Re: Somali hijack Saudi tanker

by **ohio county** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:11 pm

And of course there is the Blackwater option.

This may be exactly the answer.

How were pirates handled in the sixteenth century? Privateers. This is the source of the constitutional provision for "letters of marque and reprisal" and it may be the one that threads the needle.

Humor me. On the one hand you have the democrats saying that OBL is a law-enforcement problem. That was how Clinton covered the WTC bombing on his watch. He hunted down the perps and tried them in civilian courts of law. Bush has seen fit to treat them as a military problem and tried those hapless pawns in military courts after letting them stew in Gitmo for years.

Maybe the way to deal with pirates is through privateers. Maybe sherman is right. It isn't a democrat idea at all. Hell, if anything, it's a Ron Paul idea.

by **Stephanie** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:16 pm

Jimmy,

Are you speaking of the Somali pirates or OBL? I think it would work just fine for both. I just don't want to see the US taxpayers on the hook for yet another problem that isn't really ours. We're too burdened already.

by **ohio county** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:24 pm

Both. If that oil was destined for my Toyota Corolla, I want it. I see increasing acrimony regarding the question of whom is responsible for which problem at whatever time. The questions are not fair because of the dichotomy in philosophy. Obama and Clinton consider so much of terrorism (which is related to piracy out of Somalia) to be questions for law enforcement, as I indicated, rather than military matters. We've thrashed around about letters of marque and reprisal. I couldn't help but interject. Maybe he's right...

by **Stephanie** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:42 pm

He almost always is.

by **ohio county** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:46 pm

He nearly never is. Maybe this time. I'm just saying...

by SamCogar Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:20 pm

NEW DELHI — An Indian naval vessel sank a suspected pirate "mother ship" Wednesday in the Gulf of Aden and chased two attack boats into the night, officials said, yet more violence in the lawless seas where brigands are becoming bolder and more violent.

Separate bands of pirates also seized a Thai ship with 16 crew members and an Iranian cargo vessel with a crew of 25 in the Gulf of Aden, where Somalia-based pirates appear to be attacking ships at will, said Noel Choong of the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Malaysia.

Last week, Indian navy commandos operating from a warship foiled a pirate attempt to hijack a ship in the Gulf of Aden. The navy said an armed helicopter with marine commandos prevented the pirates from boarding and hijacking the Indian merchant vessel.

Tuesday incidents raised to eight the number of ships hijacked this week alone, he said. Since the beginning of the year, 39 ships have been hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, out of 95 attacked.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454506,00.html

by sodbuster Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:42 pm

Well I bet Obama wont tolerate that stuff...

by Aaron Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:44 am

When did it become the United States of America's responsibility to protect the Arabian Sea or the Indian Ocean for every seagoing vessel out there? Seems to me that is a cost that should be born by the shippers, not the United States Taxpayer.

by Randall Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:43 pm

Stamping out piracy has been one of the US Navy's core missions since its inception. These pirates are preying upon the global sea lanes that sustain our (and the world's) economic prosperity. Isolationists want to us to withdraw from the world and focus on trade only, but how can that trade flourish except through security on the high seas?

by sodbuster Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:46 pm

You go boy...

This bunch invades a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, but allows OBL to thumb his nose and pirates terrorize the high seas.

Go figure.

by **Stephanie** Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:36 pm

Randall wrote:Stamping out piracy has been one of the US Navy's core missions since its inception. These pirates are preying upon the global sea lanes that sustain our (and the world's) economic prosperity. Isolationists want to us to withdraw from the world and focus on trade only, but how can that trade flourish except through security on the high seas?

Randall,

We are not the world's policemen. That is not the role of the US government. I have no problem with the US Navy securing US interests and providing security to US companies or goods bound for the US, but why should the US risk American lives and American vessels to provide security for oil rich Saudi Arabia or cargo being shipped by companies worth billions for free? How much can the American taxpayer reasonable be expected to shoulder? Is there no end to it?

Let them pay for their security, or at least let them pay for it.

by ziggy Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:25 pm

Randall wrote:Stamping out piracy has been one of the US Navy's core missions since its inception. These pirates are preying upon the global sea lanes that sustain our (and the world's) economic prosperity. Isolationists want to us to withdraw from the world and focus on trade only, but how can that trade flourish except through security on the high seas?

Fifty years ago no one would have batted an eye had the U.S. Navy intervened to stamp out such organized piracy on the high seas as we see in the Gulf of Aden. U.S. patriots all over would have applauded.

But the credibility of the U.S. military has been so squandered in places like Vietnam and Iraq to the point that some of its "core missions" have been adandoned because of political contempt for illicit, unnecessary and counter-productive U.S. military undertakings.

by sodbuster Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:44 pm

Well zig you are of course right.

But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Will people be so suspicious and angry over things past that they wont tolerate a legitimate police action to maintain the freedom of the high seas?

Or do they no longer want to live in a civilized world with practical rules for international behavior?

by ziggy Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:09 am

sodbuster wrote:Well zig you are of course right.

But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Will people be so suspicious and angry over things past that they wont tolerate a legitimate police action to maintain the freedom of the high seas?

Or do they no longer want to live in a civilized world with practical rules for international behavior?

Sodbuster, you are asking people to be more discriminating than they're in a mood to be, I believe. We are burned out on needless uses of the military. We are burned out on being lied to about the use of the military.

For example, Stephanie here is a good and decent person, in my opinion. And if she could separate herself from what she considers not good uses of the U.S. military and U.S. money to support and / or enable the inherent unfairness between the occupiers and the occupied in the Palestinian territories, she might be persuaded that using the Navy to keep the high seas open to commerce is reasonable. And so might I.

