Pirates hi jacking ships

[Lawman]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/6169289.html

 

What the crap is this nonsense about? I don't get it..How can someone scale the side of a ship steaming across the ocean at whatever speed they go and not be easy pickins to shoot off the side. For that matter how can they even get within half a mile of the ship? And how is it that any of em get away? Talk about shootin fish in a barrel...If shippers don't have half a dozen guys with AK's or AR's that are able to fend off a few guys in ski boats from taking over a ship they they need to fire the whole bunch, send em to Washington to work on bailouts and let me send em a few buddies from East Texas...sheesh..

[StuGotz]

They need yer help Billy....

 

MB>

[Tank]

Funny, The same offer was given by Sonny Barger of the Oakland Hells Angeles during the Viet Nam war.

The US Goverment said no thanks to him and his pals...

Let us know what the U.N. says of your offer.

 

FYI My bets are with the texans

[Francois_Dumas]

It is one of my pet peeves too these days... we're being 'kept hostage' by a few sorry behinds with AK-47s and RPG's.... but if you looked at some of the film footage you would have seen your answer as 'to how' !

 

Fact is these merchant sailors are NOT trained with arms, did not muster to SHOOT at anyone, just to sail vessel and were not prepared for something like this at all.

Same for the officers. It is hard enough to drive a super tanker.... go spend some time in port if you don't believe that.. now they have to play cowboys and indians?

 

What annoyed me to no end is that these good people were not immediately and forcefully protected by our respective armed forces. THAT's what we have them for (and pay them for)... not to play hide and seek in a sandbox somewhere.

 

It seems that finally some decisions have been made to go and face the bastards.

Unfortunately they want to catch them and hand them over to the local authorities..... That sounds like a good plan went BAD!!

[RichEdwards]

Maybe they should hire Blackwater to protect those ships. A few ex-military guys with lots of firepower would scare off the pirates. And I'm sure that they would only kill a few innocent fishermen and cruiseship patrons.

[Francois_Dumas]

Hmmmm, maybe more effective.

 

But we are PAYING for our soldiers already..... why pay double !!??

[Agent_Orange]

If you'll notice the 'inaction' is because of the UN. Just this past week they 'allowed' the rest of the world to take offensive action.

 

A real joke if ya ask me.

[Francois_Dumas]

More like all governments spinning their wheels, thinking the 'other' will solve the problems. The UN merely 'decided' that the pirates can now be pursued onto land, not only on water. I don't think naval activities were stopped because anyone was deciding against... just nobody deciding to attack the 'issue'.

 

Apparently the Dutch Navy is now going to take the lead in coordinating actions to clear the waters of the vermin. Get that rowboat in the water, guys !!!

[Boffin]

The Royal Navy, USN, German Navy, French Navy and a few other navies have been patrolling this area for some time now. Three pirates were killed and a dozen captured by the RN just a month or so ago. What the UN has authorised is ground forces entering Somali soveriegn territory, not quite the same thing.

 

Andy

[Agent_Orange]

The UN is responsible for the 'armada' that has been floating around doing nothing. How do you explain the inaction of all those war ships? What is the point of having armed forces sitting on their hands while ships continue to be hijacked right under their very noses?

 

Oh sure, they killed and captured a few, but good grief, why total inaction for so long?

 

The UN has, is, and always will be, a joke. Too little, too late, comes to mind.

 

The US has been successfully emasculated by the UN.

 

For your edumacation! http://cargolaw.com/2008nightmare_mv.faina.html

[Boffin]

They are not sitting around doing nothing. This is a huge area of sea, the pirates have high-quality radar systems and actively avoid the naval vessels. The number of reported cases of 'interactions' between the naval vessels and the pirates is less than is taking place.

I know for a fact that the Royal Navy is operating in that area under the auspices of the British Government and their orders of engagement come from the Admiralty, not the UN. You are on the wrong soapbox.

