# Pirates? Just pay the ransom!



## geezer (Apr 14, 2009)

I haven't visited this department in a while, so forgive me if this has been dealt with. Anyway, the pirate siezure of the US merchant ship Maersk Alabama has been in the news all week.  As everyone knows, the ship was attacked and boarded by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. The American crew resisted and the pirates fled on a lifeboat, taking the ship's captain hostage. The US Navy came to the rescue and the the situation was eventually "resolved" with one pirate taken prisoner and the rest killed. And, thank God, both the captain, crew, and ship all safe.

OK, "happy ending" right? Well what caught my attention was the reported reaction of shipping companies. When several representatives of shipping companies were inteviewed they expressed concern and unease over the violent solution to this hostage/ransom situation. Their reaction was fear that this could lead to_ "an escalation of violence in the region"_ and that financially it was wiser for them to continue to negotiate and pay the ransom (often in excess of a million dollars) in such situations. 

When asked why they didn't arm their ships, they responded that that might just provoke the pirates, increasing their losses and endangering their crews. This in turn would leave them open to liability (lawsuits?) from the crew or their families. And, since many of these companies are not US based, they don't feel that they can depend upon the US Navy to intervene. So these companies would rather just pay out their ransoms as a cost of doing business.

So how do you guys feel about this as a defensive strategy/ _Don't_ arm your crew or pay for professional security forces on your ships. Just pay a cool million or two to any rag-tag bunch of out of work Somali fisherman that happen across your path. Personally, I feel that kind of thinking would make a lot of folks consider a career in piracy!


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 14, 2009)

Tripoli! :EG:


----------



## Scott T (Apr 14, 2009)

My opinion? Mount a few M-60's around the ship's railing and have a few sailors capable of firing rocket launchers. Maybe a few Stingers in case some of the pirates have access to helicopters. The pirates will either find a new line of work or they'll be dead.

Either way, it's all good.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

If it ceases to be profitable, they will cease the activity.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 14, 2009)

Personally, I think the US / France / UK / ... Should use piracy hostage situations as a training exercise for the Seals, SAS, French Foreign Legion, etc. They could organize a merry go round system to decide who gets to do what.

It would give the forces a lot of additional experience, and it would seriously put a damper on piracy after the umpteenth pirate crew gets slaughtered.
It could be dangerous to the crews because pirates won't take hostages anymore, but otoh they couldn't really fence a big tanker without people noticing, which would allow the forces to quitely settle the score.

No doubt this plan has many shortcomings. And since I am not in the forces it is of course I am really an armchair quarterback. But piracy exists because of the profit. Take away profit and switch it with certain death. Piracy should drop significantly in my armchair qb opinion.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

geezer said:


> I haven't visited this department in a while, so forgive me if this has been dealt with. Anyway, the pirate siezure of the US merchant ship Maersk Alabama has been in the news all week. As everyone knows, the ship was attacked and boarded by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. The American crew resisted and the pirates fled on a lifeboat, taking the ship's captain hostage. The US Navy came to the rescue and the the situation was eventually "resolved" with one pirate taken prisoner and the rest killed. And, thank God, both the captain, crew, and ship all safe.


 
I was happy to hear that the Capt. was rescued.  I certainly tip my hat to the SEALS, as well as anyone else who played a roll in the rescue operations.



> OK, "happy ending" right? Well what caught my attention was the reported reaction of shipping companies. When several representatives of shipping companies were inteviewed they expressed concern and unease over the violent solution to this hostage/ransom situation. Their reaction was fear that this could lead to_ "an escalation of violence in the region"_ and that financially it was wiser for them to continue to negotiate and pay the ransom (often in excess of a million dollars) in such situations.


 
I believe this was the first time the pirates ever encountered resistance.  IMHO, something should be done to combat this issue.  I mean, we, the US, seem to help everyone, so if Somalia is in such rough shape, what could we do to help them, so they wouldn't have to hijack ships?  

I heard the pirates say that they usually don't harm the people on the ship, treat and feed them well, and once the ransom is paid, everyone is on their way.  Now, the next time a US ship is hijacked, I'm sure things will be worse from the beginning.



> When asked why they didn't arm their ships, they responded that that might just provoke the pirates, increasing their losses and endangering their crews. This in turn would leave them open to liability (lawsuits?) from the crew or their families. And, since many of these companies are not US based, they don't feel that they can depend upon the US Navy to intervene. So these companies would rather just pay out their ransoms as a cost of doing business.


 
Damed if they do, damned if they don't.  No matter what happens, someone, somewhere, won't be happy.  As for arming people....sure, as long as they're trained to function under the stress that the hijacking will bring.  Just handing guns to people and saying, "Ok, go at it." is, IMO, doing more harm than good.



> So how do you guys feel about this as a defensive strategy/ _Don't_ arm your crew or pay for professional security forces on your ships. Just pay a cool million or two to any rag-tag bunch of out of work Somali fisherman that happen across your path. Personally, I feel that kind of thinking would make a lot of folks consider a career in piracy!


 
IMO, handing over what the pirates want, is no different than handing over our cash and car keys to someone mugging us.  We ASSUME that if we comply, nothing will happen.  Sorry, but I'm not assuming anything!  We've been lucky that the hijackings that take place are somewhat non violent.  I'm sure this will all change now.  

I say defend the ships.  If that means armed guards, then so be it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

I think that business sees things differently than nations do.

First - they're insured.  And insurance companies often dictate the rules by which the companies must dance.  One should look to the insurance company involved and see what their policy regarding piracy demands are, and how they came to that conclusion.

Second - it's a legitimate business loss - and thus a tax write-off.

Third - from the point of view of the business, it's a toll, a tax, a levy, albeit an occasional one.  Cost of doing business, I'm sure it is written into their business plan.

Fourth - as has been mentioned, the liability could easily exceed the cost of paying ransoms.  Encourage crews to fight back, refuse to pay ransoms, etc, and let some crew members get killed.  The lawsuit settlements could easily dwarf what they pay now in ransoms.  Refer to point #1 above.

Fifth - they're hardly the only ones.  Look at the oil companies doing business in South America and Africa, and how they pay protection money and extortion money and kidnapping money to local rebels for the right to keep their refineries, etc, up and running.

In all these cases, business is not concerned in the slightest with doing what is 'right'.  They're not in it to fix things.  They're in it to make a profit.  If they can survive the odd piracy and associated costs and still make a profit, there is no motivation for them to change, especially if they can write off their losses and they don't get sued by the families of dead crewmembers.

Do I agree with that?  No, I do not.  I agree with blowing up pirates as quickly as they can be identified.  But that's not how businesses operate.

Now, if I were a smart Somalian pirate, I'd be forming a 'anti-piracy' company and offering my services to accompany ships passing through the region and fighting off pirates as required.  I'd make a pretty penny, I'd be friends with the US Navy, and if it so happened that my pirate friends and I split the 'payment' after unsuccessful 'pirate' attacks, who's to know?  But that's just me, I'm sneaky like that.


----------



## jim777 (Apr 14, 2009)

Unfortunately, as was said a number of times during this crisis, arming the ships is actually more costly to the shipping companies than paying the occasional ransom due to the increased insurance costs for armed ships. Further, many ports simply won't allow armed ships to dock and unload, either. I don't see this issue resolving until there is actually a stable, functioning government in Somalia.


----------



## searcher (Apr 14, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Personally, I think the US / France / UK / ... Should use piracy hostage situations as a training exercise for the Seals, SAS, French Foreign Legion, etc. They could organize a merry go round system to decide who gets to do what.
> 
> It would give the forces a lot of additional experience, and it would seriously put a damper on piracy after the umpteenth pirate crew gets slaughtered.
> It could be dangerous to the crews because pirates won't take hostages anymore, but otoh they couldn't really fence a big tanker without people noticing, which would allow the forces to quitely settle the score.
> ...


 

Let me help you out here.    No need formore live training for any CT group.    They get a crapload already and have a great deal of hands-on experience dealing with terrorists.

But it was a nice thought.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that business sees things differently than nations do.
> 
> First - they're insured. And insurance companies often dictate the rules by which the companies must dance. One should look to the insurance company involved and see what their policy regarding piracy demands are, and how they came to that conclusion.
> 
> Second - it's a legitimate business loss - and thus a tax write-off.


 
Businesses, including Insurance Companies, do not have money trees. Expenses are passed on to the consumer (that's me and you.) So those pirates are harming a heck of lot more people than you think. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Third - from the point of view of the business, it's a toll, a tax, a levy, albeit an occasional one. Cost of doing business, I'm sure it is written into their business plan.


 
...see above. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Fourth - as has been mentioned, the liability could easily exceed the cost of paying ransoms. Encourage crews to fight back, refuse to pay ransoms, etc, and let some crew members get killed. The lawsuit settlements could easily dwarf what they pay now in ransoms. Refer to point #1 above.


 
That is a good point. But two wrongs don't make a right. Fear of possible repercussions of criminals in regards to enforcing the law is not a viable reason to let them run amuck...all willy-nilly doing whatever they please. 

