• 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!

US military mulls attacking Somali pirates' land bases; pirates vow revenge

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So the pirates are promising revenge against the US for rescuing one of our own? They are on very thin ice. I like the fact that Obama is letting the military do what the military does best - killing, and I also like the thought of hitting the pirate bases and home turf. After all, pirates can't be pirates if they are homeless and boatless, can they? Pirates can't do much if their bodies are blown to bits either.

I say smack the hell out of them for a couple of weeks, and see if that prods them to seek a new profession. If it doesn't, then smack 'em again, and keep smacking 'em until they either get the message (Don't screw with the US) or they are dead.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, is this what Obama promised us? I thought it was the economy stupid. Rescuing is one thing, now he's escalating things.
 
So the pirates are promising revenge against the US for rescuing one of our own? They are on very thin ice. I like the fact that Obama is letting the military do what the military does best - killing, and I also like the thought of hitting the pirate bases and home turf. After all, pirates can't be pirates if they are homeless and boatless, can they? Pirates can't do much if their bodies are blown to bits either.

I say smack the hell out of them for a couple of weeks, and see if that prods them to seek a new profession. If it doesn't, then smack 'em again, and keep smacking 'em until they either get the message (Don't screw with the US) or they are dead.

Article is here.

Whether this makes sense or not will be determined by the intelligence they will be gathering over the coming days/weeks/months.
 
I'd like to know if the president ever got Congressional approval for the anti-piracy task force off of Somalia. I'm opposed to any attacks on land-based pirate assets, especially without Congressional approval. Attacking the pirates would open a can of worms we do not want to open. They will become more heavily armed, more dangerous, and will demand higher ransoms due to increased risk. Not to mention any attack on pirates would result in large civilian deaths and will tarnish the US image abroad more than it already is.
 
Last edited:
While some Somali pirates are threatening to take revenge for two deadly international assaults which disrupted their kidnapping plots the last week, the US military is mulling taking the fight to their bases.

Idiots.
Who held who's citizens hostage? :roll:
 
Whether this makes sense or not will be determined by the intelligence they will be gathering over the coming days/weeks/months.

There is a long history, and the problem is growing.
They took an American ship and tried another...
... for me it's "one Strike and You're Out".

There's what, 200 hostages in the hands of pirates at the moment?

Time is NOW to rid the waters of this scourge.

I'd like to know if the president ever got Congressional approval for the anti-piracy task force off of Somalia. I'm opposed to any attacks on land-based pirate assets, especially without Congressional approval. Attacking the pirates would open a can of worms we do not want to open. They will become more heavily armed, more dangerous, and will demand higher ransoms due to increased risk. Not to mention any attack on pirates would result in large civilian deaths and will tarnish the US image abroad more than it already is.

You don't think they won't become more and more armed and aggressive left unchecked?
My guess is it will get worse unless halted.
Rogue nations and groups could assist their efforts, and it wouldn't take a whole lot to create huge havoc.

Appeasement is no answer.

I don't really care what the world thinks, and nor should Obama, but he he is like Clinton and cares too much what others across the world think.


.
 
Last edited:
There is a long history, and the problem is growing.
They took an American ship and tried another...
... for me it's "one Strike and You're Out".

There's what, 200 hostages in the hands of pirates at the moment?

Time is NOW to rid the waters of this scourge.

.

1) You wont get rid of the problem (which is relatively minor by the way)
2) The intermingling of pirates among the civilians would insure a death toll on the civilian population, further tarnishing the US image.
3) As far as I know, Congress has not authorized a war with Somalia, and thus attacking assets within their territory would be a illegal.
 
You don't think they won't become more and more armed and aggressive left unchecked?
My guess is it will get worse unless halted.
.

Agressive against whom? The neighbours?
Appeasement has worked for decades, not going to stop anytime. Bombing will solve nothing and neither will entering Somalia.

You do realise going past Somalia is not the only shipping lane. One can go past South Africa which is much more safer.

Around 1% of ships actually get hijacked but people make it sound like it is the end of the world and every ship is being hijacked.
 
Last edited:
Around 1% of ships actually get hijacked but people make it sound like it is the end of the world and every ship is being hijacked.
That's 1% too many.