[Francois_Dumas]

I have to agree with Andy. I don't really see what the UN has to do with running the Dutch, the British, or the US Navy for that matter. They would WISH they had that much influence

 

Oh and by the way, as much as we may mock the French, THEY were the ones who had balls enough to go AFTER the perps and hunt them down, killing a few of them and taking the rest in custody.

 

In one thing I agree with you: who needs the UN for these sort of things!

[Fugu]

This has been brewing for some time. The pirates have been getting stronger while nations with the wherewithal to stop them have been doing squat.

 

They are now confident, practiced, and well armed. We can turn them into a fine red mist whenever we want, but apparently we (not just the US, everybody shipping there) lacks the motivation.

 

 

 

Great blog on the topic:

 

http://www.eaglespeak.us/

 

I've been reading it for some time.

 

There are links there to photos of damage caused by pirate attacks - remember, cargo ships and tankers are ponderous. They do not turn or accelerate at all compared to smaller vessels. There is no evasive action. There is no "run away".

 

So yeah, it's easy to attack an unarmed or lightly armed crew of untrained civilians when you're armed with superior weapons and in the vastness of open water, a tanker or freighter plodding along at 12 knots may as well be docked.

 

 

 

 

Also remember there are a ton of laws and regulations about weapons on international ships, problems getting into ports with weapons on board, etc.

 

We (the international maritime community) have created a flotilla of unarmed victim vessels.

 

It's directly analogous to unarmed victim zones on land like shopping malls and schools with no gun signs backed by local or state ordinances.

 

Is it any surprise the strong and evil prey upon unarmed victims? Not to me.

 

 

[ragtoplvr]

There is a private company that is providing protection for some of the ships. They have water cannons, loud music, very bright strobes, but no guns. The idea is the pirates will go for easy pickings. It is a BIG ocean, and if you can complete an attack in 15 or 20 minutes, even close air support does not have time to arrive. However, the pirates did what all humans seem to do, they got too greedy, and their time of piracy is now limited, I hope.

 

 

Rod

[Fugu]

Water cannons, loud music, and strobes? Why don't they just paint a target on their "security" boats?

 

OK you scurvy dogs, concentrate fire on the loud thing with strobes until it goes away then we'll take the freighter. ARRRR!

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

From http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com/

 

On Defending Unarmed Merchant Ships Against Pirates

 

It seems that the piracy problem off Somalia keeps spiraling out of control. Attacks on merchant ships brought calls for the ships to take action to protect themselves. Now, the ship M/V BISCAGLIA with a security team onboard was taken after pirates persisted to finally overcome the anti-pirate measures deployed against them.

 

One reason why the defense of the ship failed was because the pirates were armed and the security team only had non-lethal weapons to defend the ship with. Still they managed for about 45 minutes. Why weren't they armed? It is a logistics/legal problem:

 

“They were unarmed. They had no other option. As far as I’m concerned they deserve a medal,” said Nick Davis, a former British Army pilot who runs AntiPiracy Maritime Security Solutions (APMSS) out of Poole, Dorset. Mr Davis said his guards were unarmed because it was almost impossible to carry firearms through Customs and on to vessels in most countries, and because ships with cargoes of chemicals or gas seldom allowed weapons on board. - Times Online (Found at EagleSpeak here)

 

Pirates of course don't need to concern themselves with the legalities for their weapons since they are not facing any sort of legal challenge.

 

Unfortunately in this case, the non-deadly LRAD system and fire hoses were not enough to prevent the pirates from boarding.

 

Link to the original article referenced by this blog post:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5253731.ece

 

 

If these people had sheep, would they send them out to graze without sheepdogs?

 

Even at sea, it seems criminals refuse to obey gun laws.

 

 

 

[Mark P]

Andy is right, there is a lot being done in the area. There is now an EU task force on task there (commanded by a British Admiral). The Russian and Indian Navies are active in the area and the Chinese have just announced that they are sending warships there. British, French, Danish and Indian ships in the area have taken on pirates successfully in recent weeks - just those I know of, maybe others as well.

