BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:29:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:08:54 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:40:25 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

On 2/28/11 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Lil Abner" wrote in message ...

On 2/28/2011 11:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:

And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...
Somehow it is more civilized to let the drama continue. That there is a
Global government etc that should deal with piracy as a crime with due
process and Pirates rights.
We have the resources to locate these people on the oceans.
Sink them without asking them, about their troubled childhoods, poor
villages back home, and their hopes and aspirations.
Somalia is a trouble region and really is no civilized government in
control of anything their gnp is probably all from piracy.
Let the military deal with them as they deem wise and necessary, on the
spot and no recriminations from Washington etc.
No trials. Once the victims are free, put the pirates back on the mother
or pirate ship and sink it.
Close their ports and destroy them. they might get upset...well the
victims are upset and the rest of the world is tired of it.

Reply:
Solution to the piracy. Limit the fishing to within 100 miles of the
shore. If a Somali boat is outside the 100 miles, they sink and die.
When the Somali's decide that piracy is not worth the problems, then
they can fish further out. If the pirates capture a boat inside the 100
miles, is the boats problem. They kill hostages while in Somalia, then
figure how who had gotten rich in the last 5 years and kill them.

Under International Law, I doubt you can do that. How are you going to
legally restrict access to the high seas?

He's talking about a blockade I would guess. That's pretty difficult
given the length of the coast line... very expensive to maintain.

Of course, everyone seems to be forgetting our little adventure in
1993, wherein Clinton tried to do something and got blasted by the
right-wing.

He got blasted because it was a half assed, poorly planned effort that
got a lot of GIs killed, similar to the cluster **** in the Iranian
desert in 1980.

No. He got blasted because he was a hated Democrat. Did Reagan get
blasted by the Republicans for screwing up in Lebanon? By the
Democrats? Nope. Didn't happen. How many died there? And, Reagan
turned tail and ran.

By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia,

Not enough to take on any real operation in Mogadishu if they sent
them all.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article.

"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!