| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Apr 14, 9:13 pm, "mr.b" wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:32 -0700, steelredcloud wrote: snip Your other fan was wrong. You're not retarded, you're just a ****ing idiot. *plonk* Oh boy, another witty loser who stays within the confines established by his own shortcomings...... You and Big Mac must have been debating champions of the short bus. Run along now Mrs b, another hissy fit like that you'll end up inflicting enough damage to yourself to bleed to death. Joe |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
With all this wonderful conversation here I thought the original
thread was a cross post from asa sailing. Guess I was wrong. Hummm. Bob |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
|
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Peter Hendra wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:11:25 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: After reading of the troubles in those waters, that plan is now on hold. Perhaps sailing to NZ and flying to Sydney from there would be a better approach, but to be blunt, I am now sorely disappointed with Australia and have no desire to visit there at all. --Vic Vic, The verse from the Bible comes to mind about taking the beam from one's own eye before taking the mote from another's. In Spain our family went through the lengthy and expensive process of applying for US Visas as we had intended sailing up the eastern seaboard of the US. If we had flown there we would have been part of the Visa waver system. After talking with several non-American yachts(persons) who had visited the US, and in investigating the requirements of officialdom with regard to a foreign yacht visiting your country, we, with much regret, decided against it. You probably know nothing of these restrictions as they do not affect you. I, who hold Australian citizenship as well as my other two, have not seen fit to date to burst into a tirade of criticism against US officialdom and its seemingly pathetic pettiness with its rules of entry and travel within America by foreign yacht that are far more restictive and onerous that Australia has in place. I merely accept it and change my plans. Railing against the rules will not change them. Perhaps that is why I do not have high blood pressure. Dissappointed as we are, we have decided that if we wish to visit the places we have always wanted to go, such as the Smithsonian Museums etc, then we will have to arrive by air and travel by car even though we will have to suffer the indignities of your immigration and airtravel processes where ordinary people are treated as potential criminals and verbally abused at your airports (I have flown through the States twice in the past year). Incidentally, to see an elderly American lady yelled at by some uncouth thug of a security person at LA airport "I said - take off your jacket" when going through security, frankly made my blood boil. To my shame, being a long time coward, I did not object. I can burst into print on my annoyance at radio broadcasts on VHF when sailing up the Red Sea in international waters - "This is US task force xxx. Any vessel approaching within two miles is likely to be fired upon:" and having to alter course under a difficult sail into the wind - bloody cheek. Or about a helicopter gunship hovering over my masthead for two full minutes and not responding to my VHF. Have you any idea just how intimidating that is, especially to a child? Where were they in the piracy zone further east when a British yacht got stripped two weeks before we went through and a group of five were chased and fired upon? The only response was from a French warship. I could get angry at the right the US Coastguard claim of being able to board and search, without any financial recompence for damage, my New Zealand flagged yacht anywhere in the Caribbean. I can't prevent it so I don't. I just stay away. That's life. If we wish to visit somewhere, we put up with the processes if we feel that it is worth it. If not, we don't go. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it which in many people's minds has ruined the Med and the Caribbean. That's cruising, which is what this newsgroup is all about. cheers Peter Hendra what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Shaun,
I don't know the exact geographic bounds in which boarding may take place but other yachtees tell of being boarded at sea in international waters within the Caribbean off Haiti and near Martinique. Incidently, the Red Sea where a helicopter gunship havered just above my mast for two minutes without identifying itself despite my VHF requests was in international waters, far from the "war zone" in Iraq. cheers Peter what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Peter Hendra wrote:
Shaun, I don't know the exact geographic bounds in which boarding may take place but other yachtees tell of being boarded at sea in international waters within the Caribbean off Haiti and near Martinique. Incidently, the Red Sea where a helicopter gunship havered just above my mast for two minutes without identifying itself despite my VHF requests was in international waters, far from the "war zone" in Iraq. cheers Peter what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun Does any one here know what the true standing is in this matter As a NON US boat do i have the right to refuse to allow any one other than my designated gov to board my boat. To the best of my knowledge (which may be wrong) once out side the 3 mile limit then the USA has no rights and can be treated as any other boat. I understand the fact if i am INSIDE territorial waters then that territory has the right to board for customs and breaches of there local laws...(or not as the case may be) From memory australia has a 15 mile border with a 200 kilometer fishing zone which only applies if you are fishing or a fishing vessel. please elluminate Shaun |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:47:14 +0800, shaun