 

But there are a lot of problems, the first of which as Andy mentioned is the vast area of sea at risk, many thousands of square miles. For Naval forces to monitor the area involved will take an enormous effort to be fully effective.

 

The pirates are often actve in areas, like the Gulf of Aden where there are a lot of fishing vessels working and this means that they can be hard to identify until they show their hand.

 

Another problem is that they are international waters which are goverened by International law and national rules of engagement, which rightly don't allow warships to engage anyone without proper justification.

 

A third problem is what to do with pirates who are captured - Somalia has no functioning government and therefore no means of dealing with the pirates.

 

Merchant Ship owners are now placing armed guards on board their vessels, but that is fraught with problems as various countries impose severe restrictions on arms carried on board ships entering their ports - they are after all Merchant ships and not Warships, which by definition means they are not armed vessels.

 

By the way I speak with some knowledge as I am an ex-Royal Navy Officer and am in contact through my current work with people involved in providing armed guards to ships. In this case the people being employed are ex Special Forces personnel with suitable maritime protection experience.

 

As always it's easy for armchair strategists to sit at their keyboards demanding that 'more must be done' but it really is not that simple!

[russell_bynum]

Even at sea, it seems criminals refuse to obey gun laws.

 

 

 

Inconceivable!

 

 

[Mark P]

By chance the current issue of "Navy News", which is the (British) Royal Navy's newspaper has a double page spread on this subject - you can read it at

 

http://content.yudu.com/Ayg34/NavyNewsJan09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navynews.co.uk%2FDefault.asp

 

Turn to pages 10-11, it'll give some impression of what is going on out there.

[motoguy128]

I think the biggest issue are rules of engagement. I believe they must be fired upon or have credible evidence that a particular vessel is a pirate ship to engage them.

 

These are very small vessels that you can only see from within a fairly short range. They primarily only operate wihtin 20 miles or so or shore, so many naval ships would have difficulty catching them before they get to shallow waters.

 

The problem will contunie until the big guns come out... air craft carriers. Using unmanned and manned survelliance aircraft and spy sattelites to detect suspect vessels. This plan would cost big $$$$, that would far exceed the value of shipping being attacked. It would be like spending $100k on a security system to protect $20k worth of valuables. It's much easier just to "roll-the-dice" and pay more for insurance and/or eat the losses.

 

If hte pirates really wanted ot make a statement, they would start sinking soem of these vessels. the value of the larger vessels themselves exceeds their cargo in many cases. Then you'd get the insurance companies involved.

[Lawman]

The problem will contunie until the big guns come out...

 

The problem will continue until people realize the gov't can't protect them and the laws are changed to allow the good people to protect themselves and their property from the bad people..

[russell_bynum]

The problem will contunie until the big guns come out...

 

The problem will continue until people realize the gov't can't protect them and the laws are changed to allow the good people to protect themselves and their property from the bad people..

 

Preach it, Billy.

[Mark P]

I think the biggest issue are rules of engagement. I believe they must be fired upon or have credible evidence that a particular vessel is a pirate ship to engage them.

 

These are very small vessels that you can only see from within a fairly short range. They primarily only operate wihtin 20 miles or so or shore, so many naval ships would have difficulty catching them before they get to shallow waters.

 

The problem will contunie until the big guns come out... air craft carriers. Using unmanned and manned survelliance aircraft and spy sattelites to detect suspect vessels. This plan would cost big $$$$, that would far exceed the value of shipping being attacked. It would be like spending $100k on a security system to protect $20k worth of valuables. It's much easier just to "roll-the-dice" and pay more for insurance and/or eat the losses.

 

If hte pirates really wanted ot make a statement, they would start sinking soem of these vessels. the value of the larger vessels themselves exceeds their cargo in many cases. Then you'd get the insurance companies involved.

