• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia

MrVicchio said:
Based on what?

I'm basing my outlook on Obama's actions to this point, you are basing yours on faith.

I just don't see Obama letting himself be cornered by a massacre (which is what it would be if the Navy used force to stop the pirates, they cannot withstand our military) and thus the bloodless way out is "negotiations".
Click to expand...


Nobody with any real legitimacy will call the Navy knocking 4 Pirates a "massacre". That is an absurd statement. Piracy is an international problem.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Nobody with any real legitimacy will call the Navy knocking 4 Pirates a "massacre". That is an absurd statement. Piracy is an international problem.
Click to expand...

True, it is an international problem. It took a crew of 20 unarmed Americans to turn the tables on the pirates. Its the way were raised. Unlike the wussified appeasers who coward and trembled in fear before the pirates in other hijackings.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Nobody with any real legitimacy will call the Navy knocking 4 Pirates a "massacre". That is an absurd statement. Piracy is an international problem.
Click to expand...

You should really keep up, the Pirates are sending ships in to "rescue" their friends and bring the Capt. to a safer location from which to negotiate.


This leaves two options:

Armed response (which would kill more then four people)

Or

Let them go and negotiate later.

I'm betting Obama takes the negotiation route.
 
Why are the mainstream media and the Community Organization of the United States calling these terrorists pirates?

Do they launch the Skull and Crossbones flag before attacking civilian ships using the tools of terrorists? They are armed with AK-47s and RPGs, the same armaments of terrorists. They terrorize shipping and take civilians hostage just like terrorists.

Lets face it folks, this is another Librul Community Organization of the United States attempt to avoid the REALITY which is that these Somali's are committing acts of terrorism and war which is ignored by the Somali Government and are indeed TERRORISTS from a rogue Somali regime; nothing more, and nothing less.

I feel so much safer now that we are the Community Organization of the United States who is now more willing to listen, talk and avoid armed confrontation. I am sure now that we have become kinder and gentler and admitted our former arrogance and renounced our Christian heritage, the despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists of the world will now stop the violence and despicable human rights record and lay down their arms.
 
MrVicchio said:
You should really keep up, the Pirates are sending ships in to "rescue" their friends and bring the Capt. to a safer location from which to negotiate.


This leaves two options:

Armed response (which would kill more then four people)

Or

Let them go and negotiate later.

I'm betting Obama takes the negotiation route.
Click to expand...

I agree, he dosn't have the balls that the 20 crew members of the Alabama had. He will negotiate and pay the ransom which will ensure continued hijacking of American ships.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Do you have a problem with this? There is a major international event unfolding and he remains silent? Personally, when every story and all the talk is about the pirates and the brave American captain who traded himself for the crew, one would think President Obama would at least address this international issue.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, I don't have a problem with it...that would imply that I was surprised by his indecisiveness.

When the shooting between Russians and Georgians in South Ossetia broke out while Dear Leader was a candidate, he had nothing to say until he started feeling the heat from McCain's definitive response on the matter. Then he merely paraphrased McCain. (The foreign policy statement of Dear Leader: "yeah, what he said.")

When Hurricane Ike knocked out nearly every power line in Harris County, Texas, he had nothing to say.

Even his "monumental" speech on race, "a more perfect Union", is an extended exercise in content-free oration, and it came only after he was cornered on his refusal to reject and rebuke the racist Reverend Wright.

When the AIG bonus embroglio erupted, all he could say was "I'm angry".

When presented with alternatives and options to huge deficit spending, all he could say was "I won."

I don't have a problem with this because I defy anyone to show where Dear Leader has ever had anything to say. When you screen out the platitudes and mellifluous cadences from his speaking, there's never anything left.

I don't have a problem with this because Dear Leader has never had anything substantive to say about anything. Why would I expect him to have something to say now?

(Obviously, I do have a problem with Dear Leader fouling up the Oval Office, but that is an error of democracy that will almost certainly be rectified come 2012, assuming he is not impeached before then)
 
SgtRock said:
I agree, he dosn't have the balls that the 20 crew members of the Alabama had. He will negotiate and pay the ransom which will ensure continued hijacking of American ships.
Click to expand...

That's the only way out of this I see happening. Sad really, but what else can we expect?

The Capt. tried to swim away, obviously the ship was close enough he thought he could pull it off, and the moment he hit the water there should have been bullets flying at that dingy. I'm betting they have "shoot back only" ROE in effect.

If this man is taken to the mainland, the ONLY way to get him back sans boots on the ground will be $$ paid. And that's where this is headed.
 
celticlord said:
Actually, no, I don't have a problem with it...that would imply that I was surprised by his indecisiveness.

When the shooting between Russians and Georgians in South Ossetia broke out while Dear Leader was a candidate, he had nothing to say until he started feeling the heat from McCain's definitive response on the matter. Then he merely paraphrased McCain. (The foreign policy statement of Dear Leader: "yeah, what he said.")

