| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Kind of ironic...
....the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali
pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Pirates Ransom Saudi Vessel; Three Ships Seized (Update1) By Caroline Alexander and Hamsa Omar Enlarge Image/Details Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Pirates demanded a ransom for an oil- laden Saudi supertanker amid reports three other merchant vessels have been hijacked in one of the worst spates of attacks in the Gulf of Aden and off the East African coast. ``Negotiators are onboard the ship and on land,'' a man identifying himself as Farah Abd Jameh, a member of the group that hijacked the Saudi tanker, said in an audio tape aired by Dubai-based Al Jazeera television. ``Once they agree on the ransom, it will be taken in cash to the oil tanker.'' Saudi Arabia's state-owned shipping line, Vela International Marine Ltd., yesterday said it had set up negotiation teams to free the tanker, Sirius Star, and its crew of 25, seized on Nov. 15 about 420 nautical miles (833 kilometers) off Somalia. The vessel is carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude valued at $110 million. Since January, at least 88 vessels have been attacked in the Gulf of Aden, an area of 1 million square miles (2.6 million square kilometers) flanked by Yemen and Somalia and leading to the Suez Canal. Ransom payments have spurred raiders to step up their activities, the International Maritime Bureau says, even as NATO, European Union, Indian, Malaysian and Russian naval fleets patrol the area in an anti-piracy mission. The pirates' representative didn't say how much money his group wants for the Sirius Star, which is anchored near Harardhare, a town in Somalia's semi-autonomous northern Puntland region. ``We assure the safety of the ship carrying the ransom,'' the man said in the Al Jazeera broadcast, warning against any attempts to use counterfeit cash. War-Torn Somalia Pirates from war-torn Somalia, which hasn't had an effective government since the 1991 fall of the Siad Barre regime, have asked for $1 million ransoms on average this year, according to Chatham House, a London-based research organization that advises mainly European governments. Since the hijacking of the Saudi vessel, pirates in the region have taken control of ships from Hong Kong, Greece and Thailand, Andrew Mwangura, head of the East African Seafarers Association, said in a phone interview from Kenya. Pirates generally use captured fishing trawlers as staging posts for attacks further out to sea, according to an October report by Chatham House. Today, pirates released a Hong Kong-flagged ship and 25 crew members captured two months ago, Agence France-Presse said. An Indian Navy ship fired at a pirate vessel in the Gulf of Aden yesterday, the government in New Delhi said today. The Navy's Tabar encountered the pirate vessel 285 nautical miles southwest of Salalah in Oman. The Tabar has been on an anti- piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden since Nov. 2, according to the government. Pirate Ship Fire A fire broke out on the pirate ship ``possibly due to exploding ammunition that was stored on the vessel,'' it said in a statement. The clash came a week after the Indian frigate rescued the Saudi Arabia-registered merchant vessel Timaha and a 38,000 metric-ton Indian bulk carrier from pirates. The Hong Kong-flagged Delight was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden yesterday. It was carrying 36,000 metric tons of wheat to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and had a crew of 25. The Thai- operated boat was also taken yesterday off the coast of Yemen as it sailed toward the Red Sea. The Greek Merchant Marine Ministry in Athens said it couldn't confirm a Greek-flagged or Greek-owned vessel had been seized. `Message to the World' ``The pirates really demonstrate unexpected things and are sending a message to the world that they can do what they need to,'' the seafarers association's Mwangura said. More than 14 vessels and 250 crew members remain hostage, according to the IMB, including a Ukrainian-crewed vessel carrying at least 30 Soviet-designed T-72 tanks bound for Kenya. That ship is anchored near the Sirius Star in Harardhare, Colonel Abshir Abdi Jama, a national security official in Puntland said yesterday. Pirates are honing their techniques and using Global Positioning System navigational aids and satellite phones to find potential targets, according to Chatham House. The Sirius Star, bigger than the Chrysler Building, a 77- story Manhattan skyscraper, is the largest ship seized and the hijacking was the farthest out to sea that Somali pirates have struck, according to the U.S. Navy. Analysts said the chances of a military response to rescue the ship are slim. ``Everything is possible but it would take extraordinary means and organization, and the risk of an ecological disaster is very high,'' Dominique Montecer, director of operations at GEOS, a French risk management company, said by phone from Paris yesterday. ``They are sitting on a bomb.'' The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet hasn't had any communication with the pirates or the ship, spokesman Lieutenant Nate Christensen said by phone from Bahrain today. Force Shippers Hijackers may force shippers to divert vessels from the Gulf of Aden, to take the longer route to Europe and North America around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, delaying deliveries to Europe and the U.S. and adding to costs. Still, the Indian Ocean is vast and patrolling it is extremely difficult, the Fifth Fleet's Christensen said. ``We patrol an area of 2.5 million square miles, from Pakistan to Kenya. The area is extensively large and we can't be everywhere at once,'' he said. When asked why the Sirius Star wasn't being taken back by force, he said an armed response would require a great deal of international agreement and cooperation. ``It's certainly a very complex environment to work in -- a Liberian-flagged vessel, owned by a Saudi company, in Somali waters, with so many different nationalities on board,'' Christensen said. Firing Grappling Hooks The pirates probably fired grappling hooks onto the supertanker's deck, allowing them to scale the ship's 10-meter- high (33-foot) side using rope ladders, said Roger Middleton, an analyst at Chatham House. Ships are normally attacked by five or six pirates, though as many as 15 may have been involved this time, Middleton said. Once the pirates are on board they're normally joined by others, he said. Frontline Ltd., the world's largest owner of tanker ships, said it has yet to make a final decision about sending carriers away from Somalia, Jens Martin Jensen, interim chief executive officer of the company's management unit, said by mobile phone from Singapore today. Sirius Star Crew The crew of the Sirius Star, 19 Filipinos, two Britons, two Poles, a Saudi and a Croatian, is ``believed to be safe'' and Vela is ``working toward their safe and speedy return,'' Vela said in a statement. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be considering an armed response to the hijacking because it may endanger the crew, according to Nick Day, London-based chief executive officer of Diligence Inc., a security and intelligence group. ``Once in port you've got several hundred people around there, heavily armed,'' said Day, a former member of the U.K. military's Special Boat Service. In any case, shippers say firepower won't rid the region of piracy. Naval units must go after the pirates' dens and boats to reduce piracy, they say, not just patrol the 2,400-kilometer coast waiting for raiders to make the first move. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater
wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. |
Kind of ironic...
On Nov 19, 7:51*am, Boater wrote:
...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. There's a thing called diplomacy, and I thought you were all for that. The current situation has nothing at all to do with the United States' preparedness. It's official, you hate anything and everything to do with the United States. Leave. We'll all be better off if you do. |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Pirates Ransom Saudi Vessel; Three Ships Seized (Update1) By Caroline Alexander and Hamsa Omar Enlarge Image/Details Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Pirates demanded a ransom for an oil- laden Saudi supertanker amid reports three other merchant vessels have been hijacked in one of the worst spates of attacks in the Gulf of Aden and off the East African coast. ``Negotiators are onboard the ship and on land,'' a man identifying himself as Farah Abd Jameh, a member of the group that hijacked the Saudi tanker, said in an audio tape aired by Dubai-based Al Jazeera television. ``Once they agree on the ransom, it will be taken in cash to the oil tanker.'' Saudi Arabia's state-owned shipping line, Vela International Marine Ltd., yesterday said it had set up negotiation teams to free the tanker, Sirius Star, and its crew of 25, seized on Nov. 15 about 420 nautical miles (833 kilometers) off Somalia. The vessel is carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude valued at $110 million. Since January, at least 88 vessels have been attacked in the Gulf of Aden, an area of 1 million square miles (2.6 million square kilometers) flanked by Yemen and Somalia and leading to the Suez Canal. Ransom payments have spurred raiders to step up their activities, the International Maritime Bureau says, even as NATO, European Union, Indian, Malaysian and Russian naval fleets patrol the area in an anti-piracy mission. The pirates' representative didn't say how much money his group wants for the Sirius Star, which is anchored near Harardhare, a town in Somalia's semi-autonomous northern Puntland region. ``We assure the safety of the ship carrying the ransom,'' the man said in the Al Jazeera broadcast, warning against any attempts to use counterfeit cash. War-Torn