pirates

[Riot]

I'm going to jump on my soapbox right now for a few minutes. Sorry to do this but I feel like I need to go on a good rant right now.

We have all heard the news stories going on with the pirates that tried to overtake that American shipping vessel off the coast of Somalia. The captain of the ship, who gave himself up for the safety of his crew, is being held hostage on a lifeboat (which is out of gas) in the middle of the Gulf of Aden. The USS Bainbridge and other US Navy ships are on scene and as close as 500 feet from the lifeboat. It has been over 48 hours and we have gotten no where. The pirates are sending in reinforcements and are planning on making a run for the coast. We just sit idly and twiddle our thumbs.

I can point the blame at a lot of people in this situation. The two people at the top of my list is President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has been over 48 hours, Mr. President, what are we going to do? Are you going to let these 4-5 jagoffs take an American hostage and hold off entire WARSHIPS with nothing more than small arms for two days?!? Are you going let them go? The French military just recently (yesterday or today) went in and took over a yacht that was overtaken by pirates in the same region. The French have balls and we don't.

George W. Bush was criticized for him spending 8 minutes in a classroom reading to children after being informed of the first attack on 9/11. Where is the criticism now for Obama when it has been nearly three days and we have yet to see any kind of action taken? We are going soft and right now is not the time to go soft. This story right now is just going to inspire more and more piracy acts in the near future. It's already gotten out of hand, but it's about to get a lot worse after this debacle.

Which leads me to my next rant. What is the United States going to do about all these pirate attacks? The U.S. Navy (MY U.S. Navy :rolf: ) claims we operate for the purpose of providing free and safe travels for any vessel across the seven seas. We justify the billions and billions we spend a year on these ship deployments across the globe as "physical deterrent and to assure freedom of the seas". There is no other region right now that needs that presence than the horn of Africa. So why isn't the Navy making more of an effort to confront and counter act these kind of attacks?

This is the United States Navy. We are the most powerful Navy in the entire world. Ever since the last World War, the Navy has been in somewhat of an identity crisis mode. We don't have large naval battles anymore. We don't need these ships to transport all these materials and troops anymore. The Navy has been rather lost over the past decade or so. The rise in pirate acts over the past few years should bring in the forefront of the new Navy's agenda. This is a concern and threat to national and global security that the U.S. Navy can specialize in. Yet I don't see any kind of effort or even a mention that the Navy plans on making anti-piracy missions a large part of it's gameplan.

It's not the Nay's fault. They are ill-equipped to effectively patrol the Gulf of Aden and the surrounding waters. Our smallest ships, frigates, aren't small enough to be successful in such missions. We don't have enough ships to patrol that large of an area, that tightly. It is a problem they have but I don't see them trying to come up with an alternative.

We have mobile security force teams that specialize in deployable, security team measures. Why not start training all of those units in anti-piracy? You could slowly start forming units specifically designed for those missions. Even if you can only put one or two units out there at a time that would be better than what we have right now. Our ships would be within range to respond to pirate attacks in a day rather than two or three. They would be trained and ready to handle these matters. It wouldn't be a clusterfuck of FBI officials and big government brass. I don't think anyone really knows what we are doing out there right now and all that's doing is making us and everyone who sails the Horn of Africa that much more vulnerable.

We need to take action and these attacks. This is an important shipping lane for many nations and allowing these scumbags to interfere in it and get away with millions is passim.

/rant

[Andrew]

I don't disagree that something should be done and soon, but has literally nothing been done or are they attempting a more drawn-out tactic to avoid bloodshed? I must admit I wasn't aware of the incident until now so I don't know all the details.

It's odd to think that pirates these days are more of a menace then the so called "golden age" of piracy on the high seasons, the era so often depicted in films and literature. And while the pirates of that era were certainly bloodthirsty and not necessarily in the romanticised image made popular by Hollywood, from all accounts there seemed to be a more defined code of honour and several pirates were privateers, acting upon the orders of a nation and acting as unofficial warships that took their payment in the form of whatever they looted.

[benji]

The French military just recently (yesterday or today) went in and took over a yacht that was overtaken by pirates in the same region. The French have balls and we don't.

The French always have, because they don't give a shit what everyone thinks about them. They want what they want and think they're the best, and that's it. We're obsessed with everyone liking us.

George W. Bush was criticized for him spending 8 minutes in a classroom reading to children after being informed of the first attack on 9/11. Where is the criticism now for Obama when it has been nearly three days and we have yet to see any kind of action taken?

Obama is thoughtful. Bush is just a stupid evil idiot.

What is the United States going to do about all these pirate attacks?

We will work with our allies through the United Nations to get a mildly worded condemnation of acts of piracy, while recognizing our failures in not providing them with what they need to live first world lives on the dime of those evil CEOs.

So why isn't the Navy making more of an effort to confront and counter act these kind of attacks?

That would be unilaterial action, which is wrong, and also probably violate some international law, which is just as bad.

the Navy has been in somewhat of an identity crisis mode.

