GoodBye Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Lana scooped ya dude! Great minds think alike! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think part of the point we're missing, is that if this is such an impoverished country where are the arms and ammunition coming from? I know AK's can be had for a pittance but where did it all come from to begin with? To begin with? Well, in 1947, Mr. Kalashnikov... Seriously, it's not even that the weapons can be had for a pittance so much as they're ubiquitous. With everything the Soviet Union exported to the Third World during the Cold War, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a 30-year old Soviet-made weapon in Sub-Saharan Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 To begin with? Well, in 1947, Mr. Kalashnikov... Seriously, it's not even that the weapons can be had for a pittance so much as they're ubiquitous. With everything the Soviet Union exported to the Third World during the Cold War, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a 30-year old Soviet-made weapon in Sub-Saharan Africa. My favorite T-shirt: http://www.cccp-shirts.com/popup_image.php...or=&pID=286 Having had people try to kill me with that thing in three different countries, I gotta admit to some admiration for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 My favorite T-shirt: http://www.cccp-shirts.com/popup_image.php...or=&pID=286 Having had people try to kill me with that thing in three different countries, I gotta admit to some admiration for it. Of course, military geek that I am, I look at that and say "Isn't that a -74?" I didn't think the -47 had a removable stock...I will concede, though, that you would know better than I. And I have to get me one of those t-shirts. It'd probably put me on some sort of terrorist watch list...but hell, I probably am already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Of course, military geek that I am, I look at that and say "Isn't that a -74?" I didn't think the -47 had a removable stock...I will concede, though, that you would know better than I. And I have to get me one of those t-shirts. It'd probably put me on some sort of terrorist watch list...but hell, I probably am already. nobody thinks I'm a terrorist when i wear it...just an old fat half blind guy in a black t-shirt! The one I have is from Ukraine and is the traditional AK 47. Got to fire on in Kiev..nice to be on the other end of those f-ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Providing onboard security for private shipping IMO doesn't fall under the Navy's mandate Then there's the issue of using taxpayer money (pay and train the Navy) to provide security to private companies Possible jurisdictional issues there too. These ships sail in international waters. Does an active member of the US military on board make a commercial ship into a US military vessel? If not, then what grounds does the US military have to crew the vessel? And what happens if the pirates should happen to take the ship and the Navy security hostage (or worse)? Your 3rd point was the big issue sticking out in my mind when I was tying that up. I guess they could claim that the US has the right to protect US based ships, but I don't know how these things work and whether or not that's a legit claim. As for whether or not it would fall under the Navy's mandate, I would think that protecting American's at sea would be an appropriate task for the Navy. Getting involved with any private shipping industry definitely has it's issues, but it might be worth some thought for any type of ship involved with humanitarian aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Your 3rd point was the big issue sticking out in my mind when I was tying that up. I guess they could claim that the US has the right to protect US based ships, but I don't know how these things work and whether or not that's a legit claim. As for whether or not it would fall under the Navy's mandate, I would think that protecting American's at sea would be an appropriate task for the Navy. Getting involved with any private shipping industry definitely has it's issues, but it might be worth some thought for any type of ship involved with humanitarian aid. Not US-based. US-flagged. Big difference. The Maersk Alabama was Danish-owned, I believe, but US-flagged. The nearest relevent historical precedent w/r/t what the US Navy will and will not protect, however, is probably the "Tanker War" during the Iran-Iraq war: tankers through the Straits of Hormuz were reflagged with an American "flag of convenience", so as to take advantage of the diplomatic and military protection of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think part of the point we're missing, is that if this is such an impoverished country where are the arms and ammunition coming from? I know AK's can be had for a pittance but where did it all come from to begin with? Black market selling of food from UN mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The solution is simple...just fill the coastline with the pirate's mortal enemy, the NINJA. http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I wanted a voice of authority on this subject, so I went to... Mike Leach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 In the World Wars, they were called Q-ships. In the Napoleonic wars and before, I don't know what they were called, but they were tried as well. They usually only worked once. Then the U-boats/privateers/pirates started sinking them on sight. How is this relevant to