|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 5:48:27 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 14, 2009 5:48:27 GMT -5
I would say you're right Edge, but so what? The captain, president and everyone involved deserve credit in my opinion. It was a great outcome, and I see no need for nitpicking. Well, in the long line of people to thank the President would be down toward the bottom and it seemed as though you put him at the very top! No, he was your entire list! edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 8:58:43 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 14, 2009 8:58:43 GMT -5
Ridiculous Edge. "The captain, president and everyone involved deserve credit" was my exact statement.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 9:25:16 GMT -5
Post by chuck41 on Apr 14, 2009 9:25:16 GMT -5
Apparently there was another pirate attack this morning. I believe a Greek registered vessel bound for India. Apparently those dudes are gonna continue until the Europeans are finally forced to wipe them out.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 9:37:43 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 14, 2009 9:37:43 GMT -5
Rediculous? Here was your first quote! Who else were you giving credit too? Your list seems Very Very short! SNIP Obama shouldn't milk it, he deserves alot of credit for issuing the order twice to use force to protect the captain who was hostage. Personally, if I were nitpicking, I would have said why did the President preclude deadly force except if the Hostage's life was in imminent danger? These pirates, by the very act of being pirates had committed capital offences on the high seas! Personally, IMO, the orders should have included deadly force as an option for the "on scene" commander to make, and by requiring "imminent danger" to the Hostage it ran the risk of extending this entire ordeal! Either you trust the Captain of the USS Bainbridge as a commander or you don't and you should not unnecessarily tie his hands during his mission! In fairness to Obama, he allowed the military to do their job. Clinton might have just issued a warrant for their arrest edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 9:57:22 GMT -5
Post by chuck41 on Apr 14, 2009 9:57:22 GMT -5
. . . . . . . . . . . In fairness to Obama, he allowed the military to do their job. Clinton might have just issued a warrant for their arrest edge. Ouch!
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 15:31:58 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 14, 2009 15:31:58 GMT -5
Edge, did you hear the latest? Before the Seal team was deployed, ex-President Bush called Obama and suggested that he send in the seals and destroyers, but use them to attack some other country for some reason, the Congo or somewhere!
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 15:59:22 GMT -5
Post by chuck41 on Apr 14, 2009 15:59:22 GMT -5
Edge, did you hear the latest? Before the Seal team was deployed, ex-President Bush called Obama and suggested that he send in the seals and destroyers, but use them to attack some other country for some reason, the Congo or somewhere! Oregon. I think I heard it was Oregon. Where is Oregon anyway? Is that in Africa or the Filipenes?
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 16:15:04 GMT -5
Post by ozark on Apr 14, 2009 16:15:04 GMT -5
I don't understand this at all. Are cargo ships being boarded and taken over by people in lifeboats and small canoe like boats? I would think any ship had a right to use force to prevent being boarded by these nuts. One 30 Caliber machine gun would be sufficient to protect yourself from these dudes IMO. I wouldn't think a Captain would need permission from the President or anyone else to protect his ship and the personnel on board. Should I get permission from Obama to confront poachers on our land?
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 17:21:31 GMT -5
Post by Buckrub on Apr 14, 2009 17:21:31 GMT -5
The cargo ships are not armed. They have no machine guns, or any other guns, none. zero.
Cargo ships are being boarded by pirates in small boats, but not as small as life rafts, no. Bigger than that. They are heavily armed.
It's easy pickings for them. None of the cargo ships can defend themselves. They say they can't carry arms due to rules, laws, etc., of the nations where they dock.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 18:07:54 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 14, 2009 18:07:54 GMT -5
I don't understand it either Ozark. On the evening news they said the rafts the pirates use are 15 feet in length. It wouldn't take much to disable one, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 18:19:27 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 14, 2009 18:19:27 GMT -5
IIRC it was a rubber raft that killed about 15 sailors on the USS Cole!!
edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 14, 2009 21:03:02 GMT -5
Post by ozark on Apr 14, 2009 21:03:02 GMT -5
vert intereesting: I am the dictator of Benzillia and I issue a decree that no ship entering our harbor or waters can be armed. I then arm a few fishing boats and become the Pirate king of the world. If there is a law that cargo ships cannot have protective weapons aboard then the law is dead wrong.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 6:01:39 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 15, 2009 6:01:39 GMT -5
SNIP If there is a law that cargo ships cannot have protective weapons aboard then the law is dead wrong. I don't believe that that is the Law, just the decision of the Ships Owners. To many this may seem wrongheaded, but unless you can guarantee that you have overwhelming force then when you are boarded by the pirates you will most likely have dead crewmen instead of just a ransom. Remember these are crew, and not highly trained SEALS with the US Navy to back them up. Once significant resistance meets the pirates, then I suspect that the pirates will start to up the arms race....and the first shot may very well be a RPG at the wheelhouse! edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 9:36:16 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 15, 2009 9:36:16 GMT -5
These are all valid arguments. The area involved is supposedly the size of the eastern seaboard of the U.S. So, it's not possible for the different navies to cover the whole area effectively, according to the news analysts. So, it seems the choice is to continue to pay the ransoms, or for the cargo ships to arm themselves. I would rather fight than be subjected to being held hostage to the animal pirates, if it were me. Now, am I missing something, or even despite the RPG's, couldn't half a dozen deer hunters with standard rifles defeat the average pirate attack? I am not suggesting to use hunters for defense, just trying to point out how weak the pirates appear to me to be. Anybody?