 

I have to differ with you, the biggest issue in my view is Identification - if the vessels can be identified, the Rules of Engagement aren't a problem, but telling a boat full of would be pirates from a boat full of fishermen can be very difficult. Often the only way is to approach and see how they react - fishermen tend not to open fire, but pirates do!

 

It's worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons Somalis have resorted to piracy is that fishing has failed them as fish stocks in the region have been depleted by foreign fishermen, so attacking and sinking fishermen still trying to make their living that way is hardly likely to help the situation!

 

[keithb]

Let's keep this simple gentlemen. Put an extra 6-10 guys on board, arm them to the teeth, and OFF the BASTARDS, I mean pirates. Problem solved. And the next order of business is .......

[Fugu]

As always it's easy for armchair strategists to sit at their keyboards demanding that 'more must be done' but it really is not that simple!

 

I'm sorry Mark, all respect to your prior experience, it is exactly that simple and Billy has crystallized it nicely.

 

The people on the ships should be afforded the legal means of self defense. If they were not disarmed by law or the mandate of their employers, this would not be happening.

 

If you want to say that nobody but those with prior service is qualified to discuss how the military forces in the area should proceed, you might have a point, but the problem is just like it is on land.

 

Why are people on land victims of crime? Because they are soft targets, and the cops can't be everywhere at once to prevent crime before it happens.

 

Just like putting some military ships in the Gulf of Aden. There will be holes. There will be long response times. The pirates will continue to find soft targets away from those warships and take them out.

 

The crews of those ships amount to little more than bait, or chattle, until they are allowed the means to defend themselves.

 

 

[Mark P]

As always it's easy for armchair strategists to sit at their keyboards demanding that 'more must be done' but it really is not that simple!

 

I'm sorry Mark, all respect to your prior experience, it is exactly that simple and Billy has crystallized it nicely.

 

The people on the ships should be afforded the legal means of self defense. If they were not disarmed by law or the mandate of their employers, this would not be happening.

 

If you want to say that nobody but those with prior service is qualified to discuss how the military forces in the area should proceed, you might have a point, but the problem is just like it is on land.

 

Why are people on land victims of crime? Because they are soft targets, and the cops can't be everywhere at once to prevent crime before it happens.

 

Just like putting some military ships in the Gulf of Aden. There will be holes. There will be long response times. The pirates will continue to find soft targets away from those warships and take them out.

 

The crews of those ships amount to little more than bait, or chattle, until they are allowed the means to defend themselves.

 

 

I'm certainly not saying that people without prior servcie aren't qualified to comment, but that as I said before it is not as simple as people seem to think.

 

There are armed guards being put on board ships and this can be done, but it is not simple or straightforward legally as both International Law of the Sea (which it is vital to act with respect for, since world trade depends on it in the end) and National Law of many, many countries may need to be changed.

 

Armed Merchant Ships won't enjoy free access to all the ports that they need to visit for their trade, just as Warships can't freely go to any port around the world, since as Military Units of their respective Nations, they have to obtain Diplomatic Clearance to visit ports of another (even friendly/allied) country.

 

This needs to be kept in proportion, much less than 1% of the shipping passing through the area in the past year has been highjacked by pirates and action IS being taken by Naval Forces from upwards of 15 countries.

 

We could try to do exactly as you are suggesting and get everyone to change their positions and allow free arming of ships, but that in itself would take years to achieve if it ever were achieved. This is not the same thing as say whether the State of Florida allows citizens to bear arms, it is very much more complex than that!

 

[Francois_Dumas]

They primarily only operate wihtin 20 miles or so or shore, so many naval ships would have difficulty catching them before they get to shallow waters.

 

Not anymore... actually... they captured vessels as far away as 800 MILES recently !

[Mark P]

They primarily only operate wihtin 20 miles or so or shore, so many naval ships would have difficulty catching them before they get to shallow waters.

 

Not anymore... actually... they captured vessels as far away as 800 MILES recently !