the current situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 How is this relevant to the current situation? It's 200 years of naval history shows that when you start trying to use armed merchant ships to trap commerce raiders, it doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 The biggest problem is when they DO catch them often they let them go over jurisdiction matters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_af/af_piracy Seven Somali pirates were detained, but they were soon released because "NATO does not have any detainment policy," Fernandes said. The seven could not be arrested or held because they were seized by Dutch nationals and neither the pirates, the victims nor the ship were Dutch, he explained. What message does this send to pirates? Sort of like NFLPA and players holding out with all of the player apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IQ Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Hey Nick, any truth to the assetions in this piece. Doesn't seem to me to be supported by any facts whatsoever. But I figured I would ask. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/...o_b_155147.html Good link. If you guys haven't read it, then do. I'm glad there are some intelligent folks on this list that can look at the situation in an unbiased manner and figure out the WHY. For those who aren't going to read, long story short: many countries and corporations were dumping nuclear waste of Somali shores which affected local fishermen and they started out as sort of a defense militia. Unchecked fishing depleted food for these same people which as you can imagine has downstream effects on the economy and food supply chian. Over time the defensive tactics evolved and the profiteering element interceded as well. The solution is not KILL or blow people up as some idiots have alluded to on this thread, its to understand the problem and fix the initiating injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 It's 200 years of naval history shows that when you start trying to use armed merchant ships to trap commerce raiders, it doesn't work? You consider the U-boats of WW-I and WW-II to be analogous to the Somali pirates? Are either the Somali pirates or the U-boats 'commerce raiders' as the pirates and Privateers were some 200 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Good link. If you guys haven't read it, then do. I'm glad there are some intelligent folks on this list that can look at the situation in an unbiased manner and figure out the WHY. For those who aren't going to read, long story short: many countries and corporations were dumping nuclear waste of Somali shores which affected local fishermen and they started out as sort of a defense militia. Unchecked fishing depleted food for these same people which as you can imagine has downstream effects on the economy and food supply chian. Over time the defensive tactics evolved and the profiteering element interceded as well. The solution is not KILL or blow people up as some idiots have alluded to on this thread, its to understand the problem and fix the initiating injustice. I can believe that one or the other of those is happening but I have a hard time understanding why countries would pollute Somali waters with toxins and fish those same waters for food to feed their own people. How do either of these offenses justify the capture of tankers, freighters or yachts which are neither dumping toxins nor fishing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 which part? Hillary as a congressman, or we're going to rebuild Somalia? both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 You consider the U-boats of WW-I and WW-II to be analogous to the Somali pirates? Are either the Somali pirates or the U-boats 'commerce raiders' as the pirates and Privateers were some 200 years ago? I wouldn't say "analogous" as much as I would say "strikingly similar". I also suspect, at this point, that the similarity is beyond your comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IQ Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I can believe that one or the other of those is happening but I have a hard time understanding why countries would pollute Somali waters with toxins and fish those same waters for food to feed their own people. How do either of these offenses justify the capture of tankers, freighters or yachts which are neither dumping toxins nor fishing? The Somalian coast is huge. There is plenty of room to dump and fish. I'm no expert on the situation but I'm sure both the fishing and dumping are done covertly and not by the same ships. And you are right--it doesn't justify holding hostage passing ships, but my point was to present that one wrong precipitated the second and the solution to these problems is to find the root cause of the issue rather than respond arbitrarily to the second wrong of piracy (in complete absentia of addressing the first wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 And you are right--it doesn't justify holding hostage passing ships, but my point was to present that one wrong precipitated the second and the solution to these problems is to find the root cause of the issue rather than respond arbitrarily to the second wrong of piracy (in complete absentia of addressing the first wrong). That is like saying you shouldn't shoot armed rioters breaking into a store because in past some other urban dwellers were poorly treated. Each should be treated separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts