|
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Nov 19, 1:14*pm, Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. *Air power is the answer. *Find out what village or town the pirates are from. *Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. *Then do it. Ahh, kill more uninvolved civilians...the American way.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - YOU are the one whining like a friggin' baby that we aren't doing enough!!!! |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Nov 19, 1:14*pm, Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. *Air power is the answer. *Find out what village or town the pirates are from. *Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. *Then do it. Ahh, kill more uninvolved civilians...the American way.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So, what's your solution ??? And I mean from here on in, what should King Obama do? |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Nov 19, 12:28*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? The Israelis have some 50 knot patrol boats, deep vees, that are suitably armed, and armed forces who know how to fight. Perhaps a contract could be let... http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...Shaldag2.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Damn nice googling! |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. Most of the time was Democrats. Was LBJ who signed my draft letter. The military had no problem beating the Iraq military. Now that the State Department is in charge, seems as if the problems arise. If it was up to the military to cure the pirate problem, the Squids would haul the Jarheads over to Somalia, and the Air Force would drop bombs where the Jarheads requested devastation and then the Jarheads would go in and finish cleaning up the pirates. Same in Afghanistan. But the Politicians will not let the military kill all the warlords. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Nov 19, 12:00*pm, jim wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:38:20 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. Most importantly, maintaining a balance of power, deterrence and top stop training to be prepared at any moment for any global situation. * Other than that, nothing important. Please don't argue that we don't have a balance of power obligation. *Our security, indeed much of the world's depends on it. *If the day ever comes when another nation ever thinks it can militarily defeat us, the first part of the battle will have been lost and we'll be obligated to prove to them how wrong they were. *It's better to never have them develop the confidence to try. The blue water Navy is tested virtually everyday when at sea. The testing is not always being done by us. I, nor many others, I suspect, could care less if you are impressed or not. It doesn't matter. * I understand the mission and the purpose, I believe in it and I thank God we have it, even if it helps provide security to armchair whiners like you. Eisboch Sorry...I don't buy into the 8' asparagus of the military. I'm not suggesting we do away with it. I just believe that the nature of today's threats have made our military...less relevant. Harry, you probably don't realize this, but the last few responses to you by Eisboch were *not* compliments. You need to get your head out of wherever it is. We've been taking up all of Harry's time this morning. How do you expect the man to make a living writing jingles when we keep distracting him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harry doesn't work! Except when his wife gets home from the local union hall. Then he has to get her supper. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:56:30 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:38:20 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. Most importantly, maintaining a balance of power, deterrence and top stop training to be prepared at any moment for any global situation. Other than that, nothing important. Please don't argue that we don't have a balance of power obligation. Our security, indeed much of the world's depends on it. If the day ever comes when another nation ever thinks it can militarily defeat us, the first part of the battle will have been lost and we'll be obligated to prove to them how wrong they were. It's better to never have them develop the confidence to try. The blue water Navy is tested virtually everyday when at sea. The testing is not always being done by us. I, nor many others, I suspect, could care less if you are impressed or not. It doesn't matter. I understand the mission and the purpose, I believe in it and I thank God we have it, even if it helps provide security to armchair whiners like you. Eisboch Sorry...I don't buy into the 8' asparagus of the military. I'm not suggesting we do away with it. I just believe that the nature of today's threats have made our military...less relevant. Harry, you probably don't realize this, but the last few responses to you by Eisboch were *not* compliments. You need to get your head out of wherever it is. D'oh. I've been consistently against wasting taxpayer dollars on the military and its toys. D'oh, you've been a consistent joke. D'oh. -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
|
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:14:42 -0500, Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. Ahh, kill more uninvolved civilians...the American way. You bit on that one. He gotcha, Harry. WAFDS! -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. I say the world navies should declare a 'no go' zone to use as a shipping channel. Any unauthorized boats step over the line...kaboom. They'll get the message. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Don White" wrote in message ... I say the world navies should declare a 'no go' zone to use as a shipping channel. Any unauthorized boats step over the line...kaboom. They'll get the message. Good in theory, but just not realistically enforceable in a dependable way. The area would still be immense and very difficult to monitor, even with aircraft. These clowns are using very small boats in a very large ocean. Eisboch |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. Ahh, kill more uninvolved civilians...the American way. Uninvolved? Who is supporting the pirates? Who is spending the ransom? |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Uninvolved civilians. Hell it is a towns business. Support the husbands, and sons, who go to work to get a $20,000,000 paycheck for the town. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. I say the world navies should declare a 'no go' zone to use as a shipping channel. Any unauthorized boats step over the line...kaboom. They'll get the message. What about a civilian fisherman or cruiser that has to cross the channel? Damn Canuck warmonger. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. Holy Crap Harry! I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in. I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account. You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt. But, here's the highlights: Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this, the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained for this type of warfare. Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate were just that .... fruitless. Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap out of 'em. Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings stop. The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again. Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated. There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side) who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted. They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all the political pressure back in the States to end the war. It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and handicaps imposed by the politicians. I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities. It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life, smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team, rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times better than the old one I am familiar with. Eisboch |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. The people of that time decided it was better to die of drug overdoses, sexual transmitted disease and the like rather than die in Vietnam. You should read what the situation was in Vietnam not what the hippies and newspapers reported. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. Holy Crap Harry! I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in. I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account. You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt. But, here's the highlights: Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this, the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained for this type of warfare. Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate were just that .... fruitless. Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap out of 'em. Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings stop. The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again. Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated. There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side) who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted. They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all the political pressure back in the States to end the war. It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and handicaps imposed by the politicians. I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities. It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life, smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team, rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times better than the old one I am familiar with. Eisboch I don't minimize or deny the role of Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam mess. Our involvement there, though, predates them, and has to do with a misuse of the SEATO treaty in the early 1950's during Ike's first term. I also am not commenting on the efficacy of our military in Vietnam. It was a stupid war, fought for stupid reasons, and had nothing to do with defending the United States. I don't know why you slightly younger old farts and older old farts keep trying to make something honorable about the catastrophe there. Assuredly, many of our troops performed admirably there, but for nought. Propping up right-wing (or left-wing) dictators should not be our thing, eh? We got our asses handed to us in Vietnam. No matter how you rationalize it, that is fact. And when we finally pull out of Iraq, it is going to dissolve into chaos. Again. No matter what we have done or how long we stay. It's the nature of the beast there. And we will have wasted up to 5000 US lives by then, and two trillion dollars and for what? For nought. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Keith nuttle wrote:
Boater wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. The people of that time decided it was better to die of drug overdoses, sexual transmitted disease and the like rather than die in Vietnam. You should read what the situation was in Vietnam not what the hippies and newspapers reported. Uh-huh. Right. The situation in Vietnam was that we were propping up right-wing dictators. When Buddhist monks set themselves on fire to protest the government we support, what does that say about us? |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships. Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do? -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships. Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do? Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. You should know, Harry, you were there! WAFL! I didn't contribute to the loss. You did. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. You should know, Harry, you were there! WAFL! -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:03:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. Holy Crap Harry! I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in. I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account. You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt. But, here's the highlights: Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this, the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained for this type of warfare. Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate were just that .... fruitless. Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap out of 'em. Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings stop. The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again. Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated. There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side) who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted. They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all the political pressure back in the States to end the war. It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and handicaps imposed by the politicians. I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities. It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life, smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team, rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times better than the old one I am familiar with. Eisboch Ten times better, my ass. Maybe eight and a half. No more. -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:03:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. Holy Crap Harry! I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in. I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account. You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt. But, here's the highlights: Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this, the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained for this type of warfare. Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate were just that .... fruitless. Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap out of 'em. Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings stop. The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again. Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated. There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side) who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted. They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all the political pressure back in the States to end the war. It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and handicaps imposed by the politicians. I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities. It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life, smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team, rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times better than the old one I am familiar with. Eisboch Ten times better, my ass. Maybe eight and a half. No more. -- John H. He was referring to the officer ranks. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:11:15 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships. Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do? Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one. That would be useful, which means he won't do it. Why not just say, "I don't know." As no one knows much about him, that would be a good answer. You would be in good company, right along with Tom Brokaw! One wonders why he didn't ask, after viewing the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAjs0vb94bc -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:12:05 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote: Janet O'Leary wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about 100 Million USD worth of crude. any updates? === If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets reposessed, and your photo is int he paper.. If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough ships.. Is this country F..ked up or what. Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harrrrrry! What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars. Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our protracted militarism there? What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian efforts. I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in control of the military. I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam. Period. We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ. Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. You should know, Harry, you were there! WAFL! I didn't contribute to the loss. You did. Did your hero Kerry contribute to the loss? My contribution to the loss was actually pretty small. I built roads, bridges, a swimming pool, blew up some mines and booby traps, and watched our dentists and doctors on varioius Dentcaps and Medcaps. I wasn't a hero like Kerry. -- John H. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:22:53 -0500, Boater
