Navy Seals 1, Somali Pirates 0

Problem is, many shipping lines can't afford to higher security, as it would kill their profit margin. So they gamble that they won't get hit or not get hit enough to warrant the cost of protection.

There's also the mindset that armed personal aboard would cause the pirates to harm/kill the crew, if they're not able to repel the attack, instead of just the usual looting and/or taking the captain for ransom.
Right. That's why you do what Jefferson did.
 
Hey Dude,
I can't argue with your response to my previous post. I believe that what you have stated is part of how the shipping line owners are thinking.
However, I also believe that the pirates realize that the lack of protection on these ships makes easy targets for them.
Unfortunately, due to the increased activity in piracy, some steps must be taken to stifle their efforts.
If there is an alternative to heavy armament of these ships to prevent piracy, I haven't heard of it.
As I previously stated if there is a better solution, I'd love to hear it.
I am really not a person that advocates violence but, sometimes there are no other options.
 
The French killed pirates. Where was the media on this.



Notice to pirates everywhere, Sarko's France is not to be trifled with:


French commandos have freed two sailors seized by pirates off the Somali coast, the French presidency has said.

One pirate was killed in the operation and another six captured, it said...

French commandos launched a similar raid against Somali pirates in April.

President Sarkozy said the 30-man operation had taken just 10 minutes.

He said he had given the go-ahead late on Monday when it was clear that the pirates were heading for the lawless port of Eyl, where many well-armed pirate gangs are based.
 
Man. I hope you feel stupid right about now.

Do you ever read what you write?

Please start at the 1st post and read in chronological order and then tell me who should feel stupid.:)

We're talking about one thing and you're talking about who knows what.:rolleyes:

Yes, pirates have hijacked ships in the past. Thanks for the update.

Mr. Wiggles also figured this out.
 
1239674617319.jpg
 
Cute chart, Wiggles... Unfortunately it is INACCURATE! Be it because of your lack of Naval history, or because of convenience... Either way, let's go to school, shall we?

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.

Granted, there are no hard numbers, but you don't suppose the sailors on those ships just yelled "booga! booga!" at those Tunis and Algiers pirates, do you?

Now, while I am familiar with the quoted text, I didn't feel like typing the whole thing out, so I copied/pasted. Source below.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
 
THIS OBAMA GAVE THE OK TO TAKE THE SHOT IS SUCH A PR BS MOVE!

cant argue with that.Whose call is it in these matters?I dont think the military can just start blowing ships/boats out of the water if war or martial law has not been declared....... evan if a military vessal gets attacked
 
Obama killed them? I thought the US NAVY SNIPERS killed them. I guess we know who will be first in line for the movie about how Obama pulled the trigger, starring Will Smith as President Obama. :rolleyes:

Oh god :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Do you ever read what you write?

Please start at the 1st post and read in chronological order and then tell me who should feel stupid.:)

We're talking about one thing and you're talking about who knows what.:rolleyes:

Yes, pirates have hijacked ships in the past. Thanks for the update.

Mr. Wiggles also figured this out.
WTF are you talking about?

They were interviewing a captain of a ship on Fox who was talking about how he paid off pirates. I asked if this was that instance. You said i have a problem with reading.

Uhh..
 
Hey Dude,
I can't argue with your response to my previous post. I believe that what you have stated is part of how the shipping line owners are thinking.
However, I also believe that the pirates realize that the lack of protection on these ships makes easy targets for them.
Unfortunately, due to the increased activity in piracy, some steps must be taken to stifle their efforts.
If there is an alternative to heavy armament of these ships to prevent piracy, I haven't heard of it.
As I previously stated if there is a better solution, I'd love to hear it.
I am really not a person that advocates violence but, sometimes there are no other options.

IMO, violence is the only option, the Somali government either doesn't care and/or doesn't have the means to do anything about it and these looters won't listen to anything except a boot up the ass.

I'd have a carrier steaming not all that deep into the Indian Ocean; when a US ship is attacked, dispatch a couple Apache gunships to handle business. /the end
 
Somalia is a failed state. Any serious effort to have their "government" do anything significant to resolve this problem demonstrates a gross ignorance.

Though I'm sure the pirates are terrified that Hillary Clinton is going to try to "freeze their assets.":rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The pirates of today are not much different from their predecessors of yesteryears. The major difference is the sophisticated equipment now at their disposal.
They have the same mindset as terrorists. Just different targets and objectives.
The threat of capture or death will not deter them.
The government (if you can call it that) of Somalia is powerless and cannot control any of the illigitimate activities in that country.
The pirates have stated that they fear no one and have shown this by increasing attacks on ships in the area.
The only solution to this problem is eliminate the pirates. Make sure they do not return from their raids.
I am willing to do my part to protect American flagged ships. Give me guns and ammo. Put me on one of our ships. I'd love to have the opportunity to blast the f#%ckers out of the water!!
 
It's sad, really. A decent M249 with a good mount would be enough to keep any pirate ship from getting close to any cargo ship, at a cost of less than 10 grand.
 
Small(er) boat, probably. Not on a large one, they could attack/board from a safe angle.

I prefer my Apache approach, sure it'd be ridiculously costly, but I think after a few of their boats are turned into little more than floating debris in red-tainted water, they'll get the hint.

*Scottish Accent* "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." -Jim Malone
 
When the ships got jacked 2 years ago (or, whatever it is now) did it get this much attention?
The Maersk Alabama was the first American ship to be attacked by pirates since Jefferson took care of the Barbary pirates, IIRC--the Sirius Star you previously referenced is a Liberian ship. That's also why more pirates have been killed under the Obama Administration than under previous administrations: no administration since Jefferson has had to deal with pirates.

IMHO, what Obama did correct in this case was STFU and let the military do its job.
 
*Scottish Accent* "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." -Jim Malone
You'd think Obama would be familiar with The Chicago Way. ;)
 

Members online

Back
Top