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.

On 2/28/2011 12:12 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
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.
Chances are nothing will be gained by dragging things out. Get it over
with. Freeing the hostages is the hard part.

"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.

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?

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?


He's talking about a blockade I would guess. That's pretty difficult
given the length of the coast line... very expensive to maintain.

Of course, everyone seems to be forgetting our little adventure in
1993, wherein Clinton tried to do something and got blasted by the
right-wing.

Here's a bit of history for those too ignorant to look it up.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans...Somalia93.html

"The U.N. asked its member nations for assistance. In December 1992,
in one of his last acts as President, George Bush proposed to the U.N.
that United States combat troops lead the intervention force. The
U.N. accepted this offer and 25,000 U.S. troops were deployed to
Somalia. President Bush stated that this would not be an “open-ended
commitment.” The objective of Operation Restore Hope was to rapidly
secure the trade routes in Somalia so that food could get to the
people. President Bush stated that U.S. troops would be home in time
for Bill Clinton’s inauguration in January.

Once President Clinton was inaugurated he stated his desire to scale
down the U.S. presence in Somalia, and to let the U.N. forces take
over. In March 1993 the U.N. officially took over the operation,
naming this mission UNOSOM – II. The objective of this mission was to
promote “nation building” within Somalia. One main target was to
disarm the Somali people. UNOSOM – II stressed restoring law and
order, improving the infrastructure, and assisting the people with
setting up a representative government.

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. By
June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia, but on June 5,
1993 24 Pakistani soldiers were ambushed and killed during the
inspection of a Somali arms weapons storage site. The U.N. responded
with an emergency resolution to apprehend those responsible. While it
was not specifically stated, Aidid and his followers were believed to
be responsible. On June 19, 1993 Admiral Howe ordered Aidid’s arrest
and offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to this. He also
requested a counterterrorist rescue force after the massacre of the
Pakistani troops."

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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:08:54 -0800, 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?


He's talking about a blockade I would guess. That's pretty difficult
given the length of the coast line... very expensive to maintain.

Of course, everyone seems to be forgetting our little adventure in
1993, wherein Clinton tried to do something and got blasted by the
right-wing.

He got blasted because it was a half assed, poorly planned effort that
got a lot of GIs killed, similar to the cluster **** in the Iranian
desert in 1980.


No. He got blasted because he was a hated Democrat. Did Reagan get
blasted by the Republicans for screwing up in Lebanon? By the
Democrats? Nope. Didn't happen. How many died there? And, Reagan
turned tail and ran.

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.

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.

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!!

In article ,
says...
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.

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

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

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.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

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

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.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...
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.

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

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

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.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

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

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...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:31:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
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.

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

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

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.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

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

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.


Sounds fine to me. I just don't think it's priority one.

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.


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.


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?

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! ??

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.

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.