Pissed-off pirates
 

The entire news article can be read here...

Somali pirates vow to kill American sailors

So, what do you think is going to come out of all this?

Did the U.S. Navy do the right thing, killing those pirates who took the American captain, Richard Phillips, hostage?

Is this the beginning of rampant pirate brutality and bloodshed, on the modern-day high seas?

Should the U.S. and other nations form a coalition and wage open war on these pirates? Or can this pirate problem somehow be handled peacefully if not diplomatically?

What do you think about how the Obama administration is handling this problem, so far? How do you think the Bush administration would've handled it?

seems to me that those pirates tried to bluff the navy and they got called on it. If they want to raise the stakes and threaten to just outright kill americans, I see no reason why we shouldn't pre-emptively strike them.

How do we know? All we know is what the Navy is telling us. "they pointed a gun at the Captain." OK. If that's true, then yes, they did the right thing. If that's not true, then they should have shown some restraint.

possibly, but it's time for the shippers to wise up. Some already have, by employing private security firms to guard their ships. So far, however, most of them have as their best anti-piracy weapon a fire hose. Either pay the Navy (or someone else) to escort them through those waters, or arm the ships.


No. We're stretched thin enough as it is.

Probably. These people didn't wake up one day and daydream about being a pirate. They have no money, they're desperate, and there's lots of cash to be made by pirating. Maybe if we weren't already screwing around with Somalia , Somalia would be more stable and have a populace that's more able to sustain itself without resorting to crime.

Again, we do not have all the facts. I think Bush would have done pretty much the same as Obama has done, but with a lot more posturing and "don't mess with Texas" grandstanding bullshit.

Whoa, I'm having flashbacks to the Barbary Coast.

Deja Vu

from the halls of montezuma...

That's what I don't understand. These pirates have been a problem for quite some time. It seems that with just a couple of relatively cheap 20mm autocannons on each ship, they can deal with the majority of pirates. What are the pirates armed with? Machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, which really don't do much damage against a large merchant ship. (That is, unless those weapons are able to be fired with impunity upon the ship.) But a 20mm autocannon has a longer range than a machinegun or an RPG, and its HE shells will shred the types of speed boats that the pirates mostly use.

Heck, even a few .50 cal. machineguns mounted on the ship may do the trick. They won't have a superior range to what the pirates are armed with, but they will still do far more damage to the pirate boats, compared to what the pirates can do to the ship. Furthermore, the ship's machineguns will be firing from a height avantage that the pirate won't have.

Sure, it will be somewhat expensive, arming each ship with that (or similarly capable) equipment and providing the trained personnel to use it. But consider the mounting facts...

Or are they going to wait for the pirates now to capture a ship with an American crew and slaughter all on-board?

I don't think it will be much longer before the ships start carrying weapons.. I don't know the legal issues with that but I'm sure they are going to start protecting themselves while these pirates continue to roam freely.

Dude, you're not inhaling all the way. Take a toke of this, and pass it around:

William Bainbridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's who the ship is named for. Strange coincidence, eh?

Yeah, I hear ya.

My inner Ronald Reagan would probably Navy SEAL the hell outta those turdlets. I want skullpoles on the decks of US merchant vessels and I want the stars and stripes to scare the shit out of people. We're the most powerful nation on the planet (or so we often suggest) and yet some two-bit jerkoffs with a third grade education and a couple of AK47s think they can harass our civvie shipping? Pfft. We've failed because they even contemplated it.

...

Security on merchant vessels is a joke at best, but it was also a reflection of the perceived threat at the time. Now that the threat level has been increased due to a h'yoog incident, I predict that black-stripe-over-the-eyes types will be commissioned to protect such ships. E-Xe come, E-Xe go. (rimshot).

In days of yore, it wasn't uncommon for merchant vessels to arm themselves against pirates. This company in the UK offers a specialized net for use by vessels at risk of piracy: http://www.apmss.co.uk/ There are many similar anti-piracy security companies springing up; so far they're mostly focusing on non-lethal means of stopping the pirates, but I'm not sure it will remain as such forever, and indeed, many companies offer armed security solutions.

The amount of piracy in the Gulf of Aden is a major issue, but it's not the only hotspot for pirates. Take a look at this map: Piracy Map 2008 and you can see the other parts of the world with piracy problems, like the Straits of Malacca.

I think the right thing was done in this case, but we're only treating the symptoms of the real problem--unrest in Somalia. I'm not sure we'll have a solution for that in the near future.

Avast, ye scurvy naves, perhaps this be less of a military issue and more the result of an economic and humanitarian disaster. We've made our dead-man's chest with this one and now we're surprised to be lying in it? Come, matey, the solution to Somalian piracy is to actually deal with Somalia. She was once a fine state, but she's no longer sea-worthy. It may be time to place the black spot and admit she's a failed state. Thar be solutions to this, though, and none of them be counter-swashbuckling.