 

Thank you Francois for pointing that out, I should have done so when referring to the area to be covered by Naval Units in the area, the Supertanker recently taken was more than 500 miles off the coast of Kenya!

 

[Gary in Aus]

Mark , a question .

 

Other than knowing that they are expensive , potential ecological nightmares , I don't know much about super tankers or for example liquified natural gas tankers.

 

Would it be safe to assume that the last place you would want to be is on a supertanker with a bunch of doped up pirates firing grenade launchers or with a small step in technology "missiles" at you??

 

I am not sure but I think I read somewhere that they are more explosive when they are not full {vapours being being more explosive than relatively stable oil}.

 

I also remember reading a report about a cruise liner keeping the pirates at bay with water canons ??

 

When I was in Sumatra and in the mountains above Medan , you could look out into the Straits of Malacca {spelling} and it was amazing how many ships sailed through there , apparently a large percentage of world trade goes through there and there has been pirates there for the last thousand years and they regularly attack ships.

 

The Somalian pirates must be newsworthy and effecting a large corporation?

[simon999]

large calibre fireams...mounted front and aft.......worked ok for my gramps in 1942 !!!!!

[Gary in Aus]

Quote"large calibre fireams...mounted front and aft.......worked ok for my gramps in 1942 !!!!!"

 

In doing what ?, blowing up oil tankers , warships or pirates?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Not anymore... actually... they captured vessels as far away as 800 MILES recently !

 

Not only that, but:

 

-they don't fly the Jolly Roger, so you don't know for fact that they're pirates until they attack a ship.

 

-Once they commandeer a ship, they have hostages, which means you really can't attack anyone cleanly at that point.

 

IOW, the only time period a naval force would have to intervene would be between the moment a pirate ship begins their attack and the moment they come aboard. I'm guessing that's less then fifteen minutes in most cases, not much time at all.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Simple, but expensive solution...

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Simple, but expensive solution...

 

 

Egads, that's like a lead Super-Soaker...

[Gary in Aus]

 

Or possibly get this result ,like most things, while technology develops better equipment, humanity usually develops smarter idiots.

 

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc&feature=related

[John Ranalletta]

Don't those facts argue for sea laws which allow a proactive defense against any approaching ship that has not been invited within a prescribed distance? Current radar, range finding technology could be used to document distance coupled with communication recordings. Create a universal signal that means, "Continue to approach and you will be fired upon." Once given, if a vessel breaches the "safety zone", it can be destroyed.

 

The larger challenge is the requirement that every commercial vessel become battle ready. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.

[Mark P]

Don't those facts argue for sea laws which allow a proactive defense against any approaching ship that has not been invited within a prescribed distance? Current radar, range finding technology could be used to document distance coupled with communication recordings. Create a universal signal that means, "Continue to approach and you will be fired upon." Once given, if a vessel breaches the "safety zone", it can be destroyed.

 

The larger challenge is the requirement that every commercial vessel become battle ready. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.

 

Creating what amounts to exclusion zones around ships isn't feasible, contrary to what you might think there are many places around the world where there are lots of vessels in close proximity to one another, the area in question here being one of them.

 

In more open waters the kind of approach you suggest might be made to work.

 

I have to say however that if we were going to be talking of any and all merchant ships being heavily armed, I for one would be concerned, since there are huge numbers of vessels sailing around the world often under flags of convenience with poorly trained crews from various developing countries, their level of ability and safety can be questionable in normal seafaring terms, let alone weapons drills!

 

In the same vein, since some of these ships sail around in quite busy waterways with the ship on autopilot and NO active lookout whatsoever, they are hardly likely to be good at spotting pirate threats, since I've seen vessels clearly with no-one on board aware of the presence of other ships in their vicinity.

[Mark P]

Simple, but expensive solution...

 

 

Vulcan Phalanx is amazing, but designed as an anti-missile weapon rather than for surface targets.

