ISTANBUL, Aug. 14, 2009
U.S. Weighs Arming Ships Against Pirates
France, Belgium Already Offer Military Units to Civilian Ships, Challenging International Norm
-
Members of a visit, board, search and seizure team and members of U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team 91112, from the USS Gettysburg respond to a suspect vessel in the Gulf of Aden, June 2, 2009. (U.S. Navy/Mcs1C Eric L. Beauregard)
-
Interactive Piracy On The High Seas A modern twist on the villiany of the seas
Opponents fear such moves will escalate the violence and raise a minefield of legal issues.
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to put armed teams on U.S.-flagged ships passing through high-risk waters, specifically around the Horn of Africa where Somali pirates have become a scourge of world shipping.
The amendment now goes to the Senate. A separate bill introduced last month would grant immunity from prosecution in American courts to any "owner, operator, time charterer, master, or mariner who uses force, or authorizes the use of force, to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy."
Both measures face tough debate - U.S. military resources are spread thin and onboard weapons, especially in the hands of civilian crew, are seen as an extreme option.
"Work and watch-keeping take up most of a seafarer's day," Sam Dawson of the International Transport Workers' Federation, which represents hundreds of unions, told The Associated Press by e-mail. "The practice, handling and use of weapons would be a duty too far."
But there is a strong push for action following the April seizure of the MV Maersk Alabama.
That standoff, which transfixed the American public, ended with the killing of three pirates by Navy SEAL snipers and the release of the vessel's captain, Richard Phillips.
The wider potential fallout from the Western initiatives is uncertain because countries such as the Philippines, which supplies most of the world's ship crews, don't have the resources to protect them. Besides, the laws of many nations prevent vessels from carrying weapons, historically for fear they would be used by mutineers.
A range of maritime groups and insurers oppose arming ships because of liability issues and fears that violence could provoke an arms race with the pirates. Still, some ship-owners hire private guards; Israeli commercial boats are believed to routinely carry arms.
"What the Americans do will not necessarily lead the way in terms of the global shipping industry," said Daniel Sekulich, the Toronto-based author of "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Day Pirates."
Sekulich said a global trend could take hold if international groups such as the U.N. International Maritime Organization develop a comprehensive approach to arming ships. In the meantime, he said, the U.S. initiatives could encourage a "two-tiered or three-tiered system" in which a few wealthy nations protect ships flying their flags, while pirates prey on softer targets.
International patrols, including U.S., European, Chinese, Russian and Indian ships, have reduced the success rate of Somali attacks. But with ransoms running into millions of dollars, pirates have adapted, raiding boats far into the Indian Ocean.
Advocates say onboard teams with weapons would deter or defeat ragtag bands of pirates in flimsy skiffs. On April 25, pirates tried to board the Italian cruise liner MSC Melody as it headed in the Indian Ocean from southern Africa to Europe, but Israeli private guards opened fire and the assailants departed.
For opponents, the worst-case scenario is pirates getting bigger weapons.
"It's something that could actually stoke up the attacks, take the attacks to a higher level," said Andrew Linington of London-based Nautilus International, a union that represents 24,000 mariners, most of whom work on British- or Dutch-registered ships.
But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.
This summer, the Netherlands turned down a plea from parliament to put marines on especially vulnerable, slow-moving Dutch vessels threatened by Somali pirates. The refusal was based on fear that pirates could react more violently if they spot weapons and that wounded marines would not get medical care at sea.
Belgium, however, decided in early May to offer an onboard detachment of at least eight troops for euro115,000 ($162,000) a week per unit to its commercial vessels, but so far there has been only one taker, according to Defense Ministry spokesman Kurt Verwilligen.
The French government signed a deal with a tuna fishermen's union in June allowing for military protection of tuna boats in the Indian Ocean during the fishing season, according to Lt. Col. Phillippe de Cussac, a military spokesman. No attacks have been reported so far.
Global pirate attacks more than doubled in the first half of 2009 to 240, from 114 in the same period last year, according to the International Maritime Bureau. A surge of raids in the Gulf of Aden and off the east coast of Somalia accounted for many attacks, though waters off Nigeria are a serious trouble spot.
The Somali attacks are in a lull because seas are rough, but are expected to increase around the end of this month when the weather should improve.
The measure to put military guards on U.S.-flagged ships passed in the House by a vote of 389-22.
In testimony in May, Arthur J. Volkle Jr., vice president of American Cargo Transport, Inc., said private guards were already on his group's ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf. He said the best way to protect U.S.-flagged ships was by deploying military teams to avoid "regulatory shortfalls, liability concerns, and international reluctance to permit armed merchant vessels into their ports."