By that same logic, why enforce any law? If we jail the rapist then they'll just be that much more....excited...when they get out of jail and rape even more! So don't jail them! 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Fifth - they're hardly the only ones. Look at the oil companies doing business in South America and Africa, and how they pay protection money and extortion money and kidnapping money to local rebels for the right to keep their refineries, etc, up and running.


 
That's their decision. In regards to how we handle OUR business we shouldn't look to another countries weakness as validation to do nothing to combat a wrong. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> In all these cases, business is not concerned in the slightest with doing what is 'right'. They're not in it to fix things. They're in it to make a profit. If they can survive the odd piracy and associated costs and still make a profit, there is no motivation for them to change, especially if they can write off their losses and they don't get sued by the families of dead crewmembers.


 
You're probably right about that. In business, it's about the bottom line. 

But...if they can no longer sell their products because nobody buys them because the cost rises past what folks are willing to pay (the whole opportunity cost thing from economics...) due to them passing those expenses on to the consumer..... well 

Besides, it's not really about the businesses involved. Those "employees" are American citizens and our government has a responsibility to "provide for their defense"...as well as do what it can to curtail anything that would hinder international trade....like piracy. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Do I agree with that? No, I do not. I agree with blowing up pirates as quickly as they can be identified. But that's not how businesses operate.


 
Ross Perot would beg to differ. LOL Iran Hostage Crisis anyone? 

Seriously, I get your point but this situation is much "bigger" than "big business." 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, if I were a smart Somalian pirate, I'd be forming a 'anti-piracy' company and offering my services to accompany ships passing through the region and fighting off pirates as required. I'd make a pretty penny, I'd be friends with the US Navy, and if it so happened that my pirate friends and I split the 'payment' after unsuccessful 'pirate' attacks, who's to know? But that's just me, I'm sneaky like that.


 
Now that's Capitalism at its finest!!


----------



## clfsean (Apr 14, 2009)

Not picking on you, but ...



MJS said:


> I believe this was the first time the pirates ever encountered resistance.  IMHO, something should be done to combat this issue.  I mean, we, the US, seem to help everyone, so if Somalia is in such rough shape, what could we do to help them, so they wouldn't have to hijack ships?



We tried helping once... cost us Rangers & SF guys thanks to an incomplete assessment of the situation & the operation being run from DC instead of Mogedishu and the the frikkin UN had it's fat little fingers in it too... 

I say we pay their ransom the way we just did... 180 grains of Pb at a time or more...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> I mean, we, the US, seem to help everyone, so if Somalia is in such rough shape, what could we do to help them, so they wouldn't have to hijack ships?



I'm sorry, I thought everyone knew about our disastrous intervention in Somalia.  I was out of the Marines by that time, but my then brother-in-law (also a Marine) was there, and he doesn't like to talk about it.  It was a very bad situation.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Somalia_0104,00.html


----------



## shihansmurf (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, if I were a smart Somalian pirate, I'd be forming a 'anti-piracy' company and offering my services to accompany ships passing through the region and fighting off pirates as required. I'd make a pretty penny, I'd be friends with the US Navy, and if it so happened that my pirate friends and I split the 'payment' after unsuccessful 'pirate' attacks, who's to know? But that's just me, I'm sneaky like that.


 
Its actually a good idea, assuming you were a Somali pirate. It would almost be like operating under a letter of Marque, I suppose.

I just hope that we make the one that we have in custody walk the plank. Seems fitting, thematicalty.

Mark


----------



## clfsean (Apr 14, 2009)

shihansmurf said:


> I just hope that we make the one that we have in custody walk the plank. Seems fitting, thematicalty.
> 
> Mark



Keel Haul...


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 14, 2009)

The fact is that this will make things more complicated for those who prefer to pay the Danegeld.  Doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do.  Now they're going to have to decide whether they want to arm themselves or hope for leniency from the pirates.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> ...or hope for leniency from the pirates.


 
:lfao:

..yeah...that's what I always hope for from any criminal; murderer, rapist, robber, child molester, pirate, you name it....leniency...than God for that! 

What would the world be like without all those lenient bad guys. I mean... we might actually have to consider what it would be like to be a victim! Can you imagine? Man....I can't. :uhyeah:


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

clfsean said:


> Not picking on you, but ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry, I thought everyone knew about our disastrous intervention in Somalia. I was out of the Marines by that time, but my then brother-in-law (also a Marine) was there, and he doesn't like to talk about it. It was a very bad situation.
> 
> http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Somalia_0104,00.html


 
Nope, didn't take that as picking on me at all.   Goes to show how much I payed attention to history in school. LOL.  Seriously though...IMO, something needs to be done.  Either continue to pay the ransom or start using force.  Especially now since we shot 3 of them dead, it seems that if there is another US ship hijacked, I'm willing to bet there will be alot more victims.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that business sees things differently than nations do.
> 
> First - they're insured. And insurance companies often dictate the rules by which the companies must dance. One should look to the insurance company involved and see what their policy regarding piracy demands are, and how they came to that conclusion.
> 
> ...


 


celtic_crippler said:


> Businesses, including Insurance Companies, do not have money trees. Expenses are passed on to the consumer (that's me and you.) So those pirates are harming a heck of lot more people than you think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Interesting views here.  While I see what you're saying Bill, I can't help but think that this is bowing down to the badguys once again.  By always giving in, we're, and forgive me for using this word again, assuming that all will be ok.  We'll never rid the world of crime, but we need to take active steps to fight it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> Interesting views here.  While I see what you're saying Bill, I can't help but think that this is bowing down to the badguys once again.  By always giving in, we're, and forgive me for using this word again, assuming that all will be ok.  We'll never rid the world of crime, but we need to take active steps to fight it.



The problem is the 'we' that you're talking about.  Businesses (at least until recently) got to make their own decisions about how they'd do business.  Pay pirates or don't, it was their decision to make.  No 'we' in it.

In the Age of Obama, that may all be different now.  We'll have to see.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> Interesting views here. While I see what you're saying Bill, I can't help but think that this is bowing down to the badguys once again. By always giving in, *we're*, and forgive me for using this word again, assuming that all will be ok. *We'll* never rid the world of crime, but we need to take active steps to fight it.


 
I've highlighted these words because I think that's the issue. There is no absolute *we* in this. This recent episode could have gone in a different direction if the US Navy vessels had been a day or even a few hours further out. As of the moment, ships travelling through the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden cannot count on military back-up the instant they need it. In the absence of guaranteed protection of the military, the cargo companies have found a way of protecting their interests and avoiding lawsuits.

I think there is a legitimate concern that there will be some payback for this latest incident. I would say now there is going to have to be a multi-national build up of support in the water and the air.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I think there is a legitimate concern that there will be some payback for this latest incident. I would say now there is going to have to be a multi-national build up of support in the water and the air.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD97ICSGO4



> Somali pirates hijack 4 ships, take 60 hostages
> By  ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY    37 minutes ago
> MOMBASA, Kenya (AP)  Somali pirates captured four ships and took more than 60 crew members hostage in a brazen hijacking spree, while the American captain freed from their grip planned to reunite with his crew and fly home Wednesday to the United States.
> Pirates have vowed revenge for the deaths of three colleagues at the hands of U.S. snipers rescuing Capt. Richard Phillips, as well as for two others slain by French forces in a separate rescue last week.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD97ICSGO4


 
Actually Bill, I was alluding to that story, but should have been more direct. Add the "War on Piracy" to the to-do list.


----------



## shihansmurf (Apr 14, 2009)

Seems like a good job for Blackwater, or whatever it is that they re-named themselves, what with us leaving Iraq in the indeterminate future.

Dead pirates are good pirates.

Good buisness.

Mark


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm simply not one to bend over and grab my ankles for anyone or anything. 

All the pirates have done is bring more attention (international that is) to themselves...not a wise "business" decision on their part. When you "operate in the shadows" it doesn't bode well for you to "step into the light." 

We actually have international support on this one boys and girls. This problem has been overlooked for a long time, but I have a feeling That may be changing. 

There may be an escalation of pirate activity in the short term because they got their widdle fee-wings hurt when their hands got smacked by the bad ole U.S...but all they're doing is digging themselves a deeper hole in the long run. 

Let's put this on a personal level to help put things in perspective:

Same guys continue to break into your house and steal your crap.
You don't call the police because you don't want to upset them and your insurance policy will pay for the losses.
Your insurance premiums continue to sky-rocket because you become more and more of a risk (that's basically how it works...just ask an agent) to the point where you have to take a second job, so does the wife, and the kids have to take a paper route....
You finally get sick of it and call the cops who arrest the burglers.
The burglers friends then start robbing you and your neighbors blind because you ratted out their buddies.
Do you continue to allow them to rob you blind? 
Do you continue to let your family remain in danger? 
What happens when you can no longer get insurance to replace your losses?
What do you do when you have nothing left for them to steal and they still want more? 
What do you do when they threaten your life and well-being? The life of your family? (BTW: "well-being" is not strictly confined to one's health, it has to do with quality of life as well. Do you enjoy living in fear?) 

Those are but a few concerns that should be considered; however, on an international scale they become much more far-reaching and affect many more people. 

I've yet to see a legitimate argument against stopping any crime where people are adversely affected. There may be some good points in regards to the short-term, but in the long term the only ones that benefit are the criminals and the only ones that suffer are the law-abiding folks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm simply not one to bend over and grab my ankles for anyone or anything.