 

A Royal Navy Destroyer once was firing it's Phalanx at a towed sleeve target, the system tracks it's own rounds by radar as well the target to improve accuracy and in this case having destroyed the target, the Phalanx started chewing it's way up the cable towards the aircraft towing the target!

 

After it was stopped the pilot flew home to change his pants!

[AviP]

But I would like to point everyone to the root of the problem. Somalia! Ever since we abandoned it, it has become a hot bed for terrorism. If ever there was a case for staying your ground, this is it. Now it's lawless on land and in the surrounding seas. Because of it's lack of government, there are lots of ships with toxic materials that just dump them into Somali waters.

 

And no, I was never a proponent of going to Iraq. But now that we created a mess, we should get out only in an orderly fashion. Recent events seem to indicate we are heading that way.

[Fugu]

MarkP : The Phalanx (or C-Wiz phonetically for CIWS) has been retrofitted with FLIR to target surface targets and has been since about 1999. I don't have info on how quickly the US fleet updated existing platforms to include the updates that came along with FLIR (larger magazine, etc) but I would expect we could put some assets in the area with the FLIR enabled C-Wiz.

 

Other countries were shipped that "Block 1B" version with the FLIR, including Egypt and Bahrain.

 

 

 

 

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

 

Pirate vessel atomized...

 

 

 

 

 

Matt I'll shoot you an email. In short, things are good.

 

 

[Mike]

The larger challenge is the requirement that every commercial vessel become battle ready. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.

 

I'm no expert on the Law of the Sea, but the combatant/noncombatant status of a ship becomes a very big issue in times of war. Under some circumstances arming ships could be viewed as enough to transform them from noncombatant to combatant in times of war.

 

Not that these clowns respect international law . . .

 

The greatest issues with arming crews, it seems, revolve around the legal issues. Ships flying the flag of a particular country are bound by the laws of that country. So, for example, a British merchant ship would be constrained by Great Britain's domestic laws relating tl the possession and use of firearms. Even more complicating perhaps, is the fact that merchant ships are subject to the laws of the countries into whose territory they enter. So, even if the laws of, say Brazil, allowed merchant ships to arm their crews, once they sailed into Canadian waters they would be subject to Canada's laws.

 

Having said all that, it does seem that a large part of the solution should be providing those ships subject to attack with a credible form of self-defense. Many of the world's navies are pitching in, but it's a near impossible task. Sonic emitters and water canons can certainly play a role, but in my mind the reality of the situation--pirates employing deadly weapons with no regard for human life in situations where a naval response cannot be relied upon--cries out for arming the would-be victims.

[Mark P]

MarkP : The Phalanx (or C-Wiz phonetically for CIWS) has been retrofitted with FLIR to target surface targets and has been since about 1999.

 

Thanks for the update, that postdates my direct contact with the system.

[Francois_Dumas]

But I would like to point everyone to the root of the problem. Somalia! Ever since we abandoned it, it has become a hot bed for terrorism. If ever there was a case for staying your ground, this is it. Now it's lawless on land and in the surrounding seas. Because of it's lack of government, there are lots of ships with toxic materials that just dump them into Somali waters.

 

And no, I was never a proponent of going to Iraq. But now that we created a mess, we should get out only in an orderly fashion. Recent events seem to indicate we are heading that way.

 

Exactly. Makes much more sense to take the baddies out on their own turf. Recent documentaries show that both locals and western (military) intelligence know pretty much where they are and WHO they are.

 

If our Israeli friends can take out perps with a well-aimed Hellfire, I am sure we can do that with the guys we know in Somalia, or wherever.

 

A lot more efficient than having a multi-billion dollar fleet floating around aimlessly on the African coast.

 

They terrorize the local civilian population too, so I am sure we'll get some grateful people in the process for a change.....

 

I think we can only be politically correct in a correct world. We're far from that currently.... and not getting any closer.