Somalia Pirates from war-torn Somalia, which hasn't had an effective government since the 1991 fall of the Siad Barre regime, have asked for $1 million ransoms on average this year, according to Chatham House, a London-based research organization that advises mainly European governments. Since the hijacking of the Saudi vessel, pirates in the region have taken control of ships from Hong Kong, Greece and Thailand, Andrew Mwangura, head of the East African Seafarers Association, said in a phone interview from Kenya. Pirates generally use captured fishing trawlers as staging posts for attacks further out to sea, according to an October report by Chatham House. Today, pirates released a Hong Kong-flagged ship and 25 crew members captured two months ago, Agence France-Presse said. An Indian Navy ship fired at a pirate vessel in the Gulf of Aden yesterday, the government in New Delhi said today. The Navy's Tabar encountered the pirate vessel 285 nautical miles southwest of Salalah in Oman. The Tabar has been on an anti- piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden since Nov. 2, according to the government. Pirate Ship Fire A fire broke out on the pirate ship ``possibly due to exploding ammunition that was stored on the vessel,'' it said in a statement. The clash came a week after the Indian frigate rescued the Saudi Arabia-registered merchant vessel Timaha and a 38,000 metric-ton Indian bulk carrier from pirates. The Hong Kong-flagged Delight was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden yesterday. It was carrying 36,000 metric tons of wheat to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and had a crew of 25. The Thai- operated boat was also taken yesterday off the coast of Yemen as it sailed toward the Red Sea. The Greek Merchant Marine Ministry in Athens said it couldn't confirm a Greek-flagged or Greek-owned vessel had been seized. `Message to the World' ``The pirates really demonstrate unexpected things and are sending a message to the world that they can do what they need to,'' the seafarers association's Mwangura said. More than 14 vessels and 250 crew members remain hostage, according to the IMB, including a Ukrainian-crewed vessel carrying at least 30 Soviet-designed T-72 tanks bound for Kenya. That ship is anchored near the Sirius Star in Harardhare, Colonel Abshir Abdi Jama, a national security official in Puntland said yesterday. Pirates are honing their techniques and using Global Positioning System navigational aids and satellite phones to find potential targets, according to Chatham House. The Sirius Star, bigger than the Chrysler Building, a 77- story Manhattan skyscraper, is the largest ship seized and the hijacking was the farthest out to sea that Somali pirates have struck, according to the U.S. Navy. Analysts said the chances of a military response to rescue the ship are slim. ``Everything is possible but it would take extraordinary means and organization, and the risk of an ecological disaster is very high,'' Dominique Montecer, director of operations at GEOS, a French risk management company, said by phone from Paris yesterday. ``They are sitting on a bomb.'' The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet hasn't had any communication with the pirates or the ship, spokesman Lieutenant Nate Christensen said by phone from Bahrain today. Force Shippers Hijackers may force shippers to divert vessels from the Gulf of Aden, to take the longer route to Europe and North America around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, delaying deliveries to Europe and the U.S. and adding to costs. Still, the Indian Ocean is vast and patrolling it is extremely difficult, the Fifth Fleet's Christensen said. ``We patrol an area of 2.5 million square miles, from Pakistan to Kenya. The area is extensively large and we can't be everywhere at once,'' he said. When asked why the Sirius Star wasn't being taken back by force, he said an armed response would require a great deal of international agreement and cooperation. ``It's certainly a very complex environment to work in -- a Liberian-flagged vessel, owned by a Saudi company, in Somali waters, with so many different nationalities on board,'' Christensen said. Firing Grappling Hooks The pirates probably fired grappling hooks onto the supertanker's deck, allowing them to scale the ship's 10-meter- high (33-foot) side using rope ladders, said Roger Middleton, an analyst at Chatham House. Ships are normally attacked by five or six pirates, though as many as 15 may have been involved this time, Middleton said. Once the pirates are on board they're normally joined by others, he said. Frontline Ltd., the world's largest owner of tanker ships, said it has yet to make a final decision about sending carriers away from Somalia, Jens Martin Jensen, interim chief executive officer of the company's management unit, said by mobile phone from Singapore today. Sirius Star Crew The crew of the Sirius Star, 19 Filipinos, two Britons, two Poles, a Saudi and a Croatian, is ``believed to be safe'' and Vela is ``working toward their safe and speedy return,'' Vela said in a statement. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be considering an armed response to the hijacking because it may endanger the crew, according to Nick Day, London-based chief executive officer of Diligence Inc., a security and intelligence group. ``Once in port you've got several hundred people around there, heavily armed,'' said Day, a former member of the U.K. military's Special Boat Service. In any case, shippers say firepower won't rid the region of piracy. Naval units must go after the pirates' dens and boats to reduce piracy, they say, not just patrol the 2,400-kilometer coast waiting for raiders to make the first move. How long would you support the intervention that would be necessary to control the pirates? This intervention would require military occupation of the ports from which the pirates operate. There would be casualties. If the US exercised this policy, the citizen of the US would get tired after a couple years and start yelling that we do not belong there. Remember Iraq and Afghanistan? They were all for it eight years ago, when President Bush put the proposition to congress and told them it was a long term commitment. Maybe the problem is a lack of understanding of the term "commitment". |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote:
more bull****. -- John H. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:24:03 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. You called it the other day. You're addressing a moronic statement. -- John H. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:25:57 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote: You're responding to someone who passed this test with flying colors: http://tinyurl.com/o42at -- John H. |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote in
: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. snip aritcle, except for the last paragraph In any case, shippers say firepower won't rid the region of piracy. Naval units must go after the pirates' dens and boats to reduce piracy, they say, not just patrol the 2,400-kilometer coast waiting for raiders to make the first move. Well, 2400 kilometers is a hell of a long chunk of coastline to blockade effectively - you'd need several hundred UAV drones in the air 24/7 to give you intelligence on boat movements, then you'd need to distinguish between pirates and legitimate fishermen (life is hard enough in Somalia without interdicting a major food source) - always remembering that the difference between a fisherman and a pirate may not be all that clear all the time. Then to 'go after the pirate dens' means civiliab casualties in a country mostly controlled by more-or-less radical Islamic militants - I could see the problem escalating from piracy-for- ransom to privateering-to-sink -commerce as part of a jihad against the Great Satans of the West (never mind that cargoes may be wheat for Iran). It's not that we can't do it - we could - it's that we have a couple of other things on our plate that are consuming military resources at the moment. And, of course, in order to effectively rid the region of piracy one needs to establish an effective rule of law in the countryside, and eliminate the support network in the region - either that or sink every last thing that can go out of sight of land along the entire coastline, and maintain the blockade to be sure such craft are not replaced. As I see it,the only real solution is to somehow establish a peaceful, universally accepted government in Somalia and make it more profitable to stay home and tend to business than to go buccaneering. (In the news today an Indian Talwar-class frigate, the INS Tabar, sunk a pirate mother ship after being fired on. Wikipedia lists the armament of a Talwar frigate as being primarily anti-ship cruise missiles, with one 100 mm gun - excellent for over-the-horizon fighting with other high-tech navies, but lousy for interdicting dhows. However, one must wonder about the sanity of men armed with RPGs and small arms starting a shooting fight with a frigate. Same thing happened a few days ago when the HMS Cumberland captured a pirate dhow - there must be a 'you'll never catch me alive' code of honor or something in place, or the pirates can't tell the difference between a freighter and a frigate.) |
Kind of ironic...
On Nov 19, 8:35*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Eisboch Consider the author! |
Kind of ironic...
On Nov 19, 7:51*am, Boater wrote:
...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. you DO realize the international community...NOT the US navy is taking the lead on this, right? and you DO realize they have established protected shipping lanes through which about 80% of shipping in this area passes, right? and you DO realize this attack took place 450 miles off somalia's coast...the first time pirates have ventured this far off somalia's shores, right? oh. you didn't know any of this.... uh huh. |
Kind of ironic...