As I said at my last physical, "Doc, that better be your finger!"



> Let's put this on a personal level to help put things in perspective:



But it's not personal, and that's why your analogy doesn't work.



> Same guys continue to break into your house and steal your crap.
> You don't call the police because you don't want to upset them and your insurance policy will pay for the losses.
> Your insurance premiums continue to sky-rocket because you become more and more of a risk (that's basically how it works...just ask an agent) to the point where you have to take a second job, so does the wife, and the kids have to take a paper route....
> You finally get sick of it and call the cops who arrest the burglers.
> The burglers friends then start robbing you and your neighbors blind because you ratted out their buddies.



Since it is 'you' and not 'a business which is not you', you forgot that they can pass their increased costs along to their customer.  You're the end of the line, the buck stops with you.  In the case of the business, not so much.



> I've yet to see a legitimate argument against stopping any crime where people are adversely affected. There may be some good points in regards to the short-term, but in the long term the only ones that benefit are the criminals and the only ones that suffer are the law-abiding folks.



You would advocate that businesses have to do what you think they should do, because law-abiding folks pay higher costs due to shipping companies paying pirates?

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I happy to agree with you about taking on the pirates.  Seems like a very good thing for us to do, and frankly, blowing up pirates should be fun.

But businesses get to run their businesses the way they want in a free market economy.  I don't think you or I get to force them to man up and stop paying pirates.

Ask a thousand NYC bodegas that pay 'protection money' to certain 'businessmen' to keep the place from burning down or being robbed.  Should consumers be able to force those bodegas to tell the Mafia to get stuffed?  Well, it's the same thing.  Businesses make choices that are in their own best interests.  That's that way it goes.

However (sigh), I am certain that in a few posts, someone is going to point out that these shipping companies are (sigh) cowards, and anyone who sees their point of of view is a (sigh) coward, because they'd rather (sigh) cower in (sigh) fear in their homes and (sigh) beg the pirates not to harm them instead of standing up to them like a man's man's man's macho karate d00d would do seven days a week and twice on Sunday (pound chest, posture, make 'grr' noise).

Let's see how long it takes...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 14, 2009)

This may sound horrible, but my opinion is that when pirates, terrorists, or whatever take a shipload/planeload/building load of hostages, the first thing we should do is keep our obnoxious corporate press completely in the dark and blow up the ship/plane/building. 

Yes, the hostages are sacrificed. The terrorists/priates/whatever get no money, no media attention, and no chance to make whatever statement they intend to make. 

Never give in. Even at the expense of the hostages. Giving in encourages them and such situations occur more frequently (they have). 

Second, rather than use hostage situations to train seals and such, deploy trained military personel on these merchant vessels and arm the vessels. Heavily. Our navy personel get action outside of wartime to keep them honed and the ships are protected.

If we do that, they'll focus on ships flying non-US flags and avoid us. Keep in mind, pirates are interested in making a profit, not pitched battles. Armed merchant cruisers were actually used in WWI to some effect. Their main weakness was submarines. 

Media attention is the other thing that some of these idiots (generally terrorists rather than pirates) crave. And our media is in such sorry shape that they will give it to them no matter what just to break a story with no thought of any consequences or bigger picture. Keep them from getting the media attention and once again, the return on their efforts is drastically reduced.

The media is also bound and determined to undermine any legitimate efforts on the part of our military to do anything about anything. They should be kept out of the loop in such situations to the greatest degree possible.

I realize that my opinion on this may offend the sensibilities of some. My apologies if you are among them; offense of others is not my intent.  This is the only way that I personally see as effective in dealing with those who would use hostages as leverage for obtaining money, political consessions, or media attention.  I abhore the fact that the world is in such a state where such an opinion could be considered by anyone, myself included. 

Daniel


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Apr 14, 2009)

Does anyone have any details or even rough estimates about numbers of these pirate groups operating, firewpower they possess, whether or not its a unified group or smaller unrelated bands?
It seems to me any decision made by a business regarding whether a ship should combat these raids is fairly dependant on what they're actually up against.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 14, 2009)

Smallpox canisters.  Let 'em take it back to their nest.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I said at my last physical, "Doc, that better be your finger!"
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not personal, and that's why your analogy doesn't work.


 
Oh, but I disagree! It is personal at the very least (to stick to the previous example) because you and I as consumers will ultimately pay the price (pun intended) for increased cost of goods. 

I'm sure the families of the sailors take it personally as well. :uhohh:

I reiterate: There's more to this than just "Big Business". Look, I'm no fan of "Big Business" either...especially these days...grrrr....but we must consider the "Big Picture". 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Since it is 'you' and not 'a business which is not you', you forgot that they can pass their increased costs along to their customer. You're the end of the line, the buck stops with you. In the case of the business, not so much.


 
...and that _doesn't_ make it personal? 

There is much more to consider of course, but as stated I take it pretty "personal" when the prices of items I buy go up and my pay check does not. LOL 





Bill Mattocks said:


> You would advocate that businesses have to do what you think they should do, because law-abiding folks pay higher costs due to shipping companies paying pirates?


 
Not at all. _My government_ should have to do what I think they should do in order to protect it's people, commerce, and interests because even though it may seem they have forgotten it these days...they do work for me (us.) 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.


 
Actually it does to a degree...in regards to businesses...lest they end up out of business. Market demand plays a large role in what they do...but we're not talking about Macroeconomics really...we're talking about how we should deal with these criminals. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I happy to agree with you about taking on the pirates. Seems like a very good thing for us to do, and frankly, blowing up pirates should be fun.


 
My bags are packed! Let's go!!! LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> But businesses get to run their businesses the way they want in a free market economy. I don't think you or I get to force them to man up and stop paying pirates.


 
True...we can't "force" but the market does "influence"....but again...not looking to discuss Macro...lol



Bill Mattocks said:


> Ask a thousand NYC bodegas that pay 'protection money' to certain 'businessmen' to keep the place from burning down or being robbed. Should consumers be able to force those bodegas to tell the Mafia to get stuffed? Well, it's the same thing. Businesses make choices that are in their own best interests. That's that way it goes.


 
I'm sure that's just as widespread as it was in the 30's and 40's and law enforcement stands by and allows it to continue so of course our government should turn a blind eye to the pirates....right? 

And yes...businesses allmost ALWAYS make decisions in their best interest. The business of business is business after all. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> However (sigh), I am certain that in a few posts, someone is going to point out that these shipping companies are (sigh) cowards, and anyone who sees their point of of view is a (sigh) coward, because they'd rather (sigh) cower in (sigh) fear in their homes and (sigh) beg the pirates not to harm them instead of standing up to them like a man's man's man's macho karate d00d would do seven days a week and twice on Sunday (pound chest, posture, make 'grr' noise).
> 
> Let's see how long it takes...


 
Got nothing to do with it. *It's not about the businesses*. It's not really up to them to "do something", it's up to our government in this case as due to the circumstances they are the "law" in this case. 

:deadhorse They have a responsibility to protect our citizens, trade, and other interests.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Got nothing to do with it. *It's not about the businesses*. It's not really up to them to "do something", it's up to our government in this case as due to the circumstances they are the "law" in this case.
> 
> :deadhorse They have a responsibility to protect our citizens, trade, and other interests.



OK, if you're referring to our government taking an active role, then I agree with you.  Sorry, in the usual discussion of 'us' and 'they' and so on, I thought you were disagreeing with business being allowed to make their own decisions.  My bad.


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 14, 2009)

The answer here is simple:

Do not negotiate with pirates/terrorists

Kill them

If you give in now, you'll have to give in next time, and then the time after that, and so on...  

Be strong.  Fight back.  Stand up.


On September 11, 2001, a few brave people decided to stand up and say "NO!".  The airplane that they were traveling in did not crash into a building or kill more than those on board the plane.  The brave may die, but their sacrifice is always remembered.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem is the 'we' that you're talking about. Businesses (at least until recently) got to make their own decisions about how they'd do business. Pay pirates or don't, it was their decision to make. No 'we' in it.
> 
> In the Age of Obama, that may all be different now. We'll have to see.


 


Gordon Nore said:


> I've highlighted these words because I think that's the issue. There is no absolute *we* in this. This recent episode could have gone in a different direction if the US Navy vessels had been a day or even a few hours further out. As of the moment, ships travelling through the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden cannot count on military back-up the instant they need it. In the absence of guaranteed protection of the military, the cargo companies have found a way of protecting their interests and avoiding lawsuits.
> 
> I think there is a legitimate concern that there will be some payback for this latest incident. I would say now there is going to have to be a multi-national build up of support in the water and the air.


 
Oh come on guys....are you going to be that picky on the use of a word?  I think its safe to say that you both know what I was talking about.  Ok...lets substitute the word WE for the shipping companies.  And as CC stated, in the end, the consumers, so that could be the WE, will suffer the end results.  

Has the US Military been involved in the other hijackings?  I don't know.  But either way, I'm sure we'll start to see a joint effort with other countries in an effort to fight the pirates.  Maybe instead of bending over, like what seems to be the common thought, the ships should fight back, such as suggested by astrobiologist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> Maybe instead of bending over, like what seems to be the common thought, the ships should fight back, such as suggested by astrobiologist.