But if George W. made a speech tomorrow about the importance of using our Navy to keep the seaways open, I would almost surely feel that it must not be as he says it is because he and his military henchmen are such inept planners and notorious liars as relates to making inartful excuses for military actions under his watch.

And when the Commander-in-Chief has no credibility left, how can the military apparatus he commands have any credibility?

by Randall Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:23 am

Stephanie wrote:

Randall,

We are not the world's policemen. That is not the role of the US government. I have no problem with the US Navy securing US interests and providing security to US companies or goods bound for the US, but why should the US risk American lives and American vessels to provide security for oil rich Saudi Arabia or cargo being shipped by companies worth billions for free? How much can the American taxpayer reasonable be expected to shoulder? Is there no end to it?

Let them pay for their security, or at least let them pay for it.

Stephanie,

Obviously the US Navy should not fight piracy by itself, and warships from many nations are now patrolling the Gulf of Aden. But the bottom line is, the US Navy is by far the largest and most capable navy in the world. It has been patrolling the world (walking the beat, if you will), safeguarding global commerce for well over a century. Given that so much of US prosperity is based on world trade, it follows that the US would take the lead in keeping the high seas secure. This has been American policy since Washington. I'm frankly surprised that you are so opposed to it.

by **Stephanie** Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:48 am

I am not opposed to the US protecting US interests. I'm tired of the US being used and abused by other nations. What is wrong with requiring the Saudis to protect Saudi interests? What is wrong with requiring them to pay us to do so if they cannot?

I want you to think about something. Recently, China refused to allow US ships to shelter in their ports when needed. Why should the US protect the high seas for China? Why should US sailors risk their necks to protect the goods and vessels of those who despise our nation, our people, and our way of life?

The US Navy has been walking the beat for over a century. Countries and businesses from across the globe have benefited from this mightily during this time and there have been many US casualties as a result. When is it time for them to shoulder their fair share of the burden? I say no time like the present.

by SamCogar Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:41 am

Randall wrote:Isolationists want to us to withdraw from the world and focus on trade only, but how can that trade flourish except through security on the high seas?

And Democrats want us to withdraw from the Iraq War and from ever getting into another War.

But at the same time the Democrats want to bailout the Big 3 automakers and their primary reason is ....................

If we get into another War .......... the Big 3 automakers will be needed to produce war materials.

Somali hijack Saudi tanker - Page 2 33948

.

by **SheikBen** Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:53 am

sodbuster wrote:Wait till Obama gets sworn in and see how much bin Laden struts around making threats.

After 8 years of Bush/Rumfeld bin Laden is in for a rude awakening.

What basis do you have for making such a statement?

by sodbuster Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:56 am

Heck Mike just last week his #2 guy was running his mouth again.

Iman el ziwari or whatever.

by Aaron Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:17 am

I'm amazed that you support automatic withdrawal from Iraq when a stable peace is close and have supported withdrawal even if it meant defeat from such a vital area yet you whole heartedly support going into Afghanistan, a country that has proven the difficulty for occupying forces, and want to do exactly what you rail against in Iraq, nation build and occupy the country and all because a terrorist is holed up in a cave in the neighboring country.

Hell, at least the other copperhead is consistent in his anti-military stance.

by sodbuster Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:21 am

Aaron sometimes I worry about you.

I have said specifically we should not try to occupy Afghanistan.

We should learn that much from the Russians, even if we were inclined to.

Which I am not.

by Aaron Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:34 am

Months ago you specifically stated we should occupy Afghanistan if that is what it took to get OBL Sherman and your reasoning was truth, justice and the American way.

Since you've hopped the fence and no longer support occupation, at least for today, how do you propose getting OBL? And what do you propose we do about the Taliban.

Should we negotiate with them to leave us alone in our pursuit of OBL and give them back Kabul, along with the rest of the country save the area we are located?

And what about Pakistan? Do we send forces into Pakistan where OBL is and risk upsetting the peace in that country?

You keep saying go get him. How about some details?

by sodbuster Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:38 am

We had him surrounded at Tora Bora if you recall.

But Bush hesitated too long.

Lost his nerve, I guess.

And let him slip out the back door.

by Aaron Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:55 am

sodbuster wrote:We had him surrounded at Tora Bora if you recall.

Are you referring to the mountain fortress he had at Tora Bora detailed in a London Newspaper?

A few weeks after the "Meet the Press" interview, US special forces and their Afghan allies occupied Tora Bora. They painstakingly searched Gree Khil mountain and the surrounding area. They found no underground fortress, no hydro-electric power plant, no 2000-room hotel, no ant farm, no iron doors, no ventilating shafts. The troglodyte Lair of Bin Laden turned out to be mythic.

source

While Bin Laden was at Tora Bora for a while, he had a way out before the real fighting started as the very warlords and tribal chieftains the US military contracted to lead the fight for OBL allowed him to get away.

Mr. bin Laden, with that speech, was laying his plans to stay a step ahead of the US campaign. He would travel to his favored fortified redoubt in Tora Bora, as the US expected him to, but he would also pave a way out. After his rousing speech, he bestowed cash gifts on key people who could later help him escape.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

Once again, your versions of the facts are, at best, merky.

by SamCogar Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:52 pm

sodbuster wrote:Aaron sometimes I worry about you.

I have said specifically we should not try to occupy Afghanistan.

We should learn that much from the Russians, even if we were inclined to.

Which I am not.

SMARTEN UP, ......... DA, ...... the Russians were trying to occupy Afghanistan, ....... the US is not and never has been.

The Russians were fighting the Afghan people, ..... the US is fighting the Tally Ban terrorists.

Sherm, I can't believe you lasted long enough with the WVSP to retire.

geek

.

by Sponsored content