wrote:
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?


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?

"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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

On Nov 19, 7:05*pm, DK wrote:
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!

Not typically a mere writer, but a union agitator as well.

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