Phillips, the Maersk Alabama captain, has testified that senior crew members should have access to weapons, though he acknowledged that even this limited approach opens "thorny" issues. Maritime experts say some seafarers travel with small arms, but don't declare them.
The separate bill granting immunity has yet to go to a House vote. It would direct Washington to negotiate deals through the U.N. maritime agency to provide similar exemptions from liability in other countries, as well as to ensure armed U.S. crews can enter foreign ports.
But implementing the measure could be difficult because the U.N. agency discourages onboard weapons.
© MMIX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From World
Add a Comment See all 122 Comments
- To OregonJames: Answer this question - Which is more likely, that your gun will be used to prevent a crime or that it will be used to commit a crime?
-------------------------------------
Don't want to answer? Quite right, it would only make you look like the idiot that you are. - Reply to this comment
- Hower4, maybe when your country grows up, they can be a super-power like the U.S. and export something other then drunkards and sheep hair.
- Reply to this comment
- by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
and hower4
Iraq surrendered to the U.S. commander at the end of the 1st Gulf War, they didn't abide by their surrender agreements, the re-invasion began.
"illegal war" ?? according to who ? the girly eurotrash international court of opinions ?
We will destroy any threat posed against this country, current or future....that we see fit....got that EuroGirl Cowerd4 ? - Reply to this comment
-
- by Joe_NY_15 August 14, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
We will destroy any threat posed against this country, current or future....that we see fit....got that EuroGirl Cowerd4?
------------------------------
So what threat was Iraq? Go on, just make one up........
- by Joe_NY_15 August 14, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
- hower - I answered your question - now answer mine.
So are France and Belgium trigger happy too ? - Reply to this comment
-
- What? Do you mean your answer that the weak shouldn't pester the strong? I hope that one day when you're 80 you annoy somebody with the same attitude as you.
- Stalin's famous quote about Winston Churchill (made after the Yalta Conference): "Roosevelt only reaches into your pocket for the big change, but Churchill, Churchill, he will pick your pocket for a kopek!"
Clearly a leader that Howey admires. - Reply to this comment
-
- No, I think Stalin was a foul, murdering dictator. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with American policy is a "terrorist", a "jihadist", a "communist" or whatever other demon is current in FoxTVville, USA? Why are Americans totally unable to actually discuss the issues without demonising the opposing argument?
By the way, that supposed Churchill quote was fabricated by Milovan Djilas (a Stalin supporter) and was never reported by anyone else.
- I admire Churchill too, even though he conspired to get the US into the European war. He was facing extinction without our help. And, I'm quite glad we helped him and England eliminate Hitler.
hower4 - he's just a misguided fool that thinks we don't play fair because we prefer to kick butt if some one is a tyrant and pisses us off. We are tolerant up to several months of Tom-foolery, as we gave Saddam every chance to prove his innocence, as required by the UN and cease fire agreement.
That he couldn't because of Iran looking to wipe him out was NOT our problem. The jerk brought THAT on himself.
But, don't try to convince a liberal of anything - they already have their mind made up, don't confuse them with facts.
- What the **** do you mean, it wasn't your problem. YOU invaded the f***ing country!!!!!!!! It was YOUR responsibility to check your facts first!
Should the following excuse keep you out of jail...... "I thought that man had a gun, so I shot him. Somebody told me he had one once. He denied it but I shot him anyway. He wasn't any danger to me, but someday he might be."
- No, I think Stalin was a foul, murdering dictator. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with American policy is a "terrorist", a "jihadist", a "communist" or whatever other demon is current in FoxTVville, USA? Why are Americans totally unable to actually discuss the issues without demonising the opposing argument?
- "and by what means do the strong prey upon the weak? By force of arms, which YOU espouse!"
People have preyed upon each other since the beginning of time. The weapons are the only thing that have changed. People are just as savage, stupid, and brutal today as in any time in our history. My guns allow me to protect myself better than I could with a fist, stick, or rock, and when it comes to proteting my family I will not limit my options to satisfy someone that believes differently. - Reply to this comment
-
- by OregonJames August 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
People are just as savage, stupid, and brutal today as in any time in our history.
--------------------------------
...... and you think that's a reason to continue in the same way?
- by OregonJames August 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
People have preyed upon each other since the beginning of time. The weapons are the only thing that have changed. People are just as savage, stupid, and brutal today as in any time in our history. My guns allow me to protect myself better than I could with a fist, stick, or rock, and when it comes to proteting my family I will not limit my options to satisfy someone that believes differently.