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 9:43:15 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 15, 2009 9:43:15 GMT -5
SNIP Now, am I missing something, or even despite the RPG's, couldn't half a dozen deer hunters with standard rifles defeat the average pirate attack? I am not suggesting to use hunters for defense, just trying to point out how weak the pirates appear to me to be. Anybody? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) Turned into a book/movie Black Hawk Down Welcome to Somalia and the "third world"! They are not as easy to fight as you might suspect! edge. PS Thomas Jefferson started our Navy to stop Piracy in that area of the world, and John Adams warned him that if he tried to fight them that we would be fighting them for 200 years!
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 10:29:37 GMT -5
Post by Buckrub on Apr 15, 2009 10:29:37 GMT -5
Now 233.
Pete, I'll volunteer. I have weapons and ammo. I just need permission.
Leading me back to my original post on this. Either we get tough, and harm a few people and stop this now, or we can 'negotiate' forever and constantly be paying ransoms and fighting these folks.
There are tons of pictures of these little motor powered boats on Google or Youtube, look it up. They aren't life rafts. That came from the cargo ship, I think. They are just simple ocean going small vessels, armed to the teeth with Pirates.
I suppose this is a decent microcosm of America and the 2nd Amendment, if you think of it. Here are law abiding folks that CHOOSE not to be armed because of laws, or because they aren't 'trained' properly, and they believe the world will treat them properly. Then there are armed criminals who see easy pickings of unarmed, unprotected cargo to go rob. So they go rob it.
The cargo ships call 'the police' (The Navy) and sometimes they help, and mostly they're too late and are in reactive mode.
Seems the same as what we citizens have in this country.
I'd make two suggestions.
1) To the Cargo Shipping Companies, GO ARM YOURSELVES AND TRAIN ACCORDINGLY. Otherwise, you're at the mercy and over time I'll lose sympathy for you.
2) To the US Government, STOP THIS MADNESS BY FORCE IF NECESSARY ONCE AND FOR ALL. Negotiate if you want. But when that won't work, and it won't, stop it by force. Else you're wasting my money constantly being reactive, and you're wasting American lives and assets.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 16:27:32 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 15, 2009 16:27:32 GMT -5
I'll volunteer too buckrub. Edge, they probably aren't that easy to fight. I will mention a conversation I had with one Brad, who was going into the Army full-time in a couple of months in 2002 as part of his ROTC comittment. We agreed that if we couldn't defeat Al Quada, then who is the superpower? I've heard many people say, well The U.S.S.R. couldn't win in Afghanistan, how could we? Well, in W.W.II, China couldn't win against Japan, so how did we manage to sail around the globe and win it? Edge, I didn't go to the site that you provided, but I've seen documentaries on Mogadishu. As informed as you are, I am surprised that you picked that example. The death toll in that battle were something around 1200 Somali enemy dead vs. 15 or 20 Americans. I know my figures are only approximate since I didn't double check them. But the battle showed the terrific fighting capability of our special forces, and when I was at Penn State 7-8 years ago, some of the students were asking if the outcome of that battle was for real (they were impressed). I trust the military to come up with some solutions. Also, maybe the international community will unite on this one.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 16:56:22 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 15, 2009 16:56:22 GMT -5
If your goal is to kill everyone, then yes that is easy...drop the bomb and head home.
If on the other hand you want to preserve life of people that are in the wrong place then you will have the difference between Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2
4 dead vs 4,000 dead Americans...50 billion vs close to a Trillion $
IMO, the American people do not have a stomach for what you are asking, but I may be wrong.
edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 20:18:33 GMT -5
Post by petev on Apr 15, 2009 20:18:33 GMT -5
"drop the bomb" is a phrase I do not recall having ever used even once in my life, and I get a little tired of hearing it, when someone is speaking out of anger or frustration. You and I seem to not agree again Edge, but this time I don't really understand what you are saying, or what your view is, I am sorry to say. Peter
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 20:50:55 GMT -5
Post by edge on Apr 15, 2009 20:50:55 GMT -5
petev, please read your post above my previous answer!