I think I liked it better when you were pretending to be a ninja and didn't say anything at all. ;)

That's really the issue here. Somalia, for all intents and purposes, is completely lawless. There is neither central nor regional government. Warlords rule by might. Somalia's been a failed state for two generations - I don't think that there are many that will argue otherwise. Mogadishu is THE most dangerous place on earth, bar none.

I disagree, though, that there are solutions. The solutions for the piracy are simple - make it less attractive to the would-be pirates. They've been operating with impunity for the last few years with big payouts and little chance of reprisals. The insurance companies have been paying the ransoms when they have to - and as they are obligated to. The threat of death or prison will be taken seriously by these folks, I think. They will rattle sabers a bit then fade away as they figure out that a small open boat is NOT the place to be when facing an armed helicopter, drone or destroyer. I don't disagree with the tactics here - it is proven, after all, in the Caribbean, South China Sea and off the coast of Europe.

But so long as there are no opportunities and only death to face, piracy will continue to lure many Somalians who have no other good choices. And THAT is what needs fixing on shore.

Rather than all this talk about pre-emptive strikes (which is impossible, because you cant tell who the pirates are until they attack) we might be better served by actually helping Somalia build some kind of state and government.

Yeah, pfft. Seriously, who has intelligence agencies that can read a license plate from space? Hah.

...

I suppose the US should lead the way in rebuilding the planet. Don't trip over the homeless vets on your way to Capitol.

Yeah... I don't understand why people don't get this. These people have resorted to piracy as a result of their economic conditions. It's not, like, what they wanted to be when they grew up.

...is this the same reason why I should take pity upon consignment level inner city drug dealers?

Oh, there are numerous threads about ninjas, you just can't see them. :expressionless:
That's me point, Jack. The solution to swashbuckling on the high seas be concentrating on supporting economic stability and peace in Somalia. The Islamic Courts Union in 2006 basically halted piracy (until the US jumped the shark). I can't imagine that solution be useless now.

At the end of the day helping Somalia is the cheapest, safest, and sanest way to deal with these problems... unless the American Nany and Armed forces wants to commit 50,000 people to trying to police a lawless state for the next 10 years.

The NATO forces do not have the man power to take on the Afghan warlords, so I dont see that trying to do it in Somalia also is a great idea. Perhaps if we stopped Ethiopia kicking their arse all the time, and tried to give some practical existence to the state, we would all benefit and Somalia would be able to deal with the warlords and pirates themselves. And seeing a gunboat from space is lovely, but having the coverage to get them anywhere with in 1000 miles by 1000 miles before they have struck and retreated isnt so easy.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Yeah - the Islamic courts did bring some stability, and also some problems. At the end of the day the West just sat back and let Ethiopia beat the shit out of them. Now we're reaping what we sowed. Ethiopia doesnt care, there freighters arent getting hijacked every other day.

I like the idea of arming boats but unfortunately these boats would then be unable to enter most ports due to legal issues.

I like the idea of Lucifer (the TFP member, not the fallen angel) packing heat whilst sailing the savage seas.

I think they showed admirable restraint by attempting to negotiate at all.

Regardless of whether the pirates were "pointing a gun" at the Cpt. They had already attempted to seize a ship and abduct the crew, were armed, and were holding a hostage. They forfeited their lives several times over.

Those soldiers who took the shots should have done so (and probably did) at the first opportunity to end the situation and guarantee the Cpt's survival. Whether a few fellow pirates have the poopy face about the result is of no concern to me at all...except in predicting how heavy-handed to be in the future.


The message is clear: If you want to be a pirate, don't mess with American flagged ships, because our Military will respond, and the life of a US citizen is worth more than any number of pathetic, pirate scum.

I have a solution for this...


...





...









...









http://blog.globalgiving.com/wp-cont...8/02/ninja.jpg

It was obvious to me.

Pfft, those are pussy ninjas.

Stand by for good ninja pictures.

I agree with the Navy action against the pirates. And I thought there was a coalition of countries from France, Russia, and the US. I am surprised that the pirates can even get close to a ship when you have that many military vessels in the area.

Then again, I go to a site called the pirate bay, but nobody is getting hurt if I download The Pirates of the Caribbean.

There needs to be a UN agreed upon direction for Africa. There are more things wrong with the middle of that continent than here in the US. But, until that time, I have no problem with the Navy sending torpedoes into the pirate ships.

The sea is a very, very big place, and even the largest ships are very small things by comparison.