--------------------
Will you say the same if you accidentally leave a gun unsecured for a few moments and your child dies, or it's stolen and is used commit a robbery in which a cop dies?
Answer this question - Which is more likely, that your gun will be used to prevent a crime or that it will be used to commit a crime?
- by OregonJames August 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
- Where I live people with permits are allowed to carry firearms, and murder rates have fallen. Besides, protecting yourself is not a right given by government, but one bestowed upon you at birth. Protecting yourself, your family, and your community is not just a right, but the responsibility of every man, woman, and child. Protecting yourself from criminals is making the whole world a safer place.
- Reply to this comment
- It is also foolish to fight passed wars agin when it is so easy to find fault in what others did decades ago. Looking back into the past century we can find unimaginable horrors, hatred, discrimination, euginics, and all the same horrors of the modern world. We proclaim greatness, yet we still live in a world where the strong prey upon the weak while most simply turn their heads without compassion or consideration, silently thankful that they were not the victim.
- Reply to this comment
-
- ........... and by what means do the strong prey upon the weak? By force of arms, which YOU espouse!
- nower4 - If the weak (skinnies) were wise enough to not pester the strong, then the weak would be left alone.
Do you go around kicking pit bulls ? Try it. See what happens.
- "No, because I'm not cruel to dogs. -hower
So let me spell it out for you. Pirates are like people that kick dogs and expect to not get bit. The US is somewhta like a Pit Bull. If you are stupid enough to kick it, don't look for sympathy.
If you give sympathy under such circumstances, you are as stupid as the person that kicks the dog, AND as cruel.
But, you'd rather bad mouth the US and side with those poor ill treated pirates. That would be why you are the fool, and I am correct.
Next idiot please.
- by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
The US is somewhta like a Pit Bull.
-------------------------
Correct. Violent and stupid!
- so fine, but WE CAN NOT use DISPROPOrtionate UsE OF FORCE.
no heavy weapons, or cannons, or machine guns, for us, or radar. It would not be fair. - Reply to this comment
- It is shocking to me that so many people believe that protecting yourself is such an outrageous act. I cheer those that are willing to arm themselves to protect their right to safe passage wherever they go and to protect their ships and cargo from thieves and murderers. Turning the other cheek only gets the other side of your face slapped. It does not protect your life, freedom, family, or property. I have owned and carried firearms my entire adult life and I believe the world has been a safer place because of it. The ship owners should do the same. They should be well armed and willing to fight, just as we all should. To expect law enforcement or the military to protect us from crime is simply foolish. We must take responsibility for ourselves just as our ancestors have done since the beginning on mankind.
- Reply to this comment
-
- by OregonJames August 14, 2009 12:47 PM EDT
I have owned and carried firearms my entire adult life and I believe the world has been a safer place because of it.
-------------------------
Are you kidding? Why is the murder rate in countries that permit carrying firearms higher than in countries that do not?
By the way, I'll ignore your reference to "the world", because I presume you actually mean "your little world"!
- by OregonJames August 14, 2009 12:47 PM EDT
- Oh my, oh my don't resist; get raped, mugged and murdered but don't resist you may make the criminals of this world resort to violence!
- Reply to this comment
- Any vessel under a US Flag should have the option of requesting, and then making compensation for, a squad of US Marines to protect the vessel, crew and cargo when at sea.
Ship lines would have the option of applying for the protection, and the responsibility to reimburse the Maine Corp the expense of the squad.
Highly trained professional, understanding the need for their duty, would give the Merchant Marines the protection that is needed to ensure the safe delivery of cargo, the protection of the crewman and their lives, as well as the preservation of the vessel from seizure on the open seas.
As for the pirates, the old theory applies - kill 'em all, let their god sort them out. - Reply to this comment
- love the idea!
- Reply to this comment
- by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
Hower4, speaking of morons opening mouths without thinking, will you tell me of the wars or attacks on nations that ever, in the history of the world, was not a case of the attacking nation acting "purely in their own interest"? In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon, what a maroon." :)
---------------------
Exactly! The key is "defending" not "attacking". Britain declared war on Germany to DEFEND against German aggression in Europe. Of course it was to defend Britain itself, but also defend Poland, France, etc. So why did the USA attack Iraq? What threat was there to the USA?