When Hurricane Ike knocked out nearly every power line in Harris County, Texas, he had nothing to say.

Even his "monumental" speech on race, "a more perfect Union", is an extended exercise in content-free oration, and it came only after he was cornered on his refusal to reject and rebuke the racist Reverend Wright.

When the AIG bonus embroglio erupted, all he could say was "I'm angry".

When presented with alternatives and options to huge deficit spending, all he could say was "I won."

I don't have a problem with this because I defy anyone to show where Dear Leader has ever had anything to say. When you screen out the platitudes and mellifluous cadences from his speaking, there's never anything left.

I don't have a problem with this because Dear Leader has never had anything substantive to say about anything. Why would I expect him to have something to say now?

(Obviously, I do have a problem with Dear Leader fouling up the Oval Office, but that is an error of democracy that will almost certainly be rectified come 2012, assuming he is not impeached before then)
Click to expand...

:applaud Bravo, this pretty much hits the nail on the head with the Community Organizer and his desire to turn us into the Community Organization of the United States.

:rofl
 
SgtRock said:
I agree, he dosn't have the balls that the 20 crew members of the Alabama had. He will negotiate and pay the ransom which will ensure continued hijacking of American ships.
Click to expand...
By all means he should negotiate.

The negotiation should be something like this:

Option 1 - Don't release the hostage, in which case you'll be taken by force and hanged slowly.

Option 2 - Release the hostage and surrender, in which case you'll be quickly and mercifully shot in the back of the head.

Option 3 - Release the hostage and don't surrender, in which case you'll be shredded by the USS Bainbridge and her 5"/54 guns.
 
MrVicchio said:
That's the only way out of this I see happening. Sad really, but what else can we expect?

The Capt. tried to swim away, obviously the ship was close enough he thought he could pull it off, and the moment he hit the water there should have been bullets flying at that dingy. I'm betting they have "shoot back only" ROE in effect.

If this man is taken to the mainland, the ONLY way to get him back sans boots on the ground will be $$ paid. And that's where this is headed.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the Capt. jumped off the lifeboat at midnight and the naval ship was a couple of hundred yards away, out of gun range of the pirates. I'm sure they did not fire because they couldn't see that well and were afraid of hitting the Capt. It probably happened pretty fast too.

As far as Obama, he was too busy to worry about pirates. He was having a picnic with Hillary. :mrgreen:

clintonandobama3_0.JPG
 
Meanwhile, our Secretary of State finds time to giggle about the situation.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii_c3B5AasI"]YouTube - Clinton: Piracy Is Funny -- Somalia Pirates Hold U.S. Captain[/ame]
 
celticlord said:
By all means he should negotiate.

The negotiation should be something like this:

Option 1 - Don't release the hostage, in which case you'll be taken by force and hanged slowly.

Option 2 - Release the hostage and surrender, in which case you'll be quickly and mercifully shot in the back of the head.

Option 3 - Release the hostage and don't surrender, in which case you'll be shredded by the USS Bainbridge and her 5"/54 guns.
Click to expand...

This would be perfect; unfortunately, as the Community Organization of the United States, we will now listen to the terrorists issues and talk to them and let them know that we understand their grievances and will fund their agenda so that they may live in peaceful coexistence with the world.
 
MrVicchio;1057987136]Based on what?

I'm basing my outlook on Obama's actions to this point, you are basing yours on faith.
Click to expand...

You’re basing yours on Obamas action so far? Which is? He has, as the original post says been pretty mum on what action he endorsees, the only administration figure I have seen talking about it was Hillary.

I just don't see Obama letting himself be cornered by a massacre (which is what it would be if the Navy used force to stop the pirates, they cannot withstand our military) and thus the bloodless way out is "negotiations".
Click to expand...

As for as a massacre; the Captains death would in my opinion be murder, the pirate’s death a call for a celebration, hardly a massacre.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
This would be perfect; unfortunately, as the Community Organization of the United States, we will now listen to the terrorists issues and talk to them and let them know that we understand their grievances and will fund their agenda so that they may live in peaceful coexistence with the world.
Click to expand...
Well, there's always hope that Dear Leader will learn that peaceful coexistence with terrorists occurs only when you or they are pushing up daisies.

When someone has as his highest aim your death, the range of outcomes reduces to two:
  1. You can die.
  2. He can die.
Which will our Coward-in-Chief choose, I wonder?
 
celticlord said:
Well, there's always hope that Dear Leader will learn that peaceful coexistence with terrorists occurs only when you or they are pushing up daisies.

When someone has as his highest aim your death, the range of outcomes reduces to two:
  1. You can die.
  2. He can die.
Which will our Coward-in-Chief choose, I wonder?
Click to expand...