You forgot to call them all cowards, and to accuse the people who see their point of view of choosing to cower in our homes, praying no one will hurt us.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You forgot to call them all cowards, and to accuse the people who see their point of view of choosing to cower in our homes, praying no one will hurt us.


 
So, the real reason you disagree with me finally comes out Bill. LOL.  See, it all goes back to my usual analogy....

Person A: They're confronted with a mugger at the ATM. The badguy has a knife. He asks the victim for $500, to which the victim complies. Badguy leaves, victim is left with a bad memory of the event and a loss of cash.

Person B: Same as A, but badguy tells victim to go with him behind the bank. Victim really starts fearing for his well being, so he then acts.

Person C: Same as A, but instead of complying, he relentlessly attacks the badguy, and gets the hell out of there, with his life and his cash.


So, you will always go with A, because anything else is macho, internet tough guy talk, blah, blah, blah.  Sorry Bill, but yes, they are acting like cowards if they bend over every time the pirates get what they want.  Military protection, armed guards, whatever it takes, but the next time the pirates try to board a ship, they should be looking down the barrel of a few guns.

Props to the crew for fighting back during this recent hijacking though.  Of course, if you were on the ship, I suppose you'd suggest to fully cooperate, bend over and give the pirates everything they want, right?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2009)

I think the easiest solution is to locate and sink these pirate "motherships". I doubt that these little dingys are cruising hundreds of miles from shore and finding ships to hijack at random....


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> The answer here is simple:
> 
> Do not negotiate with pirates/terrorists
> 
> ...



I am basically in agreement with this idea, but these are very poor people who are not in an organization and sharing information and ideas. This is a country where electrical service is intermittent and so it's far from clear to me that all the pirates out there know what happened...and it's a place where people are poor, scared, and hungry, and death at the hands of Navy Seals at sea vs. warlords on land isn't a clear-cut matter. I am far from sure that the message will be heard.

That having been said, violence is the only thing short of a Marshall Plan for Somalia that can possibly help here.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2009)

*Captain&#8217;s Rescue Revives Debate Over Arming Crews*



> While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners&#8217; concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.
> 
> Despite repeated problems with pirates in the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia and now in the waters of the Arabian Sea, ship owners worried that their crews would be killed instead of held for ransom if the crews tried to defend themselves and failed.
> [...]
> ...



Arming ships is much harder than it appears. The concerns of the crew accidentally discharging or misusing the weapons, of pirates shooting first rather than taking hostages if they fear armed resistance, of pirates arming themselves more heavily if they fear armed resistance, of countries refusing entry to armed merchant seamen from other nations, or volatile contents that could ignite in the presence of fireplay, all argue against it.

Regardless, I think this has to be the solution. Mount some .50 caliber machine guns on the ships and keep on board a dozen trained men--possibly military or even or USMS reservists--and a gun locker to which only a few people have keys. Mount the watch and make public warnings that approaching within 1000 yards without permission over the radio from the captain means you will be fired upon. It'd require an international agreement to allow them into ports, but these are not uncommon weapons. make them so they can be locked in place by the port controllers using their own heavy locks, and make that part of pulling into port--the home coast guard comes on board and double-locks your weaponry until you leave.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2009)

I think the Romans showed the best way of defeating piracy if there is the will and the guts to do it. Rome invaded Illiria in 68BC, home base of the most prolific and successful piracy in the Adriatic, and effectively stamped the problem out. They also killed outright or crucified every pirate in every ship they caught.

For a long while Rome eradicated piracy in their area of control.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 14, 2009)

Hey gang,

How about we all go the Haiti, get a bunch of youths, train then in H2H and shooting, and let them all go hijack ships coming out of the Panama Canal! I mean if they are not going to stop piracy, go with the flow right? Don't be shocked if one day that happens if the world fails to take real solid action.

Those who counsel to give in are so decadent they will not fight for anything. And those who would take what they want will take everything of you let them. 

Maybe this is a replay of Rome.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 14, 2009)

Yes it is.

And you KNOW how the saying went.

"As goes the Collosseum, so goes Rome, as goes Rome so goes the world".


----------



## IcemanSK (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> If it ceases to be profitable, they will cease the activity.


 

I agree with that theory, but it will take an awful lot for desperately poor people with that bent to not try it. I long for a world where there's no need to think that THAT is a good idea.


----------



## shihansmurf (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> So, you will always go with A, because anything else is macho, internet tough guy talk, blah, blah, blah.  Sorry Bill, but yes, they are acting like cowards if they bend over every time the pirates get what they want.  Military protection, armed guards, whatever it takes, but the next time the pirates try to board a ship, they should be looking down the barrel of a few guns.
> 
> Props to the crew for fighting back during this recent hijacking though.  Of course, if you were on the ship, I suppose you'd suggest to fully cooperate, bend over and give the pirates everything they want, right?



Anything but pure capitulation seems to be just internet tough guy talk.
At some point we (and yes I said we, I include myself in that we, given that as a soldier I am likely to be on the actual doing end of this plan) must make a choice to allow evil men to continue to prey upon the weak or to take action to eradicate the danger they pose. Negotiation with these sorts of men will not work. Exterminating them like the predatory filth that they are is the only plan that has any feasible chance of success.
I'm up for giving it a go.

Just my view
Mark

P.S. Besides, once you've shot a pirate the only thing cooler than that is to hunt Ninja. I've got to get one of each of them.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think the Romans showed the best way of defeating piracy if there is the will and the guts to do it. Rome invaded Illiria in 68BC, home base of the most prolific and successful piracy in the Adriatic, and effectively stamped the problem out. They also killed outright or crucified every pirate in every ship they caught.
> 
> For a long while Rome eradicated piracy in their area of control.



Not a bad idea if that were our area of control... it's not though.

Now if that were going on say in the Carribean or the Gulf of Mexico...  Atlantic or Pacific in our sphere of influence, absolutely. 

This is another action item on the other side of the world that we don't need to get dragged into if it can be avoided, but the rest of the world is prepared to lube up & accept Naval Pirate love for like a good little *****. It's up to the other countries if they want to keep paying the pimp... We decided we weren't and we didn't. 

We can't be the sole police force on the planet. We shouldn't be the sole police force on the planet. We have our own problems that are being over looked because we're too busy taking care of everybody else's problems.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

clfsean said:


> Not a bad idea if that were our area of control... it's not though.



Sure it is.  Put US Marines on the US-flagged cargo ships in the area.  Shoulder-mounted rockets, mortars, and squad automatic weapons.  About a platoon per ship.  End of problem.

We don't have to put US Navy ships behind every cargo ship, nor do we have to police the cargo ships of other nations.

We've done this before.  When the trains were being robbed of US Mail, we put Marines on them.  When pirates were striking US vessels off the Barbary Coast, we put Marines on them.

Put Marines on the cargo vessels, charge back the owners of the cargo vessels for the cost to the DoD, and stop worrying about arming crews or wasting the capability of the US Navy or being the police force for other nations.  Just a platoon of Marines per ship and that's that.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure it is.  Put US Marines on the US-flagged cargo ships in the area.  Shoulder-mounted rockets, mortars, and squad automatic weapons.  About a platoon per ship.  End of problem.



Nope... still doesn't address the basic idea of it's not our area of control/influence. Sure it would curtail the problem, but we are playing police force again by proxy.



Bill Mattocks said:


> We don't have to put US Navy ships behind every cargo ship, nor do we have to police the cargo ships of other nations.



See that's the whole thing... we took care of ours when if the rest of countries of the world would grow a pair & use them in an appropriate manner, we never would have needed to in the first place. If the countries that do control the area would step up, we wouldn't have to. We shouldn't now as it is.



Bill Mattocks said:


> We've done this before.  When the trains were being robbed of US Mail, we put Marines on them.  When pirates were striking US vessels off the Barbary Coast, we put Marines on them.



When were trains being robbed of US mail?

Barbary Coast Pirates... those two "wars" were after years of plunder, kidnapping, selling into slavery by the "pirates" the captured US & Euro citizens. Again, the US lead the way with sailing ships _all the way from our shores_ to deal with something the Euros preferred to pay away. Even then after the end of the 2nd war, Euros still paid them. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Put Marines on the cargo vessels, charge back the owners of the cargo vessels for the cost to the DoD, and stop worrying about arming crews or wasting the capability of the US Navy or being the police force for other nations.  Just a platoon of Marines per ship and that's that.



Police force by proxy... uncalled for if the nations of the area would take their collective thumbs out of their collective asses & stomp the problem once & for all.


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure it is. Put US Marines on the US-flagged cargo ships in the area. Shoulder-mounted rockets, mortars, and squad automatic weapons. About a platoon per ship. End of problem.
> 
> We don't have to put US Navy ships behind every cargo ship, nor do we have to police the cargo ships of other nations.
> 
> ...


 
Wow....finally, a post that I agree with.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 15, 2009)

clfsean said:


> Police force by proxy... uncalled for if the nations of the area would take their collective thumbs out of their collective asses & stomp the problem once & for all.


Yes, but they won't.