If you have the integrity to continue this and answer that question then you will eat your words. - Reply to this comment
-
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
Hower4, speaking of morons opening mouths without thinking, will you tell me of the wars or attacks on nations that ever, in the history of the world, was not a case of the attacking nation acting "purely in their own interest"? In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon, what a maroon." :)
---------------------
Exactly! The key is "defending" not "attacking". Britain declared war on Germany to DEFEND against German aggression in Europe. Of course it was to defend Britain itself, but also defend Poland, France, etc. So why did the USA attack Iraq? What threat was there to the USA?
If you have the integrity to continue this and answer that question then you will eat your words
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last commdnt, then I really gotta get to work. England declared war on Germany when it finally became clear that her policy of appeasement would eventually result in the economic, military, & political domination of Europe by the Germans under Hitler. England was acting explicitly "in their own self interest" when she declared war on Germany. As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ. Make no mistake. The USA as well as Europe has/have/had financial/economic interests in the middle east. And as sad a comment as it is on the world as we know it, financial and economic interests have caused most, if not all, of the wars to date. By the way, why will answering the question cause me to "eat your words"? Bye now, gone to work. Will check for your reply when I get home.
- by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
Last commdnt, then I really gotta get to work. England declared war on Germany when it finally became clear that her policy of appeasement would eventually result in the economic, military, & political domination of Europe by the Germans under Hitler. England was acting explicitly "in their own self interest" when she declared war on Germany. As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ. Make no mistake. The USA as well as Europe has/have/had financial/economic interests in the middle east. And as sad a comment as it is on the world as we know it, financial and economic interests have caused most, if not all, of the wars to date. By the way, why will answering the question cause me to "eat your words"? Bye now, gone to work. Will check for your reply when I get home.
-----------------------------------
Americans always like to call it appeasement. Unlike Americans, civilised people want to avoid war until is completely unavoidable. If America was so morally opposed to 'appeasing' Germany, why didn't it declare war on Germany BEFORE Britain did? No Americans EVER answer that!
You say "As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ." Pray tell..... what were the real threats?
You're probably right that you won't eat your words, you'll just change the subject or not answer at all.
- I'll take a stab at this one. We Americans call it "Appeasment" because your Government signed a treaty that basically said "Ok, you can take that country and we won't say anything." That's appeasment. We practiced Isolationism, which meant "It's not OUR problem."
However, even before we declared war on Japan (and consequently Germany and Italy as well), we were helping your country fight. How? By supplying weapons to your country. So, if you want to get into a philisophical debate about it, we did help you liberate Western Europe--even before we got into the war.
As for Iraq, while this second war was motivated by one man's personal revenge, in one respect it was a continuation of the first war there. Which by the way was intended to defend a soverign nation (Kuwait) from aggression (much like Europe in World War I and II). IMHO, they shouldn't have let Sadaam stay in power after February, 1991. By doing so, it only pushed things to this point.
Between 1991 and 2003, how many times did the UN pass resolutions against Iraq, which threatened it with military action? And how many times did Sadaam basically stick his middle finger up at us (or two fingers for the Brits ;-)) and say "Come get me" only to back off when it looked like the UN would finally uphold those resolutions?
How much longer should he have been allowed to provoke things before the UN actually took a stand against him?
Have a great day:)
Patrick.
- by AlwaysSmiling August 14, 2009 1:48 PM EDT
I'll take a stab at this one. We Americans call it "Appeasment" because your Government signed a treaty that basically said "Ok, you can take that country and we won't say anything." That's appeasment. We practiced Isolationism, which meant "It's not OUR problem."
----------------------------
You didn't answer the basic question though, did you? Why didn't you declare war on Germany when this supposed "appeasement" took place? Then later, why didn't you declare war on Germany when Britain did? The truth is that you NEVER declared war on Germany, and only on Japan after THEY attacked YOU!
As for your 'help' before you joined in the war, you charged every penny for it! Did you know that is was only two or three years ago that the UK finally finished paying for it?
As for your cr@p about Iraq, isn't it true that Saddam actually WAS conforming to the UN resolutions, but Bush and Blair (for their own reasons) preferred not to accept that? If that's not true, tell me where were the weapons of mass destruction?
- "So why did the USA attack Iraq? What threat was there to the USA? - hower4
So hower4 - if you can't see that the US was fooled by Iraq in that they refused to abide by UN requests to allow investigations at will, because Saddam was afraid Iran would attack him if they knew he didn't have WMD - then I won't be able to convince you of the urgency to FORCE him to respond. We believed that he was creating WDMs. WMDs don't give you the luxury of second guessing; and, as he HAD used them in the past on his own people, and Saddam wanted to be known as the leader of the Islamic world (by any means possible); and, he was NOT following the tenants of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war - we (those of us that aren't politically motivated) felt compelled to act.