[John Ranalletta]

But I would like to point everyone to the root of the problem. Somalia! Ever since we abandoned it, it has become a hot bed for terrorism. If ever there was a case for staying your ground, this is it. Now it's lawless on land and in the surrounding seas. Because of it's lack of government, there are lots of ships with toxic materials that just dump them into Somali waters.

 

And no, I was never a proponent of going to Iraq. But now that we created a mess, we should get out only in an orderly fashion. Recent events seem to indicate we are heading that way.

Right after we get control over narco-terrorism on our southern border. Whip's hounds don't seem to be up to the task.

[John Ranalletta]

But I would like to point everyone to the root of the problem. Somalia! Ever since we abandoned it, it has become a hot bed for terrorism. If ever there was a case for staying your ground, this is it. Now it's lawless on land and in the surrounding seas. Because of it's lack of government, there are lots of ships with toxic materials that just dump them into Somali waters.

 

And no, I was never a proponent of going to Iraq. But now that we created a mess, we should get out only in an orderly fashion. Recent events seem to indicate we are heading that way.

 

Exactly. Makes much more sense to take the baddies out on their own turf. Recent documentaries show that both locals and western (military) intelligence know pretty much where they are and WHO they are.

 

If our Israeli friends can take out perps with a well-aimed Hellfire, I am sure we can do that with the guys we know in Somalia, or wherever.

 

A lot more efficient than having a multi-billion dollar fleet floating around aimlessly on the African coast.

 

They terrorize the local civilian population too, so I am sure we'll get some grateful people in the process for a change.....

 

I think we can only be politically correct in a correct world. We're far from that currently.... and not getting any closer.

Why doesn't the EC take this up as a goodwill gesture to the world in 2009? Why does the US have to take the lead in policing the world?

[Francois_Dumas]

But I would like to point everyone to the root of the problem. Somalia! Ever since we abandoned it, it has become a hot bed for terrorism. If ever there was a case for staying your ground, this is it. Now it's lawless on land and in the surrounding seas. Because of it's lack of government, there are lots of ships with toxic materials that just dump them into Somali waters.

 

And no, I was never a proponent of going to Iraq. But now that we created a mess, we should get out only in an orderly fashion. Recent events seem to indicate we are heading that way.

 

Exactly. Makes much more sense to take the baddies out on their own turf. Recent documentaries show that both locals and western (military) intelligence know pretty much where they are and WHO they are.

 

If our Israeli friends can take out perps with a well-aimed Hellfire, I am sure we can do that with the guys we know in Somalia, or wherever.

 

A lot more efficient than having a multi-billion dollar fleet floating around aimlessly on the African coast.

 

They terrorize the local civilian population too, so I am sure we'll get some grateful people in the process for a change.....

 

I think we can only be politically correct in a correct world. We're far from that currently.... and not getting any closer.

Why doesn't the EC take this up as a goodwill gesture to the world in 2009? Why does the US have to take the lead in policing the world?

 

John, this may come as a surprise to you..... but that era has long gone already

 

As for the EC... what's THAT !!!???

 

 

Oh. P.S. : http://usnews.feedroom.com/?fr_story=a14e364f058e243de66d9191849ee6206921acb1&rf=bm

 

Just ONE out of many reports on activities instigated by European forces

[Spyder]

A third problem is what to do with pirates who are captured - Somalia has no functioning government and therefore no means of dealing with the pirates.

 

 

 

Ummmm...... engage them in a long distance swimming competition?

[Francois_Dumas]

A third problem is what to do with pirates who are captured - Somalia has no functioning government and therefore no means of dealing with the pirates.

 

 

 

Ummmm...... engage them in a long distance swimming competition?

 

 

I like creative thinking !

[John Ranalletta]

I meant mount an expeditionary force to occupy Somalia, not just deal with pirates at sea.

[Francois_Dumas]

I meant mount an expeditionary force to occupy Somalia, not just deal with pirates at sea.

 

I'm sure that would be a good idea.... as soon as we stop wasting our forces' time elsewhere