Daniel


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

clfsean said:


> Nope... still doesn't address the basic idea of it's not our area of control/influence. Sure it would curtail the problem, but we are playing police force again by proxy.



Our area of influence is wherever there are US citizens.  Period.  If that's "playing police force by proxy" (whatever that means) then fine with me.



> See that's the whole thing... we took care of ours when if the rest of countries of the world would grow a pair & use them in an appropriate manner, we never would have needed to in the first place. If the countries that do control the area would step up, we wouldn't have to. We shouldn't now as it is.



There are no countries in that part of the world.  Somalia is a failed country, there is no actual 'government' except on paper.  The rest of the nations in that area are paper tigers, they got nothing.

http://maps.google.com/maps?source=...152149,46.199616&spn=58.716981,114.169922&z=4



> When were trains being robbed of US mail?



1921, and again in 1926.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE4D8103EEE3ABC4153DFB767838A639EDE



> Barbary Coast Pirates... those two "wars" were after years of plunder, kidnapping, selling into slavery by the "pirates" the captured US & Euro citizens. Again, the US lead the way with sailing ships _all the way from our shores_ to deal with something the Euros preferred to pay away. Even then after the end of the 2nd war, Euros still paid them.



Let others do as they wish.  When a pirate sees a US flag on a vessel, they should crap their pants and scurry away, lest their body parts be flung to sharks.



> Police force by proxy... uncalled for if the nations of the area would take their collective thumbs out of their collective asses & stomp the problem once & for all.



Police force only for our own.  I can't control what other nations do with their thumbs, and I don't care what they do.  We protect our own, let them look to their own interests.  The US national ensign on a vessel should be enough to tell all and sundry that you screw with that vessel at risk of your health, your family's health, hell, everybody who looks like you's health.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, but they won't.
> 
> Daniel



That's because there is no one there.  Look at a map of Somalia.  The coastline extends clear around the corner from Djibouti almost all the way to Mombassa.  And that's an area of no government control of any kind, Somalia has no functioning government at all.  Nearest neighbors are Kenya and Djibouti, both not known to have big navies, I think.

This is the third world.  Poorest of the poor.  They still fight wars with machetes, for God's sake.  They cannot stop the pirates - even if they wanted to.

I don't propose that we step in and fix things for others.  But I do propose we protect our own interests in the area.

We put shotguns on stage coaches when going through Indian Country, we didn't demand that the Cherokee and the Souix step up and protect our convoys passing through.  This is no different.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Our area of influence is wherever there are US citizens.  Period.  If that's "playing police force by proxy" (whatever that means) then fine with me.



That mentality will end up costing us. We have our own issues to deal with at home. If a US citizen isn't bright enough to heed the State Dept's warnings on foreign travel, well... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> There are no countries in that part of the world.  Somalia is a failed country, there is no actual 'government' except on paper.  The rest of the nations in that area are paper tigers, they got nothing.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?source=...152149,46.199616&spn=58.716981,114.169922&z=4



Thanks for the map Bill. I'm pretty ok with geography, but considering this is occurring in the Indian ocean & one of the premier players in the area & maintains a large sphere of influence is India, let them step up. They already have once, give them a larger part of the pie of responsibility. Japan has sent ships, turn the loose a little more. They may need the batting practice shortly to ramp up for NK. 

Unless we're planning on making the Horn of Africa area a US protectorate, we've got really no dog in that hunt IMHO. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> 1921, and again in 1926.
> 
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE4D8103EEE3ABC4153DFB767838A639EDE



From your link... 


> WASHINGTON, Nov. 8.--Marines will be used to protect the mails against the robberies which have been occurring throughout the nation, and which occupied the attention of President Harding and his Cabinet this morning.



This was on US soil... not a foreign country... The Marines were protecting US mail shipments in the US... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Let others do as they wish.  When a pirate sees a US flag on a vessel, they should crap their pants and scurry away, lest their body parts be flung to sharks.



They should anyway... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Police force only for our own.  I can't control what other nations do with their thumbs, and I don't care what they do.  We protect our own, let them look to their own interests.  The US national ensign on a vessel should be enough to tell all and sundry that you screw with that vessel at risk of your health, your family's health, hell, everybody who looks like you's health.



Agreed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

clfsean said:


> That mentality will end up costing us. We have our own issues to deal with at home. If a US citizen isn't bright enough to heed the State Dept's warnings on foreign travel, well...



Commercial shipping is hardly the same as gallivanting tourists.  However, to the extent that we can do so, it should also be made clear that messing with even one US citizen is a very bad idea.  Cost us?  Screw that noise.  Not responding has already cost us - more.



> Thanks for the map Bill. I'm pretty ok with geography, but considering this is occurring in the Indian ocean & one of the premier players in the area & maintains a large sphere of influence is India, let them step up. They already have once, give them a larger part of the pie of responsibility. Japan has sent ships, turn the loose a little more. They may need the batting practice shortly to ramp up for NK.



I don't care if India comes, stays, lays, or prays.  We protect US interests wherever they happen to be.



> Unless we're planning on making the Horn of Africa area a US protectorate, we've got really no dog in that hunt IMHO.



No plans to police the area - just protect US-flagged vessels.  Pretty limited role.



> This was on US soil... not a foreign country... The Marines were protecting US mail shipments in the US...



Yep.  We also sent in the Marines to protect US citizens and interests in places like Panama, Grenada, Haiti, and lots of other places.  It's what we do.  Let us do our job, which is to break things and kill people, and civilians do their job, which is to carp about how the Marines do their jobs, from the sidelines.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2009)

Just park an Air Craft Carrier in the area for a while. Naval jets will have little problem reaching ships in need in a short time and can devastate pirate "ships" without much effort.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Commercial shipping is hardly the same as gallivanting tourists.  However, to the extent that we can do so, it should also be made clear that messing with even one US citizen is a very bad idea.  Cost us?  Screw that noise.  Not responding has already cost us - more.



Commercial shipping is aware of & under the same advisories put out by the State Dept. If their logistics people can't figure it out... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't care if India comes, stays, lays, or prays.  We protect US interests wherever they happen to be.



You missed the whole meaning... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> No plans to police the area - just protect US-flagged vessels.  Pretty limited role.



We protect our ship... before long our ship will become a small group of a couple of multinational flags... then caravans... 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep.  We also sent in the Marines to protect US citizens and interests in places like Panama, Grenada, Haiti, and lots of other places.  It's what we do.  Let us do our job, which is to break things and kill people, and civilians do their job, which is to carp about how the Marines do their jobs, from the sidelines.



*sigh* Bill... for Christ sake... I'm one of the biggest military supporters out there. You're not getting what I'm saying. So with that done, I'm done with this conversation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Just park an Air Craft Carrier in the area for a while. Naval jets will have little problem reaching ships in need in a short time and can devastate pirate "ships" without much effort.



Nope.

The key to the pirate's ability to gain control of these ships is that they appear out of nowhere, they overhaul the cargo vessel, and they use or threaten to use RPGs and machine guns while boarding.  US jets cannot detect or engage pirates in small skiffs prior to their being too close to get to in time to stop.

This is pure boarding party repulsion. Classic, and exactly what US Marines were trained for.  Close in, short range weapons, and the occasional need for hand-to-hand combat.  This is a human problem, not a technology problem.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2009)

I've read a couple of pieces recently suggesting WWII-style convoys...I don't know how realistic that is.

A friend of my son is on a Semester at Sea cruise that was re-routed to avoid pirate-infested waters. It's affecting routes already.

Fixing Somalia is the most effective response, but there are no easy ones. These are dirt-poor people in a war-torn land. Doing nothing is risky for some of them too--scaring them isn't as easy as putting a few men with guns on a boat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I've read a couple of pieces recently suggesting WWII-style convoys...I don't know how realistic that is.
> 
> A friend of my son is on a Semester at Sea cruise that was re-routed to avoid pirate-infested waters. It's affecting routes already.



I think people are failing to understand the nature of the problem.

WWII convoys were an effective response to attacks on civilian shipping by enemy nations, which could approach and sink ships with impunity if not guarded by ships capable of taking them on face-to-face.

Likewise, those who see this as an impossible-to-guard territory are correct - it is impossible to protect - but there is no need to.  The waters off the coast of Somalias are not our concern - only our US-flagged vessels and US citizens are.

Even then, we cannot afford, nor do we have the resources, to put a US Navy ship near enough to every US-flagged cargo vessel to protect them from pirates.

But the pirates have one major advantage which is also their disadvantage.  They use tiny craft that are fast.  Thus, nearly impossible to detect until they are on their prey.  However, their small size limits their ability to do damage.  They have RPG's and machine guns.  They can damage cargo vessels, but they cannot penetrate a hull or sink same.  They can only come up alongside and use firepower to hold the crew back while they board.

Thus, the solution is both inexpensive and high-quality.  A contingent of US Marines on every US-flagged vessel, armed with mortars, shoulder-fired rockets, and medium-to-heavy machine guns.  They do not have to detect pirates at a distance, nor does a ship in distress have to wait hours for help to arrive.  The ship is approached by pirates, and once detected, within minutes the US Marines on board begin targeting them with the goal to sink their vessel.  If they fail to do that, then it goes to anti-boarding engagement.