You, with your hindsight, are taking the typical self-righteous liberal attitude. As for me, I don't grieve for dictators.
But be that as it may - you have strayed from your original statement that we Yanks are trigger happy.
If THAT is trigger happy - then so be it. If countries take over places like Kuwait under BS reasoning, treating the citizens to murders and rape; and, wage war on their neighbors like Iran, well you had better watch out for the US. Because our tolerance for oppression is VERY limited.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Mark my words - EVERY ONE OF YOU liberal idiots will evaporate should some country like Iran give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization. Just like they did in WWII.
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
- by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:37 AM EDT
I see you have already forgotten the falkland islands thing. :)
-------------------------
Please explain........ I thought one of the few postive aspects of that war was that there was NO indiscriminate bombing and NO civilian casualties, even though it probably cost more British soldiers lives. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Reply to this comment
-
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:37 AM EDT
I see you have already forgotten the falkland islands thing. :)
-------------------------
Please explain........ I thought one of the few postive aspects of that war was that there was NO indiscriminate bombing and NO civilian casualties, even though it probably cost more British soldiers lives. Correct me if I'm wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, as far as I know, there were no civilian casualties. But that was not the context. What a slippery, wiley, almost diplomatic response to the comment. So, tell me, when England & Argentina went at in the South Atlantic, England wasn't acting "purely in their own self interest"? H-m-m-m?
- Britain was defending British people and land. It certainly wasn't about commercial interests, because the Falklands cost far more to Britain than they make.
It's perhaps a valid argument that the Falklands shouldn't be British, but the fact is that they were and so had to be defended against aggression. This is all about principles and morals, which Americans seem to have severe problems understanding.
- But the Argentinians still didn't get justice! Brit colonialism strong at work, desperately holding onto the pathetic few of the places they stole during the last century.
Brits out of the Western Hemisphere. Keep the Europeans in Europe!
- hower4 - yup - that would be one of the things we'd like to do - but frankly, sometimes the enemy doesn't cooperate. Most of the current enemy the US is fighting doesn't bother to wear a uniform. Furthermore they like to hide among the population, and kill the population (see article about 2 suicide bombers in Iran).
This would be something against our principles or morals. So since you brought this up (P&M) - what don't you understand about us wanting to erradicate Al Qaeda ? (An organization that kiled 3000 in the twin towers.)
Or don't we have that right to kill those that would indescriminatly kill 3000 people in the US ?
BTW, how do you defend the Bombing of Dresden during WWII since you claim this morale high road for the British ?
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
- What is all the discussion about? Pirates are a sub-human infestation on the earth and need to be eradicated as such. They don't deserve any human rights or privelages. They need to be shot in the waters they are in and let the sharks eat them. That's the only purpose they could serve. My god people!! Kill them all. Period!
- Reply to this comment
- Why is CBS posting everything twice when you answer a comment?
Eh, censors? - Reply to this comment
-
- They started doing that several days ago....so your "reply to comment" also appeared as a regular comment at the bottom, since going back may have been cumbersome for some.
They started doing that several days ago....so your "reply to comment" also appeared as a regular comment at the bottom, since going back may have been cumbersome for some.
- They started doing that several days ago....so your "reply to comment" also appeared as a regular comment at the bottom, since going back may have been cumbersome for some.
- OK everybody, time for a little dose of reality. Asking merchant mariners to behave like minutemen is a little unrealistic. The reason? Modern weaponry, even something as "simple" as a law or an rpg require training in the use & drill to make the use effective. This requires classroom training (covering preparation for use, maintenance, and safety issues (the back blast from a law or any other tube launched weapon is definitely a safety issue :)) followed by "live fire" exercises to acquaint the operator with the weapons' actual (as opposed to imagined) characterists. Merchant mariners simply don't have the time for onboard training & drill. Most companies wouldn't be willing to pay for either the classroom training or for the ordnance expended. Next is the liability issue. Mistakes happen. Even with well trained & highly disciplined military units. One has to look no further back in history than 1988 and the USS Vincennes to understand that. Bottom line, if you are not going to "get to the root of the problem" and eliminate the pirates at their home base then some other option besides arming merchant marine crews will have to be developed. Arming merchant mariners & then expecting them to do a "Rambo" number on the pirates just ain't gonna work.