" We agreed that if we couldn't defeat Al Quada, then who is the superpower? I've heard many people say, well The U.S.S.R. couldn't win in Afghanistan, how could we? Well, in W.W.II, China couldn't win against Japan, so how did we manage to sail around the globe and win it? "
What makes a Superpower? What did we do to make Japan surrender?
"But the battle showed the terrific fighting capability of our special forces, and when I was at Penn State 7-8 years ago, some of the students were asking if the outcome of that battle was for real (they were impressed). I trust the military to come up with some solutions. Also, maybe the international community will unite on this one. "
terrific fighting capability? I trust the military to come up with some solutions?
My point to you in my response was if you want to kill a tremendous number of people and not have a lot of casualties then the logical tactic is drop the bomb!
These people that you ( the generic you ) seem to think should be a pushover for our troops can plant roadside bombs made from unexploded ordnance; They can bring down choppers with shoulder fired rockets of which they have many; If you want to reply to a citation of mine, then reading it might help too!
==================================
When all is said and done, I do not like the way our military has been used in a cavalier manner. We have a great military, but they are used too often to step on individual cockroaches and in my opinion that devalues their effectiveness!
edge.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -5
Post by ozark on Apr 15, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -5
I don't see this as a US problem but a international problem. I think there is a international law applying to the high seas and that it can be inforced by any country that is sending vessels through that area. I don't see it as one country against another but incidents occuring in international waters. If the US needs to create a group of ships and escort them through using air cover and the Navy then so be it. We don't need to attack Somalla. Just pulverize those who decides to pirate our vessels. I beleive we could create a mind set of: Pirate at will but if you expect to secceed and live let those vessels flying the American flag pass. Otherwise expect to become fish food shortly. We can't give in to these outlaws but neither are we supposed to protect all the ships that belong to other countries. A convoy of ten food supply ships could be guarded by only a token naval force. But, I guess I will just stay here in Leslie and watch this one. Ben
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 15, 2009 22:48:07 GMT -5
Post by rossman40 on Apr 15, 2009 22:48:07 GMT -5
It's in the history of the Barbary pirates. It took a multinational force to combat the pirates and didn't really stop until France colonized North Africa starting in 1830. If I remember my US history something like 20% of the federal budget in 1800 was paid to the Barbary pirates to buy them off and that's when Jefferson said enough and we had the First Barbary War (1801–1805). And then during and after the War of 1812 the pirates went back to their old ways and because of the our war with British we didn't have the resources to do anything about it and went back to paying ransoms. In 1815 Madison sent the Navy back and while it ended actions against the US the pirates still prayed on other countries. The British and Dutch bombed them again in 1816 and got treaties but they went back again to their old ways and the British went back again in 1824. It took the French to colonize Algeria and they weren't nice, they killed off a third of the population.
The thing now is to reinforce the US Navy in the area, maybe even a carrier or two. Build up intel, identify the principles and places of operation if the time comes that we have to take them out and take their money (all those millions have to be somewhere) we know the who, what and where.
The thing that worries me now is if they start targeting US flagged ships and do something stupid like kill US citizens. Then we will see if Obama and Hillery has the kahunas it takes to let the military eliminate the problem. After all the offical job,
The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 16, 2009 4:41:39 GMT -5
Post by tar12 on Apr 16, 2009 4:41:39 GMT -5
Anybody remember Blackhawk down? Dead American soldiers on display on the news as they drug them through the streets?Anybody care to venture a guess as to what country this happened in?
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 16, 2009 8:19:23 GMT -5
Post by Buckrub on Apr 16, 2009 8:19:23 GMT -5
Tar, then let's don't send just ONE Blackhawk helicopter this time!
Rossman, as usual, knows the history and the facts. We've fought these guys for eons. This isn't new. The original point remains valid. You guys can talk all day if you want. But the pirates will continue until we get rid of the problem. They always have, they always will. And Somalia is not innocent in this, they allow it. Either we go in to Somalia like we did Iraq and establish a real government that can stop this themselves, or we do it for them.
And to require "international law" to take over is good. But it won't work because it never has, either. The Police of the International Law is US (both uses of those letters). We'll end up doing it anyway, because we always do, because no one else will.
But I suppose this administration will do what we're going here.......talk it to death while Pirates keep Pirating and keep yapping and bragging about how they'll retaliate forever. I don't expect action. But just in last few days, many other ships were seized and hostages taken. And we still talk.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 17, 2009 0:10:52 GMT -5
Post by chuck41 on Apr 17, 2009 0:10:52 GMT -5
Somalia is not a country we want to attempt to govern. Unlike Iraq they have no real history of a successful government and to attempt to civilize that bunch is not something we are prepared or equipped to do. That is what the USSR attempted in Afghanistan and they ended up with a bloody nose.
Retribution against the pirates and those who harbor them is another thing entirely. Those little boats, operating 250 to 400 miles off shore have to have "mother ships" to operate from. They also have shore facilities that harbor them.