Harry,
Some rogue left wing news feed has hacked into your system and is using it to rebroadcast old news. Just thought I'd warn you before someone accuses you of violating copyrights. Boater wrote: ....the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Pirates Ransom Saudi Vessel; Three Ships Seized (Update1) By Caroline Alexander and Hamsa Omar Enlarge Image/Details Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Pirates demanded a ransom for an oil- laden Saudi supertanker amid reports three other merchant vessels have been hijacked in one of the worst spates of attacks in the Gulf of Aden and off the East African coast. ``Negotiators are onboard the ship and on land,'' a man identifying himself as Farah Abd Jameh, a member of the group that hijacked the Saudi tanker, said in an audio tape aired by Dubai-based Al Jazeera television. ``Once they agree on the ransom, it will be taken in cash to the oil tanker.'' Saudi Arabia's state-owned shipping line, Vela International Marine Ltd., yesterday said it had set up negotiation teams to free the tanker, Sirius Star, and its crew of 25, seized on Nov. 15 about 420 nautical miles (833 kilometers) off Somalia. The vessel is carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude valued at $110 million. Since January, at least 88 vessels have been attacked in the Gulf of Aden, an area of 1 million square miles (2.6 million square kilometers) flanked by Yemen and Somalia and leading to the Suez Canal. Ransom payments have spurred raiders to step up their activities, the International Maritime Bureau says, even as NATO, European Union, Indian, Malaysian and Russian naval fleets patrol the area in an anti-piracy mission. The pirates' representative didn't say how much money his group wants for the Sirius Star, which is anchored near Harardhare, a town in Somalia's semi-autonomous northern Puntland region. ``We assure the safety of the ship carrying the ransom,'' the man said in the Al Jazeera broadcast, warning against any attempts to use counterfeit cash. War-Torn Somalia Pirates from war-torn Somalia, which hasn't had an effective government since the 1991 fall of the Siad Barre regime, have asked for $1 million ransoms on average this year, according to Chatham House, a London-based research organization that advises mainly European governments. Since the hijacking of the Saudi vessel, pirates in the region have taken control of ships from Hong Kong, Greece and Thailand, Andrew Mwangura, head of the East African Seafarers Association, said in a phone interview from Kenya. Pirates generally use captured fishing trawlers as staging posts for attacks further out to sea, according to an October report by Chatham House. Today, pirates released a Hong Kong-flagged ship and 25 crew members captured two months ago, Agence France-Presse said. An Indian Navy ship fired at a pirate vessel in the Gulf of Aden yesterday, the government in New Delhi said today. The Navy's Tabar encountered the pirate vessel 285 nautical miles southwest of Salalah in Oman. The Tabar has been on an anti- piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden since Nov. 2, according to the government. Pirate Ship Fire A fire broke out on the pirate ship ``possibly due to exploding ammunition that was stored on the vessel,'' it said in a statement. The clash came a week after the Indian frigate rescued the Saudi Arabia-registered merchant vessel Timaha and a 38,000 metric-ton Indian bulk carrier from pirates. The Hong Kong-flagged Delight was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden yesterday. It was carrying 36,000 metric tons of wheat to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and had a crew of 25. The Thai- operated boat was also taken yesterday off the coast of Yemen as it sailed toward the Red Sea. The Greek Merchant Marine Ministry in Athens said it couldn't confirm a Greek-flagged or Greek-owned vessel had been seized. `Message to the World' ``The pirates really demonstrate unexpected things and are sending a message to the world that they can do what they need to,'' the seafarers association's Mwangura said. More than 14 vessels and 250 crew members remain hostage, according to the IMB, including a Ukrainian-crewed vessel carrying at least 30 Soviet-designed T-72 tanks bound for Kenya. That ship is anchored near the Sirius Star in Harardhare, Colonel Abshir Abdi Jama, a national security official in Puntland said yesterday. Pirates are honing their techniques and using Global Positioning System navigational aids and satellite phones to find potential targets, according to Chatham House. The Sirius Star, bigger than the Chrysler Building, a 77- story Manhattan skyscraper, is the largest ship seized and the hijacking was the farthest out to sea that Somali pirates have struck, according to the U.S. Navy. Analysts said the chances of a military response to rescue the ship are slim. ``Everything is possible but it would take extraordinary means and organization, and the risk of an ecological disaster is very high,'' Dominique Montecer, director of operations at GEOS, a French risk management company, said by phone from Paris yesterday. ``They are sitting on a bomb.'' The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet hasn't had any communication with the pirates or the ship, spokesman Lieutenant Nate Christensen said by phone from Bahrain today. Force Shippers Hijackers may force shippers to divert vessels from the Gulf of Aden, to take the longer route to Europe and North America around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, delaying deliveries to Europe and the U.S. and adding to costs. Still, the Indian Ocean is vast and patrolling it is extremely difficult, the Fifth Fleet's Christensen said. ``We patrol an area of 2.5 million square miles, from Pakistan to Kenya. The area is extensively large and we can't be everywhere at once,'' he said. When asked why the Sirius Star wasn't being taken back by force, he said an