7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:55:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:12:02 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:17:20 -0500, wrote:

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

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

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


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


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



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


It is called a blockade, unless you are JFK, then it is an embargo.

I guarantee you, as soon as they get a terror connection, this will
escalate and I think that in imminent. Unfortunately for us, the rule
is "first punch is free" so we won't do anything until we have a
serious attack traced back to this money.

Really... you're going to blockage the entire Somali coast. I bet that
will be cheap!

The blockade was not my idea, fight that one out with Tosk., I was
just saying if we wanted to we could.

You seem to be supporting that nonsense.

I don't get into a fight with someone who's mentally unarmed.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:59:58 -0500, wrote:

PS, nothing about piracy is off topic. Piracy, by definition, is all
about boats.


That is particularly true with blue water sailors like you. There are
really Caribbean pirates too, just not as many.
How much thought do you give that when you are plotting courses?

There is very little, almost no, "on water" piracy in the Caribbean.
Some of the islands have an on land/harbor crime problem however, and
others have a dinghy theft problem. There are cruising discussion
groups and other web sites that speak to these issues. We also talk
to other cruisers along the way and get the latest scuttlebut on what
is going on. One island that got mentioned a lot is St Vincent in the
Windward Islands. On the advice of others, we did not stop. Too bad
since there are several nice looking harbors.

http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/...ean-crime-wave

Carrying weapons is problematic because the regulations vary widely
from island to island, and violations are dealt with severely. We
did carry two 25 millimeter "signaling devices" however and several
cannisters of "bear spray". It is legal to carry weapons onboard in
the Bahamas as long as they and the ammo are properly declared on
entry. We've never felt the need however, very friendly folks for the
most part.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On 3/1/11 7:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlepc2dnY5yOPDxdPHQnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?



I've told you; *I* don't pretend to have a solution for the Somali
piracy problem. My suggestion was that we need to get more nations
involved in patrols so that there are more "assets" keeping watch.
Whatever we do, though, has to fall within the limitations of
international law. We are not a rogue state.

I am sure our state department and military discuss the piracy issue
regularly with their colleagues in other nations. I doubt the ideas of a
former marine reservist who never attended college or even got an
overseas posting are of much interest.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:54:35 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?


I'd make it 102 miles, just in case their gps's broke. That's a much more humane
way to approach the problem.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:39:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.



You could even refine that and say "in the shipping lanes". Let
fishermen have 99.% of the ocean and block off the lanes where the
ships go. That would also make your surveillance requirements less.

We don't seem to have problems declaring "no fly zones" in sovereign
countries, why not declare "merchant ship only" zones. If Wayne wants
to sail there, he files a float plan and he can go. In fact there
would be people watching out for him.

I bet the owner of that super tanker would be very happy to spend the
extra few minutes filing a float plan in exchange for being in
protected waters

And it would be even easier if they profiled too. For instance if you
know where the usual productive fishing areas are, you can assume boats
there are fishing... Don't run the shipping lanes there. Have the ships
moving check in and out as BAR suggested. If you all of a sudden have a
fishing boat, in an area not known for any decent fishing at all, or
moving toward the shipping lanes, check them out a bit.. Maybe keep an
eye on them or let them know you are curious about their activity. This
could be done in several unobtrusive ways I would imagine, in the even
they are serious fishermen looking for new grounds...

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:45:56 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:39:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.



You could even refine that and say "in the shipping lanes". Let
fishermen have 99.% of the ocean and block off the lanes where the
ships go. That would also make your surveillance requirements less.

We don't seem to have problems declaring "no fly zones" in sovereign
countries, why not declare "merchant ship only" zones. If Wayne wants
to sail there, he files a float plan and he can go. In fact there
would be people watching out for him.

I bet the owner of that super tanker would be very happy to spend the
extra few minutes filing a float plan in exchange for being in
protected waters

And it would be even easier if they profiled too. For instance if you
know where the usual productive fishing areas are, you can assume boats
there are fishing... Don't run the shipping lanes there. Have the ships
moving check in and out as BAR suggested. If you all of a sudden have a
fishing boat, in an area not known for any decent fishing at all, or
moving toward the shipping lanes, check them out a bit.. Maybe keep an
eye on them or let them know you are curious about their activity. This
could be done in several unobtrusive ways I would imagine, in the even
they are serious fishermen looking for new grounds...