wrote: Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. Use 250 lb bombs, they will vaporize a small boat just as thoroughly, and you can carry more of them. You can get six to a pylon, two triple ejector racks one behind the other. With an A-10 that's sixty of them. them. Tons lighter. More fuel. Your bomb load and milage may vary. Casady |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
|
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Nov 19, 1:18*pm, wrote:
On Nov 19, 12:00*pm, jim wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:38:20 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What, precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much. Most importantly, maintaining a balance of power, deterrence and top stop training to be prepared at any moment for any global situation. * Other than that, nothing important. Please don't argue that we don't have a balance of power obligation.. *Our security, indeed much of the world's depends on it. *If the day ever comes when another nation ever thinks it can militarily defeat us, the first part of the battle will have been lost and we'll be obligated to prove to them how wrong they were. *It's better to never have them develop the confidence to try. The blue water Navy is tested virtually everyday when at sea. The testing is not always being done by us. I, nor many others, I suspect, could care less if you are impressed or not. It doesn't matter. * I understand the mission and the purpose, I believe in it and I thank God we have it, even if it helps provide security to armchair whiners like you. Eisboch Sorry...I don't buy into the 8' asparagus of the military. I'm not suggesting we do away with it. I just believe that the nature of today's threats have made our military...less relevant. Harry, you probably don't realize this, but the last few responses to you by Eisboch were *not* compliments. You need to get your head out of wherever it is. We've been taking up all of Harry's time this morning. How do you expect the man to make a living writing jingles when we keep distracting him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harry doesn't work! Except when his wife gets home from the local union hall. Then he has to get her supper.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harry has no solutions cause he doesn't have the balls to actually take a stand. He will wait till it's over then jump on the wagon.. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
|
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. I say the world navies should declare a 'no go' zone to use as a shipping channel. Any unauthorized boats step over the line...kaboom. They'll get the message. Click on this, dumbass, and tell me how that will work... http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism? I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops. But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken. Eisboch Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships. Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do? Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one. Typical stupid response from a...writer! |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:03:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii. We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't change that. Holy Crap Harry! I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in. I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account. You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt. But, here's the highlights: Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this, the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained for this type of warfare. Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate were just that .... fruitless. Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap out of 'em. Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings stop. The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again. Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated. There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side) who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted. They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all the political pressure back in the States to end the war. It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and handicaps imposed by the politicians. I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities. It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life, smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team, rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times better than the old one I am familiar with. Eisboch Ten times better, my ass. Maybe eight and a half. No more. -- John H. He was referring to the officer ranks. You really should learn when to refrain from posting. That made you look dumber than usual. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
"DK" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:49:33 -0500, JohnH wrote: Harry, we're talking about ways to do in the pirates here I think the answer as air power. Don't the Saudis have a few AWACs planes. Loiter over the water off Somalia and profile any small boats shadowing their ships. Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. For that matter the US could do that but we should do it covertly. Officially we don't know why pirate boats are suddenly blowing up at sea. Must be some kind of accident handling munitions or something. Maybe they just have a batch of defective bilge blowers. I am still not sure how these guys are sneaking up on a tanker. Don't they have RADAR? They do understand extreme violence. Air power is the answer. Find out what village or town the pirates are from. Then just tell the pirates that the village / town is going to be removed from the desert sands via big bomb method. Then do it. I say the world navies should declare a 'no go' zone to use as a shipping channel. Any unauthorized boats step over the line...kaboom. They'll get the message. Click on this, dumbass, and tell me how that will work... http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml I believe we're just talking about one particular area numbnuts. Quit OD'n on those 'stupid pills'. |
Any latest news on the pirates and the oil tanker?
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:01:42 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:13:30 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:57:56 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:22:53 -0500, Boater wrote: Call in some "air" with 500 lb IR guided bombs to blow them out of the water from altitude. If these pirates discover their boats are simply disappearing without a trace they might stop going out. Use 250 lb bombs, they will vaporize a small boat just as thoroughly, and you can carry more of them. You can get six to a pylon, two triple ejector racks one behind the other. With an A-10 that's sixty of them. them. Tons lighter. More fuel. Your bomb load and milage may vary. Ed Zeiben. That reminds me of Ed Zeiben. Worked with him at IH in 1968. We were heat treaters. Big, wiry guy. WWII vet. The yippies and other trash were rioting in Grant Park, a few miles away from IH Tractor Works. He had the answer to the riots. "One 500-pounder. That'll take care of 'em." But he was an optimistic kinda guy. You worked at IH in the sixties? Kewl. That would have been during the era of the number series tractors - 544, 656, 756, 856 and 1256 models if I'm not mistaken. That was Farmall. Canton, IL I think. I worked making dozers, so the models were T-15,20, etc. Old McCormack works on the south side of Chicago, later Melrose Park, IL when they shut down Tractor Works. --Vic |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com