The Navy's job is to respond to natural disasters and provide an education to people who can't go to a four year college (yet, thankfully we are solving this, everyone will have bachelor's degrees!), but not provide aid because that is imperialism.

Why not start training all of those units in anti-piracy?

Because we have not agreed on a framework to develop guidelines for a future strategy to combat potential threats in conjunction with our allies, and random street people in Somalia.

It wouldn't be a clusterfuck of FBI officials and big government brass.

Sorry, but we'd also need CIA oversight. Along with NSA, State, Defense, the White House, ten Congressional committes and their hearings, along with formal agreements with all nations of the world before we operate within their territory. Then we could start to consider some sort of anti-piracy group.

We need to take action and these attacks. This is an important shipping lane for many nations and allowing these scumbags to interfere in it and get away with millions is passim.

That's the last thing we need. What we need to do is understand the root causes and address those. Fighting pirates will just create more pirates.

I can point the blame at a lot of people in this situation. The two people at the top of my list is President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Traitor. You cannot hate your government and love your country. Whatever the President wants, we want. During a crisis like this one, where we're on the verge of the world exploding unless our President thoughtfully picks winners and losers in the market, you do not ever question the President.

Oh, and Bush left him with this pirate mess. Our President can't do anything until he cleans up the mess left by George W. Idiot.

Our President is doing everything he can to solve this problem and make this country and this planet perfect again, and it is beyond the pale that a bloodthirsty babykiller (who is probably unhinged and stupid like all members of the military) like yourself would criticize and doubt him during such a time.

[shadowgrin]

We need ninjas against those pirates.

[el badman]

The French always have, because they don't give a shit what everyone thinks about them. They want what they want and think they're the best, and that's it. We're obsessed with everyone liking us.

You're reversing the roles here benji (at least the second sentence).

[Al Ka Pwn]

arrrr. lol.

[benji]

Riot, don't worry, former President Kerry has sprung into action: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ker ... 04-09.html

You're reversing the roles here benji (at least the second sentence).

You mean the French haven't had a historically tough military, and don't have a history of intervening in former colonies whenever they want to further their interests not caring whether or not the rest of world cares?

As for "think they're the best" comment it wasn't an insult. I don't think pride in what you do (or at least think you do) well is a sin. (And the French have many things to be proud of or hold their own in debates over "the best of" from cooking to acceptance of nuclear energy and beyond.)

[el badman]

I see your point, but these "interventions" haven't occurred for decades, whereas recent history has shown that the US seem to be much more likely to go solo against the global opinion.
I didn't take the "think they're the best" as an insult, we probably do in some aspects, but not so much when it comes to geopolitical issues similar to this one. And we're nowhere close to the Americans when it comes to a sense of patriotism (which I admit is not necessarily thinking that "you're the best", but the line seems pretty thin), it barely exists at all over there. It's probably there during soccer and rugby games only...

As far as this topic, it is quite puzzling that the US haven't yet decided to take any real action regarding this (or none that we know of at least). It seems like they would usually go for a swift type of intervention in such a case. Hopefully, that captain will come out of it unharmed though.

[JaoSming]

A. I would like to congratulate the Navy Snipers who took out the 3 remaining pirates with 1 shot each on Sunday. Hitting those guys in a lifeboat on the ocean....damn.



Also, Pirates just took 2 more boats

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04 ... index.html

[shadowgrin]

Snipers rule.

[Jackal]

Boom...

Headshot.

[NovU]

This piracy thing was out of control from long ago. I don't know when USA has became a victim of this but I've heard lots of other nations paying ransoms and stuff for this kind of matters. Obviously the nation with pirates don't have control over their people. Those pirates have daily jobs and are normal people surprisingly.

[benji]

Thousands of dolphins block Somali pirates

BEIJING, April 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Thousands of dolphins blocked the suspected Somali pirate ships when they were trying to attack Chinese merchant ships passing the Gulf of Aden, the China Radio International reported on Monday.

The Chinese merchant ships escorted by a China's fleet sailed on the Gulf of Aden when they met some suspected pirate ships. Thousands of dolphins suddenly leaped out of water between pirates and merchants when the pirate ships headed for the China's.

The suspected pirates ships stopped and then turned away. The pirates could only lament their littleness befor the vast number of dolphins. The spectacular scene continued for a while.

[shadowgrin]

...and then the dolphins were slaughtered by a Chinese fishing vessel...

[Null17]

Dolphins defeating the bad guys? Sounds like Red Alert 3.

[Fresh8]

As much as the US Navy would like to escort ships in areas where pirates are known to attack, my understanding is that the Navy's resources are 'out-stretched'. There have also been calls for allowing ships' crews to carry weapons. With the kind of cargo these ships are carrying, the consequences of allowing a gun fight to occur could result in the death of the crew and the pirates.

In this particular circumstance of the captain being held hostage, the captain would never have been taken hostage if the ship's crew did not decide to 'fight back' against the pirates. There are guidelines put out by these shipping companies that once boarded by pirates, the crew are to lock themselves in rooms on the ship that pirates can't get into. I'm not saying that what the pirates are doing is right.