- Reply to this comment
-
- "Most companies wouldn't be willing to pay for either the classroom training or for the ordnance expended. "
There you go!
So let them pay ransom instead. Aristotle Onassis is rich enough.
- They don't seem to like paying for the extra insurance and ransom either. I don't think tube launched weapons are the way to go, probably difficult to score a hit from one moving boat to another.
Give them decent machine guns and be done with it. The pirates are high on dope kids, not trained and dedicated army. They don't stand up to incoming fire.
- nojoy01, I can personally attest that learning to shoot a crew served 50 caliber machine gun CAN be done inside of an hour. Including the maintenance of the weapon. I accurately fired one within the first 50 rounds hitting a refrigerator at 1000 yards causing it to roll down the firing range at Ft Lewis.
The ships are floating on the perfect shooting gallery. Just drop an empty, clean 55 gallon drum over the side and spend a couple of hundred dollars every trip on munitions.
The weapons can be on loan from the national guard. The maximum effective range is over a mile, which far exceeds most weapons the skinnies could deploy on smaller boats. The ship would provide a much more stable platform than a small boat for the purposes of accurate fire; not to mention a better defensive platform.
As for the liability issue, it is somewhat questionable that would be a problem. Changing from a collision course 5 times would establish their intent of boarding way beyond the shadow of a doubt. Firing warning rounds would definitly establish the intent of the "fishing" boat if it stuck around.
Total cost would be MUCH cheaper than stationing the current resources, and I can promise the results would be VERY discouraging for any pirate.
- "Most companies wouldn't be willing to pay for either the classroom training or for the ordnance expended. "
- Good place for Prince's Xe stormtroopers (formerly BlackWater).
That way it would be basically criminals fighting criminals.
But Xe would probably steal half the cargo and blackmarket it. - Reply to this comment
- Once again it seems like the world has more concern for the pirate-terrorists than legal merchant ships and their crews. The easiest way to put a big dent in these attacks is a single bombing run over each of the Solomian ports. For extra measure level all of the warlord homes and training complexes. Next authorize private security on all US Merchant ships to protect the ships and crew. This utilization of private security is actually better on these ships than in Iraq. The bottom line is to destroy both the ships the pirates are on and the pirates themselves. They offer nothing to world society and everyone would be better off without them. Sooner or later we have to grow a backbone!
- Reply to this comment
-
- Weren't you just whining that the US didn't enter WW2 quick enough for you?
If we had, no doubt you'd have been online with your lickspittle attitude, if you had been around in those days.
Get your whine straight, Brit!
- Yes exactly! Do you know the quote from Winston Churchill?:
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Hopefully in the next hundred years or so you might start to learn who to attack and who not to. Unfortunately you haven't yet realised that the idea is not to attack countries purely in your own interests..........
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 8:38 AM EDT
Is ANY problem to which the American solution isn't bombing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, no. You see, bombing people, places, & things is one of the things that we do best. And bombing has the advantage of a quick solution to whatever problem that has projected itself upon our notoriously short attention span. And any problems that arise from the use of bombs to solve the original problem can themselves be solved with---wait for it----more bombs! Geez, I hope this has fulfilled my minimum daily requirement for sarcasm. Hower4, do you enjoy sterotyping whether it be people, races, or nations?
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
Yes exactly! Do you know the quote from Winston Churchill?:
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Hopefully in the next hundred years or so you might start to learn who to attack and who not to. Unfortunately you haven't yet realised that the idea is not to attack countries purely in your own interests..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you have already forgotten the falkland islands thing. :)
- by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:34 AM EDT
Actually, no. You see, bombing people, places, & things is one of the things that we do best. ......... Hower4, do you enjoy sterotyping whether it be people, races, or nations?
--------------------------
If the cap fits.................
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
Yes exactly! Do you know the quote from Winston Churchill?:
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Hopefully in the next hundred years or so you might start to learn who to attack and who not to. Unfortunately you haven't yet realised that the idea is not to attack countries purely in your own interests..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hower4, speaking of morons opening mouths without thinking, will you tell me of the wars or attacks on nations that ever, in the history of the world, was not a case of the attacking nation acting "purely in their own interest"? In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon, what a maroon." :)
- by hower4 August 14, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:34 AM EDT
Actually, no. You see, bombing people, places, & things is one of the things that we do best. ......... Hower4, do you enjoy sterotyping whether it be people, races, or nations?
--------------------------
If the cap fits.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, then you do enjoy sterotyping people, races, or nations.
- Weren't you just whining that the US didn't enter WW2 quick enough for you?
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