Not every ship around the Horn is attacked. Every ship around the Horn is at risk. Every ship around the Horn has to contend with the additional cost of that risk.

That's why the 1% is too many.
 
Agressive against whom? The neighbours?
Appeasement has worked for decades, not going to stop anytime. Bombing will solve nothing and neither will entering Somalia.

You do realise going past Somalia is not the only shipping lane. One can go past South Africa which is much more safer.

Around 1% of ships actually get hijacked but people make it sound like it is the end of the world and every ship is being hijacked.

Less than 1%, certainly....

But how in the world could this course be altered? Are you suggesting that the ships should go West, through the Suez canal, and all the way around the continent? Going around the corner to get next door?

340x.jpg
 
That's 1% too many.

Not every ship around the Horn is attacked. Every ship around the Horn is at risk. Every ship around the Horn has to contend with the additional cost of that risk.

That's why the 1% is too many.

If you know pirates operate there and you go there knowingly and it gets hijacked and didn't pack weapons ... They are stupid and should be out of the shipping business.

What is with this sudden boom of media interest in Somali pirates, it's been happening for years .... :S
 
Less than 1%, certainly....

But how in the world could this course be altered? Are you suggesting that the ships should go West, through the Suez canal, and all the way around the continent? Going around the corner to get next door?

340x.jpg

If they don't want to get hijacked, seems logical to me to find another path
 
If they don't want to get hijacked, seems logical to me to find another path

Sure it does, until you realize the path you're suggesting adds thousands of miles to the trip and a ton of money due to logistics, overhead, and additional risk due to variable weather conditions. Basically, they've decided it's cheaper to go past Somalia and pay the ransom on the very slight chance that their ships are taken. They're within their rights according to international law.

Like I said before, I have no qualms with rescue operations to preserve life and property, but trying to "eliminate piracy" through force is an irrational objective.
 
Last edited:
Sure it does, until you realize the path you're suggesting adds thousands of miles to the trip. Basically, they've decided it's cheaper to go past Somalia and pay the ransom on the very slight chance that their ships are taken. They're within their rights according to international law.

Like I said before, I have no qualms with rescue operations to preserve life and property, but trying to "eliminate piracy" through force is an irrational objective.
When was piracy ever eliminated by any other means?
 
When was piracy ever eliminated by any other means?

The Islamists eliminated the Pirates and piracy by making it illegal and enforcing the law .... 6 whole months before US and Ethiopia overthrew the Islamist Government allowing piracy to start again :doh
 
If you know pirates operate there and you go there knowingly and it gets hijacked and didn't pack weapons ... They are stupid and should be out of the shipping business.
The not packing of weapons is due in large part to international treaty--the lack of arms is part of what makes a ship a civilian merchantman.

The "not going there" is a foolish canard. Cargo ships are within their rights to use the best route to reach their destination. Somalis are not within their rights to interfere with that movement. That puts the Somalis in the wrong.
 
When was piracy ever eliminated by any other means?

It's up to the Puntland authorities who are recognized by the UN as the "government of Somalia" (in the de jure sense at least) to end piracy in accordance with their international obligations.
 
The not packing of weapons is due in large part to international treaty.

Change the law? It seems obvious to me.


Ships should arm themselves, the pirates are armed.
Whoever wins is up to the roll of the dice.
 
It's up to the Puntland authorities who are recognized by the UN as the "government of Somalia" (in the de jure sense at least) to end piracy in accordance with their international obligations.

LOL, Puntland abide by laws? Those out of control savages who are in Govt?

Puntland are the ones who are funding it. They have been building ports and smuggling weapons for a very long time.

The govt. gets bribes off the pirates which means that when they are caught, they are released without a hanging
 
Last edited:
LOL, Puntland abide by laws? Those out of control savages who are in Govt?

Puntland are the ones who are funding it. They have been building ports and smuggling weapons for the Islamists along with the south for a very long time.

The govt. gets bribes off the pirates which means that when they are caught, they are released without a hanging

Frankly, I think the world would be a better place if the government of Somaliland was in charge. Too bad they don't want that....
 
Back
Top Bottom