We have drones that can maintain surveillance for long periods of time over the area. If we have the will we can identify those mother ships and sinking them would be a piece of cake. The problem will be solved very quickly, at least for those operating far from shore. Likewise the shore facilities can be identified. Follow the boats home and hit the "rats nests". This will bring up a loud wail from the international community, but the last time I checked, I think international law recognizes the right of states to self protection, which is exactly what this is. Unfortunately the most vocal wailers will be Obama's left wing supporters.
Only question is the one Rossman asked. Do "Obama and Hillery has the kahunas it takes to let the military eliminate the problem"? Time will tell.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 17, 2009 9:58:03 GMT -5
Post by rossman40 on Apr 17, 2009 9:58:03 GMT -5
The Somlia piracy thing is coming to a head. The Bush administration pushed UN resolution 1851 thru last December which authorizes pursuit of pirates on land, sea and air. 19 countries have commited support of just not naval forces but some have also added land forces. The Saudai's are POed, you do not mess with their oil money, and they are aligning all the Islamic nations against them. The joke of a Somlia government has given permission to some governments to pursue pirates in territorial waters and is on the verge of allowing land forces. They fear the pirates will threaten the government. I suspect the next three months will be largely protection at sea and intel gathering and about June or July then a lid will be opened on a large barrel of whoop a$$. And it won't be just on the guys in the boats but the support structure in country and abroad. US forces have been building at Djibouti which is also the largest foreign French base and we are in tight with Kenya so use of Mombasa is possible. We are also tight with Ethiopia but assets there are about zero. The tip-off may be a carrier or carrier task force moving into the area. Now supposed links with Al-Qaeda puts the situation in the "war on terror" category. Interesting reading, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_pirateinformationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/cbs-casually-blogged-today.htmlwww.navy.mil/local/CTF-151/
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 17, 2009 21:19:39 GMT -5
Post by ozark on Apr 17, 2009 21:19:39 GMT -5
I as a question because I simply am not well enough informed to be spectific. Isn't this another case where we are believed to be sinners and it is their duty to destroy us? Is it not another religious war? As things seem to be progressing the world is headed for a long war that pits those who believe in religious freedom and those who believe that all who are not of thier sect are enemies and they are duty bound to destroy. If this is correct I see no point in negotations. Sooner or later only one will survive. It is scary. eh?
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 18, 2009 4:52:40 GMT -5
Post by tar12 on Apr 18, 2009 4:52:40 GMT -5
To me it is not about 1 Blachawk or 20 or whatever you want to throw at them.For far to long we have bailed other countries a$%%s out of trouble at OUR expense.I for one am sick of this as we continually add to the debt we are forcing upon future generations.Where does it stop?Does it stop upon the whim of every political force to be? I think NOT! Do not misconstrue,I am no tree hugger with his head in a Utopian cloud in the sky.I realize there will always be evil forces to be dealt with but I also think we should THINK before we invade a country under the premise that it is good for all of the world with out making them share in the financial burden and the burden of losing loved ones.It is amazing to me that we can find billions to spend on war related expenses for wars we need not be involved in,and yet in the land of plenty so many do without.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 18, 2009 11:15:40 GMT -5
Post by chuck41 on Apr 18, 2009 11:15:40 GMT -5
I received this yesterday showing how effective our current national command authority actually is. Obama has been widely praised for his leadership. Apparently folks who should know don't agree. Now he has released classified documents on questioning techniques that will render those ineffective and the American people at more risk. Who'se side is this guy on? =============================================
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.
So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Obama's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he’d had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
|
|
|
Somalia
Apr 18, 2009 18:19:32 GMT -5
Post by rossman40 on Apr 18, 2009 18:19:32 GMT -5
The ROE are the key and sometimes the On Scene Commander has to stretch the interpretation of the rules. Being held by armed hostels that already threatened to kill the hostage would have been enough for me.
I remember when I was in the National Guard that after the Kent State incident there was a strict guidelines on ROE and use of deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only in self defense or when public safety was endangered. You could not use deadly force against people looting a bank or jewelry store, or even against some guy raping a woman. But if a kid was spray painting a stop sign or destroying a fire hydrant, he was fare game. I once had the duty as Sargent of the guard at a special weapons depot and the orders were quite clear. The perimeter had two 18ft fences, if a person touched the outer fence I was to send a team out to detain the person, if somehow he got past the first fence and touched the second, deadly force was authorized and expected. Whenever on a military installation and see the sign that says "use of deadly force is authorized" at the bottom, tread carefully.
It would be interesting to see what the actual ROE are for CTF-151. As far as Chuck's post I have little doubt that the statements are close to the facts. The "kinder and gentiler" policy is not always the way to go. I often wonder how 9/11 would have been handled if Al Gore had been in office.
|
|