What I am saying is that pirates have been around forever and crews have been trained to take evasive action rather than counter-attack their attackers. That's going to remain the same way in the foreseeable future.

One other quick thing, I guess that no action on pirates has occurred in the past (I don't know for sure but perhaps it has been minimal action) because the pirates don't harm the people they take hostage because all they are interested in are a ransom. However, with the recent slaying of Somali pirates, violence could be on the rise and action will need to be undertaken.

[shadowgrin]

In this particular circumstance of the captain being held hostage, the captain would never have been taken hostage if the ship's crew did not decide to 'fight back' against the pirates.

There are guidelines put out by these shipping companies that once boarded by pirates, the crew are to lock themselves in rooms on the ship that pirates can't get into

What I am saying is that pirates have been around forever and crews have been trained to take evasive action rather than counter-attack their attackers. That's going to remain the same way in the foreseeable future.

The crew did just that the first time, they were ordered by the captain to go to that room and the captain was the only one out to oversee their safety while they were in the ship, at sea, with pirates in their vessel.
Besides, what guarantee do the crew had that the pirates would just leave their captain alone since he's the only one there? To fight back or not, their captain was at the mercy of the pirates, so they decided to fight back.

One other quick thing, I guess that no action on pirates has occurred in the past (I don't know for sure but perhaps it has been minimal action) because the pirates don't harm the people they take hostage because all they are interested in are a ransom.

The French did a rescue operation. They killed all the pirates with the owner of the French vessel killed as a casualty. It happened a few days before the US operation. I think the Germans also did a few months/years back, iirc. I think China also did too.

[Fresh8]

The crew did just that the first time, they were ordered by the captain to go to that room and the captain was the only one out to oversee their safety while they were in the ship, at sea, with pirates in their vessel. Besides, what guarantee do the crew had that the pirates would just leave their captain alone since he's the only one there? To fight back or not, their captain was at the mercy of the pirates, so they decided to fight back.

My understanding is that the crew (captain included) locked themselves in the room, then came out to fight the pirates. They captured one of the pirates while the captain surrendered himself to ensure the safety of the crew then. After that, they tried to trade hostages but the priates didn't honour their side of the deal.

The French did a rescue operation. They killed all the pirates with the owner of the French vessel killed as a casualty. It happened a few days before the US operation. I think the Germans also did a few months/years back, iirc. I think China also did too.

When I meant action, I meant strategies to deter or prevent pirates from taking hostages and boarding ships in the first place.

[shadowgrin]

"but the priates didn't honour their side of the deal" - that's what they get for dealing with pirates.

The only action that I can think of that is in place even before the US situation is that there are ships from different countries (notably China) patrolling that part of Africa, but as everyone said that area is too vast to patrol effecively. The pirates do guerilla tactics at sea.

[Riot]

There is a lot of talk about companies hiring private contractors to do security on board the ships. You would have companies such as Blackwater sending crews to ships sailing the Gulf of Aden.

The major problem the Navy has it we don't have the ships to effectively patrol the area. None of the ships are small enough to counter-act the pirates. Frigates aren't nearly fast enough.

[Fresh8]

What kind of ships would security be present on?

[Riot]

What kind of ships would security be present on?

Any ship that wants security and is willing to pay for it could have it. It would probably be mostly American ships since it would be American security companies that would be hired. The shipping vessels and tankers would probably be most likely to hire them. It might be worth it since they usually have to pay $2 million in ransom per ship.

One other quick thing, I guess that no action on pirates has occurred in the past (I don't know for sure but perhaps it has been minimal action) because the pirates don't harm the people they take hostage because all they are interested in are a ransom. However, with the recent slaying of Somali pirates, violence could be on the rise and action will need to be undertaken.

There should have been action taken in the past. They may not have been hurting anyone, but they are stealing millions and millions of dollars. That's like saying no action should be taken on bank robbers as long as they don't hurt any of the hostages. They are stealing from and terrorizing innocent people. They take people hostage and hold them from ransom. They have the capacity to hurt someone, but even so, they can't get away with this kind of crime.

[Fresh8]

But as I said with tankers and some ships, the nature of their cargo would not allow people to have weapons on board a ship because if a gun battle were to occur on boards, then consequences might become quite drastic. So I am skipetical on whether that would be allowed. Also, I'm not expert or anything, but having weapons on board a ship in international waters might consitutue as a breach of some maritime laws? Again, I'm not sure about that but I think I have read it somewhere.

And I am not saying that action shouldn't be taken but there has got to be a reason why action has not been taken. I think one thing is that the pirates attack in international waters which means the USA doesn't have jurisdiction? They need some international organisation to intervene. I think...

[shadowgrin]

having weapons on board a ship in international waters might consitutue as a breach of some maritime laws?

I think one thing is that the pirates attack in international waters which means the USA doesn't have jurisdiction? They need some international organisation to intervene. I think...

International waters is free for all, no country has jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction only starts within the maritime borders or the vessel belonging to a particular country.

[AMenace]

The captured should go gangsta on them