All of these techniques are known well to the US Marines.  That is one of their primary missions, and what they were created for in the first place - a Naval infantry to protect ships.  Not sailors, but there to protect sailors.

This is not an international incident-making problem.  No projecting our authority ashore in foreign lands, no patrolling of waters not our own, no gunboat diplomacy, just protecting our own interests, which every nation in the world recognizes as a sovereign right of nations.  Don't approach our boats with bad intent, you don't get engaged and sunk.  Simple as that.

There is no need to make this difficult.  It's easy, we have the tools, and they're already trained and ready to go.  Marines kill pirates.  They've been doing it for over 230 years.



> Fixing Somalia is the most effective response, but there are no easy ones. These are dirt-poor people in a war-torn land. Doing nothing is risky for some of them too--scaring them isn't as easy as putting a few men with guns on a boat.



We tried to fix Somalia.  UN resolutions out the wazoo, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed and their bodies dragged through the streets.  No more.  Somalia can kiss my smelly crease, it's not happening.  I pity the people of Somalia who did not ask to be born into the lawless society they have, but it is 100% their own problem now.


----------



## joeygil (Apr 15, 2009)

I agree putting marines on the vessels is the best option.  It's cheap and seems effective.  I don't think you need a whole platoon per ship - maybe a squad at most.  Unless pirates start attacking in platoon sized groups instead of 4 or so.

I disagree with the suggestion of invasion, like Rome.  We already have 2 land wars to deal with - I can't imagine Somalia would be any easier.  I also don't think the cost of a war in lives and treasure are justified against the relatively light costs of piracy.


There was a suggestion by the Somali "government" - "Let us handle it."  At first I found that pretty funny, but they point out when they had a functioning government for 6 months (before being ousted by Ethiopian insurgents), piracy was down.  Probably because they executed pirates.  At least that way, there aren't US/UN lives directly at stake, along with the inevitable backlash against invaders.  

So basically aid to the government.  They're only revenue is about $2 million from port fees.  Compare that to $60 million piracy brings in annually.  Think about that - the cost of 1 B-2 bomber is one thousand times more than Somalia's revenue.  Less than a penny per year per American would more than double the government's income.  That could be spread that through the U.N.


Anyway, just an alternative to invasion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

joeygil said:


> There was a suggestion by the Somali "government" - "Let us handle it."  At first I found that pretty funny, but they point out when they had a functioning government for 6 months (before being ousted by Ethiopian insurgents), piracy was down.  Probably because they executed pirates.  At least that way, there aren't US/UN lives directly at stake, along with the inevitable backlash against invaders.  So basically aid to the government, since they're only revenue is about $2 million from port fees.  Compare that to $60 million piracy brings in annually.  Think about that - the cost of 1 B-2 bomber is one thousand times more than Somalia's revenue.



You have to understand what Somalia is.  There is no government, despite the 'president' saying this or that.  There are a hodge-podge collection of warlords and coalitions of warlords, along with an islamic insurgency.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html#Govt



> although an interim government was created in 2004, other regional and local governing bodies continue to exist and control various regions of the country, including the self-declared Republic of Somaliland in northwestern Somalia and the semi-autonomous State of Puntland in northeastern Somalia



There's no 'there' there.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html#Military


> no national-level armed forces (2008)





> Ethiopian forces invaded southern Somalia and routed Islamist Courts from Mogadishu in January 2007; "Somaliland" secessionists provide port facilities in Berbera to landlocked Ethiopia and have established commercial ties with other regional states; "Puntland" and "Somaliland" "governments" seek international support in their secessionist aspirations and overlapping border claims; the undemarcated former British administrative line has little meaning as a political separation to rival clans within Ethiopia's Ogaden and southern Somalia's Oromo region; Kenya works hard to prevent the clan and militia fighting in Somalia from spreading south across the border, which has long been open to nomadic pastoralists



This is the reality of Somalia.  They have no military.  They have no functioning government, although from time to time a warlord will declare himself president.

Heck, they even had a US Marine who was a warlord there for awhile - might have become president eventually...

http://www.netnomad.com/aydiidyounger.nyt.html

There is no 'Somalia'.  It is just a name on a map.  People need to stop thinking that there is one that can 'do' anything at all.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2009)

joeygil said:


> I agree putting marines on the vessels is the best option.  It's cheap and seems effective.  I don't think you need a whole platoon per ship



A platoon is a lot of troops! But, isn't this a job for a Blackwater-type outfit (or whatever their new name is)? Let private industry pay for it. Give me eight or so ex-Marines, a decent sonar system, and some .50 caliber MGs mounted on each side, and you've got yourself a welcoming party.

The real impediment is that foreign ports don't want armed vessels in their ports any more than we want them in ours. A new agreement is desperately needed--and it may need to allow for a Saudi-flagged ship to pull into the port of NY with RPGs. Is that OK?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> A platoon is a lot of troops!



Not in the Marine Corps.  Four men to a Fire Team, three Fire Teams to a Squad, three Squads to a Platoon. 36 Marines.  Each squad gets a Sergeant, and a platoon gets a First Sergeant and a Commanding Officer, so that's 40 men and one officer.  You have to have shifts, so three shifts, one squad each shift.



> But, isn't this a job for a Blackwater-type outfit (or whatever their new name is)? Let private industry pay for it. Give me eight or so ex-Marines, a decent sonar system, and some .50 caliber MGs mounted on each side, and you've got yourself a welcoming party.



First, there is no such thing as an 'ex-Marine'.  We're Marines until they throw dirt on our faces.

Second, private security forces lack the freedom from prosecution / civil liability that the US military does, unless they operate under the aegis of the US military.  I would foresee a lawsuit-happy boondoggle.

Third, SONAR?  You going after whales?  These pirate's boats are not even as tall as the chop in the area.  You're not going to pick them up short of visual observation and not at all at night, until they try to drop an RPG onto your deck.  They get so close to the cargo vessels because there are not people typically watching out for them - the sailors have work to do.



> The real impediment is that foreign ports don't want armed vessels in their ports any more than we want them in ours. A new agreement is desperately needed--and it may need to allow for a Saudi-flagged ship to pull into the port of NY with RPGs. Is that OK?



I'm sure it can be worked out.  I have no problem with known Saudi RPG's on ships docked in US ports. I'm sure there are lots of undeclared ones there already - the ones they declare won't cause us any problems.


----------



## thardey (Apr 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> A platoon is a lot of troops! But, isn't this a job for a Blackwater-type outfit (or whatever their new name is)? *Let private industry pay for it.* Give me eight or so ex-Marines, a decent sonar system, and some .50 caliber MGs mounted on each side, and you've got yourself a welcoming party.


 
One way or the other, somebody is paying. Either we do nothing, and insurance pays, which means that private industry pays, which means that we pay -- or we put the military on/near/above/below the cargo ships to protect them, which means the government pays, which means that we pay. Or we let the private industry arm and train themselves, or hire security, which means that they pay, which means that we pay.

So, anyway we slice it, somehow, I end up donating to the cause. I would just as soon donate in a way that doesn't end up in the pirate's pockets! (unless it's a grenade down the pants.)


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We tried to fix Somalia. UN resolutions out the wazoo, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed and their bodies dragged through the streets. No more. Somalia can kiss my smelly crease, it's not happening. I pity the people of Somalia who did not ask to be born into the lawless society they have, but it is 100% their own problem now.


 

If you think our little jaunt over there in the 90's was a serious attempt to "fix the problem"...I think you are seriously mistaken.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope.
> 
> The key to the pirate's ability to gain control of these ships is that they appear out of nowhere, they overhaul the cargo vessel, and they use or threaten to use RPGs and machine guns while boarding. US jets cannot detect or engage pirates in small skiffs prior to their being too close to get to in time to stop.
> 
> This is pure boarding party repulsion. Classic, and exactly what US Marines were trained for. Close in, short range weapons, and the occasional need for hand-to-hand combat. This is a human problem, not a technology problem.


 
We had missiles that could target the *** of a flea when I served back in 88...I'm pretty sure we got the tech to blow a tiny pirate boat out of the water from the air today. 

Even so, other than genocide, there's no 100% full-proof measure to stop these pirate attacks but I think having an air craft carrier parked off the horn for a bit launching routine air patrols could have a positive effect on reducing the attacks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If you think our little jaunt over there in the 90's was a serious attempt to "fix the problem"...I think you are seriously mistaken.



I'm not mistaken - it was a serious attempt.  We were mistaken thinking it could be fixed, as was the UN, under whose auspices we were there.

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2p.htm


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> We had missiles that could target the *** of a flea when I served back in 88...I'm pretty sure we got the tech to blow a tiny pirate boat out of the water from the air today.



The problem isn't hitting them so much as finding them before they are too close to the hull of the cargo ship they intend to board.



> Even so, other than genocide, there's no 100% full-proof measure to stop these pirate attacks ...



Yes, there is, and I've explained it patiently.  Marines on board will stop every single pirate attack on the ships they're deployed on.



> ...but I think having an air craft carrier parked off the horn for a bit launching routine air patrols could have a positive effect on reducing the attacks.



Not even a tiny little bitty bit of a positive effect.  Not even the slightest of effects.  What it does is take a very expensive and valuable flattop out of commision and place it on 'gunboat diplomacy' duty in waters off a coast of people who could not care less that there is an aircraft carrier out there.

You won't have more than a few minutes notice that any cargo vessel is under attack, and by the time you scramble jets, even with pilots on condition one standby (which they can't keep up forever), by the time they get there, the pirates will have boarded - who you gonna sink then?

We do not have to hunt pirates.  We know where they will go.  Wait for them there.  They will come to you.  Or not, in which case you've won.


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Just park an Air Craft Carrier in the area for a while. Naval jets will have little problem reaching ships in need in a short time and can devastate pirate "ships" without much effort.


 
While getting ready for work this morning, they were talking about the latest attempted hijack.  They were saying something like 1.2 million mi. of water in that area, so there would have to be a huge number of ships in the area to cover all that.

But, your idea, IMO, would eliminate alot of that.  A carrier or two, with jets on it, in set areas, when the distress call comes in, off they go.


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope.
> 
> The key to the pirate's ability to gain control of these ships is that they appear out of nowhere, they overhaul the cargo vessel, and they use or threaten to use RPGs and machine guns while boarding. US jets cannot detect or engage pirates in small skiffs prior to their being too close to get to in time to stop.
> 
> This is pure boarding party repulsion. Classic, and exactly what US Marines were trained for. Close in, short range weapons, and the occasional need for hand-to-hand combat. This is a human problem, not a technology problem.


 
Maybe what they need is someone to serve as a lookout.  It shouldnt be that hard to see these boats approaching.  If a call can be put out that the ship is under attack, I don't see why jets couldnt arrive in time.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem isn't hitting them so much as finding them before they are too close to the hull of the cargo ship they intend to board.


 
Point taken. It will take more than just a single strategy I think, I was suggesting but one that I feel would have a large impact. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, there is, and I've explained it patiently. Marines on board will stop every single pirate attack on the ships they're deployed on.


 
Deploying military personel on a civilian ship? That could set a precedent leading to other types of businesses demanding military assistance... not sure I like where that goes (possibly another thread)...BUT... I can see your point and agree that it would go a long way in taking care of it. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Not even a tiny little bitty bit of a positive effect. Not even the slightest of effects. What it does is take a very expensive and valuable flattop out of commision and place it on 'gunboat diplomacy' duty in waters off a coast of people who could not care less that there is an aircraft carrier out there.


 
Well I guess somebody aught to tell the Joint Chiefs that their past strategies involving placing Carriers in areas of conflict is dead wrong. Who knew? Those stupid old fuddy duddies....



Bill Mattocks said:


> You won't have more than a few minutes notice that any cargo vessel is under attack, and by the time you scramble jets, even with pilots on condition one standby (which they can't keep up forever), by the time they get there, the pirates will have boarded - who you gonna sink then?


 
Other pirates? %-} Arrrrrr
Boats got more resources than just jets. Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to go ahead and post more Seals in the area? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> We do not have to hunt pirates. We know where they will go. Wait for them there. They will come to you. Or not, in which case you've won.


 
No argument from me there! As Barney Phife would say, "Nip it in the bud!"


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Deploying military personel on a civilian ship? That could set a precedent leading to other types of businesses demanding military assistance... not sure I like where that goes (possibly another thread)...BUT... I can see your point and agree that it would go a long way in taking care of it.



We have done so before.  In WWII, it was not uncommon.  But as far as demanding - I would prefer if we did the demanding, and the civilian ships did the paying for the assets.  That should keep 'demands' for military troops on civilian assets down.



> Well I guess somebody aught to tell the Joint Chiefs that their past strategies involving placing Carriers in areas of conflict is dead wrong. Who knew? Those stupid old fuddy duddies....


Aircraft carriers are absolutely good things to have - as well as destroyers and frigates and so on.  They serve a purpose.  In the case of aircraft carriers, their purpose is to project military power inland from sea and to protect naval assets from opposing navies and incoming air power.  It's a great tool, this is just the wrong job for it.



> Other pirates? %-} Arrrrrr
> Boats got more resources than just jets. Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to go ahead and post more Seals in the area?


Seals are great - I have trained with them and I have huge, big-time respect for them.  Would not want to make one mad.  They're truly dangerous individuals.  No doubt they would do a fantastic job.  That said, they're a much more finite and expensive resource than Marines.  Overkill in the routine 'stop the pirate from boarding' mission.  Great for rescue ops such as the one they just performed so ably.

 I'd also consider Army special forces, but let's face it, Marines are tasked with being sea-going infantry.  No point in making dogfaces seasick when you got jarheads who already got all the pukey out of their systems.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 15, 2009)

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.



Game over man.  Game over!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


 
Naw...too much effort. Let's just stop sending aid.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 15, 2009)

MJS said:


> Maybe what they need is someone to serve as a lookout. It shouldnt be that hard to see these boats approaching. If a call can be put out that the ship is under attack, I don't see why jets couldnt arrive in time.


 

"remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away...."


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2009)

I hadn't realised just how interesting this thread had gotten. Most insightful and entertaining posting on a serious issue, gentlemen. My compliments.

I most strongly agree that the most cost effective way of deterring these pirates is the provision of Marine contingents on ships sailing through the danger zone. After all, it is one of the main tasks for which such forces were created (the primary one being to project military force onto an enemy ship and prevent same). 

In times gone by, it was not unknown for private exploratory scientific or trade endeavours to hire a Marine unit to defend them on their travels. It sounds like an idea whose time has come again.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2009)

I read a commentary article suggesting a Sky Marshall style program with Sea Marshalls randomly assigned to ships...I think that more certainty is needed, because I doubt that the pirates will be scared off--they'll need to be shot off.


----------



## AoCAdam (Apr 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> If it ceases to be profitable, they will cease the activity.


This is the only real solution I see available. If the Pirates no longer profit from hijacking ships they will cease to do it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

geezer said:


> I haven't visited this department in a while, so forgive me if this has been dealt with. Anyway, the pirate siezure of the US merchant ship Maersk Alabama has been in the news all week.  As everyone knows, the ship was attacked and boarded by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. The American crew resisted and the pirates fled on a lifeboat, taking the ship's captain hostage. The US Navy came to the rescue and the the situation was eventually "resolved" with one pirate taken prisoner and the rest killed. And, thank God, both the captain, crew, and ship all safe.
> 
> OK, "happy ending" right? Well what caught my attention was the reported reaction of shipping companies. When several representatives of shipping companies were inteviewed they expressed concern and unease over the violent solution to this hostage/ransom situation. Their reaction was fear that this could lead to_ "an escalation of violence in the region"_ and that financially it was wiser for them to continue to negotiate and pay the ransom (often in excess of a million dollars) in such situations.
> 
> ...



Guess we've FORCED the shipping companies to defend themselves at this point......THEY'RE WELCOME!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, if I were a smart Somalian pirate, I'd be forming a 'anti-piracy' company and offering my services to accompany ships passing through the region and fighting off pirates as required.  I'd make a pretty penny, I'd be friends with the US Navy, and if it so happened that my pirate friends and I split the 'payment' after unsuccessful 'pirate' attacks, who's to know?  But that's just me, I'm sneaky like that.


 A little 'protection' in exchange for payments.....I wouldn't be surprised if it's been offered.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

jim777 said:


> Unfortunately, as was said a number of times during this crisis, arming the ships is actually more costly to the shipping companies than paying the occasional ransom due to the increased insurance costs for armed ships. Further, many ports simply won't allow armed ships to dock and unload, either. I don't see this issue resolving until there is actually a stable, functioning government in Somalia.



That was the case until very recently.....now I don't think they have a choice but to deal with it.  We've upped the ante.

As to a functioning stable government in Somalia, that's not likely any time soon......and a taller order than stopping the pirates.

I really hope the government isn't dumb enough to try and engage in an other Somalia nation building session......we should have learned a lesson from last time.

What is called for are a few Punitive Expeditions on the Somalia coast where the pirates are operating from.......leave the internal problems of Somalia to Somalis.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Guess we've FORCED the shipping companies to defend themselves at this point......THEY'RE WELCOME!



It's not that simple. We don't allow armed vessels in our _own_ ports! They _should_ arm themselves, but can they?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> It's not that simple. We don't allow armed vessels in our _own_ ports! They _should_ arm themselves, but can they?


 They're going to have to figure something out......because we lit a fire!


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2009)

Someone suggested in the paper that an arrangement like that is probably forthcoming. It seems clearly necessary.


----------



## chinto (Apr 18, 2009)

theletch1 said:


> Tripoli! :EG:




Second the motion with a gallows and some hanging of the captured pirates to go with it..  ROE for Pirate vessels..  NO QUARTER! HAVOC!  first thing they should know about it if a submarine is near by and has information or observation that it is a mother ship.. MK48 ADCAP war shot.. sink it..  Destroyer... engage and sink it in surface action.  in short the OLD PIRACY RULES every NAVY used to USE!


----------



## seasoned (Apr 18, 2009)

And so it goes with everything. Wars are fought based on profitability as is crime on the open seas. You play you pay, is not the norm anymore, and this rewarding bad behavior thing is frustrating me to no end.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 18, 2009)

chinto said:


> Second the motion with a gallows and some hanging of the captured pirates to go with it..  ROE for Pirate vessels..  NO QUARTER! HAVOC!  first thing they should know about it if a submarine is near by and has information or observation that it is a mother ship.. MK48 ADCAP war shot.. sink it..  Destroyer... engage and sink it in surface action.  in short the OLD PIRACY RULES every NAVY used to USE!



What is actually going to happen, however, is that the 'civilized' nations of the world are going to capture pirates like police officers, and transport them to Kenya for a fair trial, where they will then, if convicted in a civilian court, be incarcerated for 5 years, and if acquitted be released back to Somalia.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> What is actually going to happen, however, is that the 'civilized' nations of the world are going to capture pirates like police officers, and transport them to Kenya for a fair trial, where they will then, if convicted in a civilian court, be incarcerated for 5 years, and if acquitted be released back to Somalia.


Housed and feed for 5 years, sounds like a deal to me, if I was a pirate.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> What is actually going to happen, however, is that the 'civilized' nations of the world are going to capture pirates like police officers, and transport them to Kenya for a fair trial, where they will then, if convicted in a civilian court, be incarcerated for 5 years, and if acquitted be released back to Somalia.



In most cases, I'd agree that that was the civilized thing to do. History shows that piracy is different, and I don't see the poor "pirates" of Somalia following these trials on CNN to see what punishments are forthcoming for them. Piracy has proven very resistant to eradication by methods other than eradicating pirates. I'd favour the shoot-on-sight principle. An editorial today pointed out that one must be careful not to get honest fishermen too, of course.


----------



## searcher (Apr 18, 2009)

I am all for paying a ransom to pirates or even terrorists at 700 grains per payment,


----------



## chinto (Apr 19, 2009)

Boys and Girls, we have been down this road on Piracy several times over history.  
History shows that the only thing that has worked ever, is no more living pirates, no more Piracy.  simple, effective, and proven time and time again. 

THE OLD RULES OR ENGAGEMENT AND TREATMENT OF PIRATES WORK!  KILL THEM! ON THE SPOT IF CAUGHT IN THE ACT....a FAST AND FAIR TRIAL AND SWIFT HANGING IN PUBLIC IF FOUND IN POSSESSION OF A PIRATED SHIP AND CARGO.

that works. and you will find that Marines and Navy Personal are very much in favor of  that I think. ( not to mention the merchant sailors!)


----------



## searcher (Apr 19, 2009)

Chinto, do yoy think the public is ready for having the dead bodies of pirates hanging in the harbor or their heads on pikes?


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 19, 2009)

Sounds a bit too hardcore and graphic, but chances are, history will repeat itself and the policy of not bargaining with terrorists will also be applied to piracy .


j


----------



## chinto (Apr 20, 2009)

searcher said:


> Chinto, do yoy think the public is ready for having the dead bodies of pirates hanging in the harbor or their heads on pikes?




depends on where in the world you are... in the middle east, parts of Asia..provably yes, parts of Africa too... but Europe and the US.. nope.. but a good hanging yes. I guess not publically.. but still I would say the old rules worked several times.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2009)

The Dutch recently liberated a boat taken by pirates and...they let them go.

Thats just not going to work.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The Dutch recently liberated a boat taken by pirates and...they let them go.
> 
> Thats just not going to work.



That ain't good.


----------



## rocksham (Apr 20, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> If it ceases to be profitable, they will cease the activity.




airplanes have skymarshals...........


----------



## chinto (Apr 21, 2009)

tell the politicians to keep it simple stupid... shoot them if caught in the act while they are in the act!  hang them after if not shot.. or caught with the booty or ship.. simple.. effective too.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The Dutch recently liberated a boat taken by pirates and...they let them go.
> 
> Thats just not going to work.


 
Now the Canadians just did the same. After engaging pirates attempting to take a Dutch tanker they released them. Since the victims were not Canadian they had no legal authority to hold them.

There needs to be a UN resolution on this quickly.


----------



## searcher (Apr 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Now the Canadians just did the same. After engaging pirates attempting to take a Dutch tanker they released them. Since the victims were not Canadian they had no legal authority to hold them.
> 
> There needs to be a UN resolution on this quickly.


 


My citizens or not.   UN resolution or not.   I don't take orders from the UN and I don't care if they are my citizens, I will defend all *innocent* peoples regardless of their nationality.

I firmly believe in the shoot first, shoot some more, and maybe ask a question or two approach.   If the pirates know they will die if caught, they will look elsewhere to make money.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 21, 2009)

The solution to this is easy:  pirates need to learn to identify the Dutch flag.  And Canada's is pretty easy to recognize too.


----------



## just2kicku (Apr 21, 2009)

searcher said:


> My citizens or not. UN resolution or not. I don't take orders from the UN and I don't care if they are my citizens, I will defend all *innocent* peoples regardless of their nationality.
> 
> I firmly believe in the shoot first, shoot some more, and maybe ask a question or two approach. If the pirates know they will die if caught, they will look elsewhere to make money.


 

I agree 110%!


----------



## just2kicku (Apr 21, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> The solution to this is easy: pirates need to learn to identify the Dutch flag. And Canada's is pretty easy to recognize too.


 

I think the solution is to leave other ships alone or the pirates should end up dead! It shouldn't matter what flag you're flying.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I think the solution is to leave other ships alone or the pirates should end up dead! It shouldn't matter what flag you're flying.


 
But that's a solution that the Dutch and Canadians don't want to implement.  So if we assume that all the players here are working for what they believe to be their best interests, the logical result is that the pirates should avoid US ships and focus on those held by countries who will either pay the ransom or catch and release the pirates.  If the pirates decide that they prefer not to play catch-n-release and start killing people, then those nations need to decide whether to take a harder stance or just pay the ransom.


----------



## just2kicku (Apr 21, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> But that's a solution that the Dutch and Canadians don't want to implement. So if we assume that all the players here are working for what they believe to be their best interests, the logical result is that the pirates should avoid US ships and focus on those held by countries who will either pay the ransom or catch and release the pirates. If the pirates decide that they prefer not to play catch-n-release and start killing people, then those nations need to decide whether to take a harder stance or just pay the ransom.


 

Then where does it end? Pay the ransom and empower those high seas thugs, or make a stand and just start killing them off? I choose the later. If countries don't want to play, then we take care of our own and those countries can be responsible for letting the violence perpetuate.

Those sailors know the the risk they take in this day and age and the area they have to sail thru, just like law enforcement knows the risks, Military knows the risks, and so on.

The U.N. needs to put out the green light for all countries to shoot first and and ask survivors what their intentions were later. But they won't, it's like their all French or something. 

If they don't want to play in this ugly game, then the US should start charging the defending of these ships on a time and material basis. We rescue Dutch sailors, you charge the cost of the ship and the crew plus whatever ammo used plus alittle extra. Same with the Canadians and whatever other country is too chicken **** to do anyhting about it.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Then where does it end? Pay the ransom and empower those high seas thugs, or make a stand and just start killing them off? I choose the later. If countries don't want to play, then we take care of our own and those countries can be responsible for letting the violence perpetuate.


 
Who says it ever ends?  Each country can make its own choice about how to best deal with it, and they can deal with the outcome.  Now if they would like to request aid from the US Navy, that's fine.  But they need to know that they can ask us to do it, but they can't tell us how to do it.  And realize that calling in the USN is probably going to be seen by the pirates as taking a harder stance.  They will probably take steps to discourage that.  




just2kicku said:


> The U.N. needs to put out the green light for all countries to shoot first and and ask survivors what their intentions were later. But they won't, it's like their all French or something.


 
The UN has no authority here or anywhere.  It's a fantasy baseball camp for third-rate countries to go play politics.  



just2kicku said:


> If they don't want to play in this ugly game, then the US should start charging the defending of these ships on a time and material basis. We rescue Dutch sailors, you charge the cost of the ship and the crew plus whatever ammo used plus alittle extra. Same with the Canadians and whatever other country is too chicken **** to do anyhting about it.


 
Doesn't necessarily mean they're chicken ****, they may believe that they have the best approach to the solution.  Of course, it sort of belies that claim if they do get in the habit of calling in the Navy.  I guess we'll see what happens.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 21, 2009)

The US should retaliate severely when it's a US ship or a US crew.  US crews should be armed and not cooperate.  Any other nations should act on their own.  If other nations wish to pay ransoms, that's their choice.  It'll be the ships flying the flags of those nations that the pirates will logically pick as soft targets.

So long as they leave our shipping alone, I don't care what another nation does.


----------



## chinto (Apr 22, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The US should retaliate severely when it's a US ship or a US crew.  US crews should be armed and not cooperate.  Any other nations should act on their own.  If other nations wish to pay ransoms, that's their choice.  It'll be the ships flying the flags of those nations that the pirates will logically pick as soft targets.
> 
> So long as they leave our shipping alone, I don't care what another nation does.




Yep that should be the basic policy, unless a country decides that the same policy is theirs too. .. then well we should help as long as their naval and marine units agree to do the same.. and for the pirates, NO QUARTER! CRY HAVOC! and hang any Pirate survivors!


----------