armed response would require a great deal of international agreement and cooperation. ``It's certainly a very complex environment to work in -- a Liberian-flagged vessel, owned by a Saudi company, in Somali waters, with so many different nationalities on board,'' Christensen said. Firing Grappling Hooks The pirates probably fired grappling hooks onto the supertanker's deck, allowing them to scale the ship's 10-meter- high (33-foot) side using rope ladders, said Roger Middleton, an analyst at Chatham House. Ships are normally attacked by five or six pirates, though as many as 15 may have been involved this time, Middleton said. Once the pirates are on board they're normally joined by others, he said. Frontline Ltd., the world's largest owner of tanker ships, said it has yet to make a final decision about sending carriers away from Somalia, Jens Martin Jensen, interim chief executive officer of the company's management unit, said by mobile phone from Singapore today. Sirius Star Crew The crew of the Sirius Star, 19 Filipinos, two Britons, two Poles, a Saudi and a Croatian, is ``believed to be safe'' and Vela is ``working toward their safe and speedy return,'' Vela said in a statement. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be considering an armed response to the hijacking because it may endanger the crew, according to Nick Day, London-based chief executive officer of Diligence Inc., a security and intelligence group. ``Once in port you've got several hundred people around there, heavily armed,'' said Day, a former member of the U.K. military's Special Boat Service. In any case, shippers say firepower won't rid the region of piracy. Naval units must go after the pirates' dens and boats to reduce piracy, they say, not just patrol the 2,400-kilometer coast waiting for raiders to make the first move. |
Kind of ironic...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. The Horn of Africa pirates present the shipping nations of the world with a unique opportunity to band together and eliminate a scourge. It wouldn't take much in the way of George H.W. Bush diplomacy to get an agreement from the injured party nations to band together and finance a fleet of ships and planes through money and contribution of forces to blow the pirates out of the water. It's not like the pirates are invisible to eyesight or radar. Who is going to object? The non-existent government of Somalia? What *is* our Navy doing these days, anyway? Not much. Working with ships from other nations to rid the seas of these pirates would be good exercise for naval personnel and equipment. If we can spend $10 billion a month on a trumped-up war against Iraq, a war that isn't going to give us crap, we certainly can divert some of those finds to taking care of little bands of pirates armed with popguns. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. This ship was taken 500 miles off a coastline that's 2000 miles long. There's only a couple of US ships patrolling an area of ocean five times the size of Texas. Fortunately, this is an international effort. You know, today an Indian Navy vessel happened upon a Somali pirate mothership with two speedboats in tow and attacked it, leaving it in flames with secondary explosions on board. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...tes/index.html You like international efforts, right? Or do you want to commit the US Navy alone to patrolling that 1 million square miles of ocean? Then again, I believe you might want to do that since you're the one who said, after 9/11, that the US should carpet bomb Saudi Arabia. For someone with so much disdain of the military, you really like commiting them to action. What will probably end up happening to solve the problem is that either the shipping companies will tell all their captains to give that area a much wider berth or they'll start hiring security forces to protect the ships and not make them such easy targets. A 24 hour watch with a few mounted and armored .50 cal machine guns will ruin the day of those pirates in their speedboats. When you're hauling $100,000,000 in cargo, the cost of a few extra crew and some machine guns is irrelevant and is probably cheaper than going around the area. Steve |
Kind of ironic...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. The article says the captured tanker is Saudi state owned. They also happen to own a Navy and know of the problems in the part of the world. Think they'll be able to connect these dots? Of course, putting out to sea means they have to get away from the hooka pipes and off their asses.... |
Kind of ironic...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare mothers. It's perfect liberal thinking. Please don't insult all liberals. Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:52 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare mothers. It's perfect liberal thinking. |
Kind of ironic...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare mothers. It's perfect liberal thinking. You need low draft vessels hundreds of miles off the coast, eh? Lower draft than, say, the full tanker that was captured? The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:38:13 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare mothers. It's perfect liberal thinking. Yes. He's a good joke though. -- John H. |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. |
Kind of ironic...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:49:00 GMT, Steve wrote:
What will probably end up happening to solve the problem is that either the shipping companies will tell all their captains to give that area a much wider berth or they'll start hiring security forces to protect the ships and not make them such easy targets. A 24 hour watch with a few mounted and armored .50 cal machine guns will ruin the day of those pirates in their speedboats. When you're hauling $100,000,000 in cargo, the cost of a few extra crew and some machine guns is irrelevant and is probably cheaper than going around the area. Think they're going to need more than .50's. These Somali idiots are pretty well armed, and nutso. They could have blasted that oil tanker with RPG rounds at the least. And like I said, they're nuts. It's going to take some serious killing of Somali pirates before it stops. Probably land bombing/missile strikes. There will be collateral damage. --Vic |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. The Horn of Africa pirates present the shipping nations of the world with a unique opportunity to band together and eliminate a scourge. It wouldn't take much in the way of George H.W. Bush diplomacy to get an agreement from the injured party nations to band together and finance a fleet of ships and planes through money and contribution of forces to blow the pirates out of the water. It's not like the pirates are invisible to eyesight or radar. Who is going to object? The non-existent government of Somalia? What *is* our Navy doing these days, anyway? Not much. Working with ships from other nations to rid the seas of these pirates would be good exercise for naval personnel and equipment. If we can spend $10 billion a month on a trumped-up war against Iraq, a war that isn't going to give us crap, we certainly can divert some of those finds to taking care of little bands of pirates armed with popguns. Not a US ship. You are the one who wants us to stay out of other peoples countries. Saudi ship, Saudi's can handle the problem. US ship we eliminate 100,000 Somali's. That work? |
Kind of ironic...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. The Horn of Africa pirates present the shipping nations of the world with a unique opportunity to band together and eliminate a scourge. It wouldn't take much in the way of George H.W. Bush diplomacy to get an agreement from the injured party nations to band together and finance a fleet of ships and planes through money and contribution of forces to blow the pirates out of the water. It's not like the pirates are invisible to eyesight or radar. Who is going to object? The non-existent government of Somalia? What *is* our Navy doing these days, anyway? Not much. Working with ships from other nations to rid the seas of these pirates would be good exercise for naval personnel and equipment. If we can spend $10 billion a month on a trumped-up war against Iraq, a war that isn't going to give us crap, we certainly can divert some of those finds to taking care of little bands of pirates armed with popguns. Not a US ship. You are the one who wants us to stay out of other peoples countries. Saudi ship, Saudi's can handle the problem. US ship we eliminate 100,000 Somali's. That work? Are you saying that the only way our military can work is by killing thousands of non-involved civilians? That's outrageous. |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:51:22 -0500, Boater wrote: ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. Do you do this just to be an ass or are you serious? I would think that somebody who, in theory, has blue water experience would figure out that, well, the ocean is a pretty big freakin' place. It's not like patrolling the highways and byways of the country. Besides, why don't these ships have private security? Or for that matter, arm the crew with anti-tank weapons? Nothing like sinking a few of these little *******s and leaving the pirate crews for the sharks to deal with for deterrance. The Horn of Africa pirates present the shipping nations of the world with a unique opportunity to band together and eliminate a scourge. It wouldn't take much in the way of George H.W. Bush diplomacy to get an agreement from the injured party nations to band together and finance a fleet of ships and planes through money and contribution of forces to blow the pirates out of the water. It's not like the pirates are invisible to eyesight or radar. Who is going to object? The non-existent government of Somalia? What *is* our Navy doing these days, anyway? Not much. Working with ships from other nations to rid the seas of these pirates would be good exercise for naval personnel and equipment. If we can spend $10 billion a month on a trumped-up war against Iraq, a war that isn't going to give us crap, we certainly can divert some of those finds to taking care of little bands of pirates armed with popguns. Not a US ship. You are the one who wants us to stay out of other peoples countries. Saudi ship, Saudi's can handle the problem. US ship we eliminate 100,000 Somali's. That work? Are you saying that the only way our military can work is by killing thousands of non-involved civilians? That's outrageous. Uninvolved? Who said thousands of uninvolved? |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky mood. |
Kind of ironic...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky mood. Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of stupidity in Iraq. |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky mood. Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of stupidity in Iraq. I will make this prediction: Obama will withdraw us from Iraq on the same time line and schedule that the Bush administration has already established. Like under Bush, it will be based on the recommendations of military commanders on the ground and foreign policy experts. There may be a big deal made of bringing home a few thousand troops at a time to give the appearance of honoring his campaign commitment, but for all intents and purposes it will still be the existing withdrawal plan. If Obama tries to play General, overrules his advisors, pulls out too quickly and any stability that has been accomplished in Iraq dissolves, he will have his first major foreign policy blunder. Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky mood. Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of stupidity in Iraq. I will make this prediction: Obama will withdraw us from Iraq on the same time line and schedule that the Bush administration has already established. Like under Bush, it will be based on the recommendations of military commanders on the ground and foreign policy experts. There may be a big deal made of bringing home a few thousand troops at a time to give the appearance of honoring his campaign commitment, but for all intents and purposes it will still be the existing withdrawal plan. If Obama tries to play General, overrules his advisors, pulls out too quickly and any stability that has been accomplished in Iraq dissolves, he will have his first major foreign policy blunder. Eisboch Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. The INS's rules of engagement allow the to sink vessels who raise a weapon in a threatening manner towards a man of war on the high seas. You would cry, whine and complain if an F/A-18 put a couple of 500 pounders on a "peaceful fishing boat" or a 5-inch gun was permitted to do some range and elevation practice. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:31:40 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:49:00 GMT, Steve wrote: What will probably end up happening to solve the problem is that either the shipping companies will tell all their captains to give that area a much wider berth or they'll start hiring security forces to protect the ships and not make them such easy targets. A 24 hour watch with a few mounted and armored .50 cal machine guns will ruin the day of those pirates in their speedboats. When you're hauling $100,000,000 in cargo, the cost of a few extra crew and some machine guns is irrelevant and is probably cheaper than going around the area. Think they're going to need more than .50's. These Somali idiots are pretty well armed, and nutso. They could have blasted that oil tanker with RPG rounds at the least. And like I said, they're nuts. It's going to take some serious killing of Somali pirates before it stops. Probably land bombing/missile strikes. There will be collateral damage. They're looking for easy targets. If you're a bunch of pirates in a little speedboat coming up to a tanker the size of an aircraft carrier and while you're thinking of having to climb up a hundred foot rope ladder there are guys on deck a hundred feet above you manning a few mounted armored .50's and raining rounds into your boat while you're still a mile out, you're gonna turn around real quick. They weren't carrying anything to counter that. RPGs don't have enough range. The rocket dies after only around 500m and they are designed to self explode after less than 1000m of flight. An M2 .50 cal machine gun has an effective range (good enough to disable or sink the speedboat) of twice that and a max range (good enough to let the pirates know they are under fire) of over 4 miles. And a huge freighter/tanker makes a great stable gun platform. A fast moving speedboat does not. Steve |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... ...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. That statement is just plain stupid, that's all. Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare mothers. It's perfect liberal thinking. You need low draft vessels hundreds of miles off the coast, eh? Lower draft than, say, the full tanker that was captured? The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Elint isn't as good as humint. We need more humint. Get The Obama and the Democrat Congress to fix our lack of humint at the CIA. |
Kind of ironic...
"Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves? Eisboch |
Kind of ironic...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves? Eisboch Not at all. Iraq isn't stable. I said "what passes for stability." As soon as we leave, and we will, Iraq will become Iraq again. |
Kind of ironic...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:35:10 -0500, Boater
wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves? Eisboch Not at all. Iraq isn't stable. I said "what passes for stability." As soon as we leave, and we will, Iraq will become Iraq again. There's an answer for that. Something about 100 years. --Vic |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
....the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century our military forces are. The Saudis can handle it if they choose to. There is no need for US involvement, WAFA. You should know that. |
Kind of ironic...
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks. Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very clear. Eisboch Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current top political leadership in the White House sucks. Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks. Oh, wait. You *did*. Eisboch Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained, multi-lingual assets. How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky mood. Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of stupidity in Iraq. I will make this prediction: Obama will withdraw us from Iraq on the same time line and schedule that the Bush administration has already established. Like under Bush, it will be based on the recommendations of military commanders on the ground and foreign policy experts. There may be a big deal made of bringing home a few thousand troops at a time to give the appearance of honoring his campaign commitment, but for all intents and purposes it will still be the existing withdrawal plan. If Obama tries to play General, overrules his advisors, pulls out too quickly and any stability that has been accomplished in Iraq dissolves, he will have his first major foreign policy blunder. Eisboch Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. Now there's a generic statement. Thanks for sharing your amazing insight! |
Kind of ironic...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our departure, whenever that is. Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves? Eisboch Cue the crickets.... WAFA won't be able to spin that one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com