Well, yeah! Obviously something needs to be done about their behavior, but treating them like stand-alone thugs without dealing with the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to thuggish behavior as a favorable survival strategy is just stupid, and only results in MORE THUGS.

Oh, come now. You seriously didn't want to be a pirate when you grew up?:confused:

I concur... but only as long as we're fixing socioeconomic problems in our own country. Outside our country? We have more direct techniques for those heathens. This We-Are-The-World shit is bankrupting our bleeding heart yet every-rich-white-man-for-himself country. Foreign aid should be domestic aid.

Yada-yada...

*talks more and thus loses all credibility as per usual Crompsin-in-thread activity*

I'm of the opinion that bloodshed should always be avoided if possible.

It seems like the American Way when it comes to these sorts of issues is just to hit them with a big stick. If it doesn't work, you go for an even bigger one instead of maybe questioning why it didn't work and if a stick is the right answer.

Proper defensive measures are clearly necessary, but addressing the symptoms doesn't fix the problem.

I like your symptoms metaphor thingie. I totally agree that such macro level world problems can't be solved by playing Whack-A-Pirate with a sniper rifle. Shooting people is never the Big Picture answer. It is a response, reaction, something done when all other options have been exhausted.

Symptoms... and somehow the US needs to be the doctor to the world? Why is that? The rest of the world doesn't like us all that much.

It's not just the US. We're all us rich bastards obligated to help out the less fortunate. It's not even necessarily altruism. If proper aid had been delivered in Somalia to begin with, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't think expecting the US to make the first move is unreasonable, though. The way I see it, you guys put yourself in that position. You keep going on about how you're the leaders of the free world. Okay, fine. Act like it.

EDIT - It had occurred to me as well and I had intended to point out that arming civilian cargo carriers could complicate docking in foreign ports.

I suppose I have a more French perspective: I understand the dynamic, but I don't believe in saving the world.

Didn't the U.S. try to give aid to Somalia? Then the Warlords prevented aid delivery--prompting the event which gave rise to the popular black hawk down film? (I'm a little hazy here, but am curious.)

Either way, I think it's idiotic for Somali pirates to (a) be pirates, in the sense that they use forcible means to hijack ships and (b) start acting bellicose when their forcible means lead to dead pirates.

This leads to an important question: how is the west supposed to 'fix' Somalia when the warlords will actively and violently seek to maintain their power? If anyone knows how to do this without some sort of invasion, I'd like to hear it.

In regards to fighting pirates at sea, I've heard tell of large ships that can carry flying machines. These "aircraft" can go high, so as to see far, and they move pretty quickly, faster than the fastest boats. Some of them even carry weapons. This just might be the key to responding fast enough to stop pirates before they're able to board ships.

I think it is too convenient, and historically inaccurate, for Westerners to have this "oh, we tried to help, they wouldn't take it" attitude while ignoring that whatever "aid" has been given to Africa and African nations, it is really nothing when compared to the colonial legacy of the European powers and the contemporary exploitation of natural resources by the West.

I mean, troubles in Somalia started when the British started giving away their land to neighboring nations as parts of deals signed by the British, not the Somalis.

In fact, every current civil war in Africa can be traced to either colonial rule or current international trade.

Things tend to get messy when you give small radical groups tons of money and weaponry in exchange for diamonds, timber, or what have you. Or when you prop up a ruthless dictators, given him tons of credit, and then demand repayment even after the dictator is gone.

The West in general, including the US, would need to "fix" a lot less if it didn't break so much in the first place.

Um. How 'bout "You break it, you buy it"?

We've stood by and watched most of Africa wallow for the last decade or so. You have any idea how cheap it would be to get some of those countries stable, and the difference that would make for OUR national security?

But nah, let's putz around in Afghanistan for another five years.

Um, where is it, in what you said, where we broke it? I'll agree that it's a crime to stand by and watch something fall into dire straights, especially when you can (relatively) easily intervene and help. But it's the abject poverty and the backward culture and the brutal hostility in Africa, that broke Africa.

Except your wallet when the MPAA sues the fuck out of you. Public torrent trackers aren't safe.
Africa is full of failed states still suffering from the setbacks caused by European colonialism. We did our stupid shit there, but to say that it's the US' fault is going too far. I only studied Africa for a few semesters, but I can't see stabilizing countries as a cheap or quick task. We're talking about modernization processes that took more developed parts of the world hundreds of years to achieve. Lastly, if we leave Afghanistan now, it's going to go back to tribal warlord rule, and that's no good for regional or global stability.

Precisely.

My opinions on the matter are entirely straightforward:

Diplomacy should not be wasted on sea-faring gangs of nasty skuzz. Either avoid the areas completely, cutting off trade to the regions that they block, or destroy them.