Trouble with that is they are not terrorists, they are pirates; they’re in it mainly for the money, ideology comes in a distant second, if at all.
 
donc said:
Trouble with that is they are not terrorists, they are pirates; they’re in it mainly for the money, ideology comes in a distant second, if at all.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that "in it for money" is also an ideology. They may not have the same extreme ideologies of the Taliban, Al Quedia, or the Real IRA, but they still have a militant and aggressive ideology.
 
donc said:
Trouble with that is they are not terrorists, they are pirates; they’re in it mainly for the money, ideology comes in a distant second, if at all.
Click to expand...
Ok, so they're pirates not terrorists. Change the range of outcomes to:

  1. You pay them.
  2. You kill them.

Being the stingy soul that I am, I prefer killing to paying.

(I wonder how many would opt to pursue a life of piracy if certain and unpleasant death was the likely end result?)
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Ok, so they're pirates not terrorists. Change the range of outcomes to:

  1. You pay them.
  2. You kill them.

Being the stingy soul that I am, I prefer killing to paying.

(I wonder how many would opt to pursue a life of piracy if certain and unpleasant death was the likely end result?)
Click to expand...

I have no problems with that.;)
 
winston53660 said:
Petty comments like this are so un American.
Click to expand...
It's just too funny to listen to the Leftists speak about unAmerican comments considering their traitorous behavior in Vietnam, The Cold and The Gulf Wars.

We as a nation will persevere and defeat these muther ****ers that resort to thievery.
Click to expand...
"We as a nation..."?
Since when have you folks believed "we as a nation"? That's new!

And "defeat these mf's..."?
Did I read that correct?
Libs all for defeating someone who isn't a Republican?
Wow!

There are firsts... and I tip my hat to the Libs for their Baby Steps.

But... should this drag on for a few days I believe the Leftists will begin their "Position Shift", blaming the Crew, George Bush... siding with the Pirates, making private telephone contact ... communicating the Pirate's griefs for them and their "acceptable demands"... propagandizing for the Pirates, claim the Crew are evil... and demand the Pirates are released unharmed with all the goodies they can get away with.

If the USSR, Vietnam, Gulf 1 & 2 are any indication... that's where we know they will go.

.
 
Last edited:
I think Obama's refusal to comment is not a sign that he is oblivious to the situation. Quite the contrary, I think it has to do with the religion of the pirates. If the Muslim world can elicit a direct response from the POTUS with something as simple as attacking a dingy at sea, then it will encourage more sea-borne terrorism.

Basically... he won't address the pirates because they are too lowly to be given word from such high office. In addition, piracy at sea is not new. It has been an ongoing problem during all of the modern Presidential administrations. The media is just giving it more hype now, which is why more people are expecting a comment from the POTUS.

These situations happen more often than we knew until now, and the navy has always moved in to address the problem.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
I think Obama's refusal to comment is not a sign that he is oblivious to the situation. Quite the contrary, I think it has to do with the religion of the pirates. If the Muslim world can elicit a direct response from the POTUS with something as simple as attacking a dingy at sea, then it will encourage more sea-borne terrorism.
Click to expand...
I won't disagree with the premise, but disagree it is religious based.
I think it's a decent guess at what he's being told to do.

Basically... he won't address the pirates because they are too lowly to be given word from such high office. In addition, piracy at sea is not new. It has been an ongoing problem during all of the modern Presidential administrations. The media is just giving it more hype now, which is why more people are expecting a comment from the POTUS.
Click to expand...
It has been going on for quite some time. Surprisingly little has been said about it until now. It is similar to the illegal oil running during the clamp down on Saddam; which was known all the way to the WH, but wasn't reported by the AMMP; probably so the then occupant in the WH woudn't have to make any unsavory decisions.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Jesus, the "unamerican" bs was annoying when liberals were doing it to conservatives for years. Now you're going to start chucking it back the other side? Why?
Click to expand...

That's because there are really 2 Americas right now. There is the rational, sane America that understands that dissent is logical, rational, and well placed over ACTUAL ISSUES and then there is the "ZOMG WTF Think of the CHILDREN You're an Uber Terrorist Yay flag WOOT" teamed up with the "ZOMG WTF Think of the CHILDREN You're an Uber NEONAZICON Yay Obama WOOT" America.

I think it's a sad fact that there are two extremes pulling in the wrong directions in America. Hopefully a rational middle can turn out at elections and put an end to the nonsense.
 
MrVicchio said:
That he doesn't allow force to be used in this situation... the pirates will get away and the Capt. will be released after being paid.

AND THAT is what I see happening.
Click to expand...


I guess you’re relieved that you didn’t take me up on the bet eh? :mrgreen:
 
donc said:
I guess you’re relieved that you didn’t take me up on the bet eh? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually Donc, Mr Vicchio already stated in the other thread that he was wrong. It takes a big man to admit when one is wrong. A lesser man rubs his nose in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom