Originally posted by Scotty70Boy, your testicles must be HUGE!
Simple solution...just send a decoy ship that is fully armed down the pike once in a while. Once they see that the possibility of having one of their little boats being blown to smithereens is real, there might be a little hesitation on attacking the next one. They have already stated that all American and French ships are fair game from now on.....so its Game On.
The fact is these people have little to lose and a lot to gain, so the piracy will continue absent some effective Somalian force to restrain them. You're not going to "scare" these people by killing a few of them.
Originally posted by no1marauderGiven the vast amount of shipping that sails through the area, as you say, it seems to me that the vast amount of shippers in the area have a strong interest in suppressing piracy, never mind Western meddling.
The situation is hardly similar. At that time, the pirates operated with the permission and assistance of the local governments and treaties could be forced upon those leaders effectively ending the vast majority of (government sponsored) piracies.
There is no effective government in Somalia today (thanks largely to Western meddling). Theref ...[text shortened]... s through the area), there is little that military operations can do to end this type of piracy.
Convoys and naval patrols deter piracy but do not eliminate it. Only occupation of pirate bases on shore can eliminate piracy. I expect to see this coming soon but it will be led by nations other than the USA. More likely it will be the oil producers, whose trade is threatened the most by piracy, who will lead the effort or, at the very least, pay for the campaign since most lack strong navies and expeditionary forces. And since the oil producers in the Middle East are Muslim, it will be an intra-Islam fight.
Here is one thing on which all of the nations and chess-players of the world can agree: piracy is bad. Since Somalia is in disarray, even the feckless UN might get involved in a useful way. The UN tends to stay out when a viable nation is in place to defend its rights. But that is not the case with Somalia.
Originally posted by uzlessEr, did you ever add up the # of shipping boats and navy boats?
why aren't countries using their navy to escort ships?
If I was a business man, i'd buy up some gun ships and run a ship protection business. These shipping companies would pay a nice amount for some protection!
Who's with me?
Take a guess which # is larger.
1 edit
Originally posted by Scotty70See my posts above.
Simple solution...just send a decoy ship that is fully armed down the pike once in a while. Once they see that the possibility of having one of their little boats being blown to smithereens is real, there might be a little hesitation on attacking the next one. They have already stated that all American and French ships are fair game from now on.....so its Game On.
You can't scare someone who has practically nothing to lose...
Originally posted by CrowleyAWA
LOL! No they won't, they'll probably just have itchier trigger fingers now.
These guys aren't scared to pay the price.
Sure, the MIGHTY US of A could wipe the current pirates out if they sent their navy in there, but that wouldn't stop the conveyor belt of poverty stricken guys there trying their luck at piracy and a the possibility of a better life.
In Africa (or just off the coast), crime pays...
(Africa wins again.)
Originally posted by uzlessJust as well you are not a businessman then. Do you not think if it had been economically viable that this would have been in place already?
why aren't countries using their navy to escort ships?
If I was a business man, i'd buy up some gun ships and run a ship protection business. These shipping companies would pay a nice amount for some protection!
Who's with me?
It is cheaper for the shipping companies to pay the ransoms demanded than pay for other forms of protection.
Originally posted by ParShooterSo, you think the Muslim oil producers of the region are going to pay someone to invade and occupy Somalia to stop piracy?
Given the vast amount of shipping that sails through the area, as you say, it seems to me that the vast amount of shippers in the area have a strong interest in suppressing piracy, never mind Western meddling.
Convoys and naval patrols deter piracy but do not eliminate it. Only occupation of pirate bases on shore can eliminate piracy. I expect to see ...[text shortened]... ut when a viable nation is in place to defend its rights. But that is not the case with Somalia.
LMAO! LMAO! LMAO!
The UN got involved in Somalia and announced that a bunch of people were now the government of that nation. Sadly, the people in Somalia didn't agree.
Originally posted by no1marauderI do. Saudi Arabia lost a supertanker with $50,000,000 USD of oil to the pirates a few months ago. They had to pay a few million ransom. Marine insurance rates are shooting up because of the piracy. At some point, it makes good economic and political sense to occupy the ports rather than to pay ransom. Those who are suffering the most, the sellers and buyers of the Gulf of Aden freight, have the greatest interest in ending the problem. The same was true in the 1810s in North Africa which is why we needed Stephen Decatur and his squadron.
So, you think the Muslim oil producers of the region are going to pay someone to invade and occupy Somalia to stop piracy?
LMAO! LMAO! LMAO!
The UN got involved in Somalia and announced that a bunch of people were now the government of that nation. Sadly, the people in Somalia didn't agree.
1 edit
Originally posted by ParShooterAll I can say is that you are incredibly deluded. There is absolutely no possibility that the Saudis are going to fund an invasion and occupation of Somalia. If you think that would be cost efficient as compared to paying an occasional ransom, you need a new calculator.
I do. Saudi Arabia lost a supertanker with $50,000,000 USD of oil to the pirates a few months ago. They had to pay a few million ransom. Marine insurance rates are shooting up because of the piracy. At some point, it makes good economic and political sense to occupy the ports rather than to pay ransom. Those who are suffering the most, the sellers and buy ...[text shortened]... e was true in the 1810s in North Africa which is why we needed Stephen Decatur and his squadron.
In December 2006, Ethiopia, at the behest of the West, invaded Somalia with the intent of crushing the Islamists and putting firmly into power the UN created "government". It turned into a bloody fiasco as did earlier Western attempts to impose a government in the early 90's and Ethiopia withdrew their troops in January of this year. I really don't think anybody is interested in giving that plan another go around.
Of course, occupying ports won't suffice; the pirates use small boats that don't require a port.You'd have to occupy Somalia's entire coastline in the face of a hostile, armed populace. For what happens when you do that, rent Black Hawk Down.
Originally posted by no1marauderSaudi Arabia funded a big chunk of the Mujahadin resistance to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (I recommend "Charlie Wilson's War"😉. Saudi Arabia funded much of Iraq's war against Iran. I don't see why they would not get involved in Somalia now where their economic interests are at risk. This would probably be cheaper than those two projects.
All I can say is that you are incredibly deluded. There is absolutely no possibility that the Saudis are going to fund an invasion and occupation of Somalia. If you think that would be cost efficient as compared to paying an occasional ransom, you need a new calculator.
In December 2006, Ethiopia, at the behest of the West, invaded Somalia w ...[text shortened]... hostile, armed populace. For what happens when you do that, rent Black Hawk Down.
But you may be right. It might be cheaper to pay ransom. I suppose it depends on how successful the pirates are, how much the other nations participate, etc. But it seems to me that the Saudi's, being the biggest oil exporter in the region, have the biggest interest in dealing with this problem. And the best way to deal with pirates is to attack them on land, not at sea.
I am a U.S. Navy Veteran and i am so Proud of the US ARMED FORCES these people are the best i know this having served with them! what the Seals did in killing 3 pirates was unreal 3 shots 3 kills fromthe fantail of an American Warship they deserved what that got when they threated the Captains life. President Obama showed TRUE LEADERSHIP IN APPROVING THE MISSION! GO NAVY NAVY SEALS ROCK!
Originally posted by no1marauderthen what should we do, spank there behinds and send them on there way?🙄
Boy, your testicles must be HUGE!
The fact is these people have little to lose and a lot to gain, so the piracy will continue absent some effective Somalian force to restrain them. You're not going to "scare" these people by killing a few of them.
1 edit
Originally posted by richfeetYes. America truly does have the best murderers.
I am a U.S. Navy Veteran and i am so Proud of the US ARMED FORCES these people are the best i know this having served with them! what the Seals did in killing 3 pirates was unreal 3 shots 3 kills fromthe fantail of an American Warship they deserved what that got when they threated the Captains life. President Obama showed TRUE LEADERSHIP IN APPROVING THE MISSION! GO NAVY NAVY SEALS ROCK!