wrote: Peter Hendra wrote: Shaun, I don't know the exact geographic bounds in which boarding may take place but other yachtees tell of being boarded at sea in international waters within the Caribbean off Haiti and near Martinique. Incidently, the Red Sea where a helicopter gunship havered just above my mast for two minutes without identifying itself despite my VHF requests was in international waters, far from the "war zone" in Iraq. cheers Peter what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun Does any one here know what the true standing is in this matter As a NON US boat do i have the right to refuse to allow any one other than my designated gov to board my boat. To the best of my knowledge (which may be wrong) once out side the 3 mile limit then the USA has no rights and can be treated as any other boat. I understand the fact if i am INSIDE territorial waters then that territory has the right to board for customs and breaches of there local laws...(or not as the case may be) From memory australia has a 15 mile border with a 200 kilometer fishing zone which only applies if you are fishing or a fishing vessel. please elluminate Shaun You're asking the question "What can a 600 lb. gorilla do? And the answer is "whatever he wants to". If the Coast Guard decides to board you on the High Seas they will come in a 180 ft. Coast Guard Cutter equipped with rapid firing cannons. They will undoubtedly launch an inflatable boat and a crew of armed Coast Guardsmen will come along side. At least one will be armed with an automatic weapon and they won't ask you if they can come aboard; they simply will. They may ask you whether you will allow them to search your boat but regardless of your answer be assured that they will search. You can also be assured that if they do stop you they have either a reason to, or they can justify to their superiors their stopping you. In either case, if you resist you will be deemed to be in the wrong. What do you plan doing to prevent them? If you shoot at them you can be assured that they will return your fire and they've got cannons. You can sue them. Of course they have a hundred and 20 crew members to testify how suspicious you were acting. All in all a lose, lose situation. You mention the 3 mile limit but I've seen several U.S. Coast Guard "cutters" in Singapore, enough times to make me think that at least one cutter is stationed in Asia. A long 3 miles from California.... Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeatgmaildotcom) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
"shaun" wrote in message
... Peter Hendra wrote: On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:11:25 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: After reading of the troubles in those waters, that plan is now on hold. Perhaps sailing to NZ and flying to Sydney from there would be a better approach, but to be blunt, I am now sorely disappointed with Australia and have no desire to visit there at all. --Vic Vic, The verse from the Bible comes to mind about taking the beam from one's own eye before taking the mote from another's. In Spain our family went through the lengthy and expensive process of applying for US Visas as we had intended sailing up the eastern seaboard of the US. If we had flown there we would have been part of the Visa waver system. After talking with several non-American yachts(persons) who had visited the US, and in investigating the requirements of officialdom with regard to a foreign yacht visiting your country, we, with much regret, decided against it. You probably know nothing of these restrictions as they do not affect you. I, who hold Australian citizenship as well as my other two, have not seen fit to date to burst into a tirade of criticism against US officialdom and its seemingly pathetic pettiness with its rules of entry and travel within America by foreign yacht that are far more restictive and onerous that Australia has in place. I merely accept it and change my plans. Railing against the rules will not change them. Perhaps that is why I do not have high blood pressure. Dissappointed as we are, we have decided that if we wish to visit the places we have always wanted to go, such as the Smithsonian Museums etc, then we will have to arrive by air and travel by car even though we will have to suffer the indignities of your immigration and airtravel processes where ordinary people are treated as potential criminals and verbally abused at your airports (I have flown through the States twice in the past year). Incidentally, to see an elderly American lady yelled at by some uncouth thug of a security person at LA airport "I said - take off your jacket" when going through security, frankly made my blood boil. To my shame, being a long time coward, I did not object. I can burst into print on my annoyance at radio broadcasts on VHF when sailing up the Red Sea in international waters - "This is US task force xxx. Any vessel approaching within two miles is likely to be fired upon:" and having to alter course under a difficult sail into the wind - bloody cheek. Or about a helicopter gunship hovering over my masthead for two full minutes and not responding to my VHF. Have you any idea just how intimidating that is, especially to a child? Where were they in the piracy zone further east when a British yacht got stripped two weeks before we went through and a group of five were chased and fired upon? The only response was from a French warship. I could get angry at the right the US Coastguard claim of being able to board and search, without any financial recompence for damage, my New Zealand flagged yacht anywhere in the Caribbean. I can't prevent it so I don't. I just stay away. That's life. If we wish to visit somewhere, we put up with the processes if we feel that it is worth it. If not, we don't go. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it which in many people's minds has ruined the Med and the Caribbean. That's cruising, which is what this newsgroup is all about. cheers Peter Hendra what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun Having the right to do it and doing it are two diff things. They've got big guns. We were 200 miles off the California coast heading south (so obviously no smuggling going on, unless you count importing cute women into Mexico g), we were overflown the USCG. They knew exactly where we were, and they came out to make sure we were who they thought we were (48' ketch). They did a couple of low passes while we waved and the guy in the cockpit got a good look at the women skinny dipping, then they moved on to another sailboat (we presume), since they were headed in that direction - crossed paths with her a couple of days previously. Personally, I felt good knowing they were around. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:47:14 +0800, shaun
wrote: Does any one here know what the true standing is in this matter Yes, the USCG can board you in international waters anywhere in the world, as can any other government. They maintain treaties with most countries which specifically allow this, and for the few remaining others they will detain you until permission is granted through diplomatic channels. USCGs primary interests are drug/people smuggling, fishing enforcement, and enforcement of trade/travel restrictions. |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:16:11 +0800, shaun
wrote: snippity-snip what is the law here. i was under the usumption that the US had no jusidiction out side there waters on any boat other than a US boat. you are saying that if i was in international waters or british water then i can be boarded by a US boat? I thought that amounted to piracy its self. Shaun I believe that the US has agreements with many countries as regards mutual boarding rights of the other countries registered vessels. In the distant past Embasy permission used to be required to board a foreign boat. Navy people don't have the right to board you but Coast Guard officers do. US Navy ships on such duty carry Goast Guard officers to order the boarding and inspection. Mark E. Williams YMMV |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Yep, Our Prime Minister is so far up George Dubbya's butt, all we can see is the soles of his shoes... Perhaps we should call him "Scrub Tick" from now on? |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Apr 15, 1:08 am, Peter Hendra wrote:
On 14 Apr 2007 18:02:32 -0700, wrote: Joe, Pray forgive my ignorance but is this any difference from Christian fundamentalists and "extremists"? Christian fundamentalists do not chop off heads chanting "alla is great". They do not strap on bombs and kill themselfs to make it to heaven.., and the do not commit mass murder to expand their religious ambitions. Lest last time I went to church they did not. But I must admit it's been awhile. Is not it their stated aim to ensure that the Message of Christ is spread to all corners of the world before the "last days"so that God's Kingdom may be established upon Earth? I am thinking here of such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals and the like with their missionary zeal (with all due respect to their beliefs and the sincerity with which they hold them). Don't know. In twiddling my shortwave radio knobs in order to receive such as the BBC, I am innundated with what I would consider "Christian Fundamentalism", often of a strange single leader style, most calling for monetary donations, and most with American voices and a warped view of the message of Christ and the Second Coming. Try listening sometime. Why? I have no need for organized religion. Most are just in it for the money. Most are real Elmer Gantrys at work. If I need grace, or saving, I go sailing. Islam does not need me to defend it, nor do I feel offended but even a cursory study of history will show that it is Christianity, not Islam that has used force, fear and the threat of death to covert people. True, but that was then. Again, perhaps it might bear contemplating Jesus's injunction to take the beam from thine own eye before one takes the mote from thy brother's. I'll do that Peter. But remember in the same sermon on the mound Jesus also said "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" Jesus warns us against two extremes: indifference toward evil and judgment of others. I do not need to judge radical islamist jihadist, their action speak volumes. Just wondering in my ignorance..... We all wonder, I wish I had the answers. Joe regards Peter In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self- evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Thier goal is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide 'caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Joe wrote:
BIG SNIP Stop being an asshole Joe. Read your history. The Christian church is drenched in the blood of its victims down the centuries. For one small example, do you know what the good Christian knights did to _all_ of the inhabitants of the town of Beziers in th 1200's? There are _other_ examples. So knock off the ****ing revolting holier-than-thou condemnation of the Islamics who have committed their own atrocities. |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Apr 15, 9:28 pm, the_bmac wrote:
Joe wrote: BIG SNIP Stop being an asshole Joe. Read your history. The Christian church is drenched in the blood of its victims down the centuries. For one small example, do you know what the good Christian knights did to _all_ of the inhabitants of the town of Beziers in th 1200's? There are _other_ examples. So knock off the ****ing revolting holier-than-thou condemnation of the Islamics who have committed their own atrocities. Hey Big Mac, go **** yourself after you finish sucking off M. Moore. If you could comprehend anything written besides the menu at McDonalds, you would have seen I agreeded that in history Christians were as ruthless killers as todays jihadist. That was over 800 years ago douchbag, some people learn from history, have you seen any christian crusaders or knight templers lately? Damn Big Mac, if dumb were bricks you would be the great wall of China. BTW dip****, I'm not Holier than anyone, but unlike you I can see who is trying to establish freedom and basic liberty for others, and who is trying to prevent that. Joe |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On 15 Apr 2007 19:49:39 -0700, "Joe" wrote:
Joe, At the risk of incurring a flood of what they term in Trinidad as "Industrial Language" I would like to point out that most people on the earth really could not care a hoot for what you term as "freedom and liberty". It is my view that you as an American have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe that "Democracy" and your particular style of it is what the rest of the world is hungering for. I believe that Alexander Pope's quip "For forms of government, let fools contest; whichever governs best is best." Most people that I have met and lived among in countries such as China, the Middle East and South East Asia, as well as other places couldn't care less about the right to vote. They merely want good government and the opportunity to raise their families in peace and prosperity, educate their children and so on. Voter turn out in many countries is seldom more than 70%. In Australia if you neglect to vote you are fined quite heavily. Certainly not a picture of people clamouring to exercise their "democratic rights". The Jihadist movement is not about freedom and liberty any more than the war in Iraq and US foreign policy is about establishing democracy. The Iraqi war is about control of oil and the US will attempt to stay there for a very long time. A yachtee from here who was a hawk last year when I met him has just come back from a contract in Iraq with a more sober mien. He tells us that the US is definitely there for good. There are over 30 huge concrete bases and that the US` embassy is on 150 acres - not measures of a temporary nature. He is no longer a hawk. If it were about establishing freedom, why not attack Saudi Arabia which is an oppressive regime with no right to vote at all? Or all the other non democratic countries that the US is into bed with? Central and South American politics as well as other places have a history of the US supporting oppressive non-democratic regimes and aiding the overthrown of democratically elected governments. This is not anti-American propaganda - look at your own government information and such as the contra deal. Benjamin Franklin foretold that the US system of democracy as established by him and the other founding fathers would eventually fail. It amazes me just what Americans do not know about their history, a lot of which is mythical such as the origin of Thanksgiving. The information is freely available Personally, I wonder if you really do have the liberty you claim and which your system keeps telling you that you have and which is superior to that of all other nations. A great many of you sound rather like the young Chinese Red Guards I met years ago - parroting what has been put into your heads without any thinking. A lot of what you did have you gave away with your submissive acceptance of the Patriot Act because your leaders told you it was necessary. But then only Communists brainwash, don't they? Democracy requires citizens who think and question. Enough. This is far from cruising. kindest regards Peter BTW dip****, I'm not Holier than anyone, but unlike you I can see who is trying to establish freedom and basic liberty for others, and who is trying to prevent that. Joe |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
Joe wrote:
snip morphing to avoid filtering? let us know when you turn 14. *plonk* |
Jim Manzari - Cruisers Snared in Australia
On Apr 16, 2:27 am, Peter Hendra wrote:
Most people that I have met and lived among in countries such as China, the Middle East and South East Asia, as well as other places couldn't care less about the right to vote. They merely want good government and the opportunity to raise their families in peace and prosperity, educate their children and so on. I know many Chinese people now living and working in the USA. After the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre not many in China dare to freely speak of such things as voting for a leader. Voter turn out in many countries is seldom more than 70%. Yeah what a shame. Iraq only had a 67% IIRC turnout, but hey, people were still trying to kill them when they went to the polls. snip Democracy requires citizens who think and question. Enough. This is far from cruising. Agreeded. Best Regards, Joe kindest regards Peter |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com