thier ticket to the good life, as they know it.

He'll be paying union dues before you know it!