Shoot, I think a few .50 cal tracers over their bow would be plenty unobtrusive.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlepc2dnY5yOPDxdPHQnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?



I've told you; *I* don't pretend to have a solution for the Somali
piracy problem. My suggestion was that we need to get more nations
involved in patrols so that there are more "assets" keeping watch.
Whatever we do, though, has to fall within the limitations of
international law. We are not a rogue state.

Your suggestion is vague, stupid and devoid of content.

I am sure our state department and military discuss the piracy issue
regularly with their colleagues in other nations. I doubt the ideas of a
former marine reservist who never attended college or even got an
overseas posting are of much interest.

I don't think Obama, Clinton or Holder really care about the piracy
issue except that it is a public relations issue. They see it as
corporate America getting what's coming to them from an ass backwards
nation.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.


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

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

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?


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

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

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?


The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

Not really if they effectively profile the mother ships and loiter the
predator when we see them shadowing a target.

Sounds fine.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.


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

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

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?


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

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

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?


The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

Not really if they effectively profile the mother ships and loiter the
predator when we see them shadowing a target.

Sounds fine.

Right from the start, your post is ridiculous. Who invaded anybody
without an exit plan? Just because you don't like the plan, or it didn't
work doesn't mean nobody had one. The exit plan was as usual with the
US. Win the war, rebuild and return the country to the people.. It's
what we do, this time it hasn't worked yet. To say "no exit plan" is a
lie, and a question premised by that is best ignored and at worst,
ignorant...

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:53:47 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

Right from the start, your post is ridiculous. Who invaded anybody
without an exit plan? Just because you don't like the plan, or it didn't
work doesn't mean nobody had one. The exit plan was as usual with the
US. Win the war, rebuild and return the country to the people.. It's
what we do, this time it hasn't worked yet. To say "no exit plan" is a
lie, and a question premised by that is best ignored and at worst,
ignorant...

Actually the only time we have done this in our history was Grenada.
We are still in every country that we "won" a war in.

Americans are in every country in the world. I am talking about giving
control back to the them, which we eventually do.. Every time...

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:31:30 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:


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

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

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.




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

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

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?

I am only responding to what you say.

Actually, you weren't.



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

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

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.

Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?

Probably not.

We could certainly use smaller carriers if we are just doing something
like this pirate thing or enforcing no fly zones,

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:46:37 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:23:24 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:


It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.

Is that another false equivalency?
... and yes he did screw up but at least he got out

You're claiming that there is no equivalency between Reagan's screw up
and your claim that Clinton didn't draw down the troops in Somalia
fast enough? Didn't Clinton "get out"? How many died in comparison?

Stop making stuff up and start using your brain.




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

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

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.

Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.

We should not have invaded anyone.

BTW were you talking about the Cole?


Sure... just let them go. No harm no foul.

Yes, the Cole. Clinton should have gone after OBL. Bush sat on his
hands in Crawford then went to Florida and read My Pet Goat until we
were attacked. Then he sat there like a bump for 7 minutes. He didn't
even know if it was a nuclear attack or what. He just sat there
looking stupid.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On 3/2/2011 1:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700,
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:

And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...
Obama will not go after Black Muslims.
You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.
There is some truth to what he said. If it isn't aparent to you yet, it
will be. Obama is a racist.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:10:23 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.

Wow, the truth comes out. Canuck confirms our suspicions.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:07:34 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:09:11 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:46:37 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:23:24 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:


It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.

Is that another false equivalency?
... and yes he did screw up but at least he got out

You're claiming that there is no equivalency between Reagan's screw up
and your claim that Clinton didn't draw down the troops in Somalia
fast enough? Didn't Clinton "get out"? How many died in comparison?


There is a significant difference between sending men into an active
fire fight without adequate support and guys killed while they were
sleeping by a suicide truck bomber.

Yes, but there's not much difference in lack of planning. Reagan
didn't support our troops there and left immediately after. Clinton
didn't support the troops there and left immediately after.




Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.

We should not have invaded anyone.

BTW were you talking about the Cole?


Sure... just let them go. No harm no foul.

Yes, the Cole. Clinton should have gone after OBL.

There you have it.


Except that he wanted to give the Bush administration the ability to
act vs. tying their hands. Read up.