Pirates, and how the US dealt with them.

[[zonking great]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Algiers
No port, no pirates.

 

[Xvito]

Yeah this sounds good to me. I don't see how anyone could possibly be angry about this or take offense at all. They're pirates; they steal your shit and often kill you in the process. So what do you do? Kill them and take your shit back. That's how the world works. They're criminals.

And I am glad to hear that the snipers performed as well as possible and took them out with 1 shot kills. With all the money we're put into our military, they'd better be able to shoot three pirates without wasting any extra bullets.

Too right mate.

The only way to effectively deal with pirates is to kill them. Anything else encourages further attacks.

Yes, that's unquestionably the best way to deal with a problem, you get rid of it. /Sarcasm

How is that sarcasm? The best way to get rid of a problem is to eliminate the problem. No problem = no worries.

No, the best way to deal with a problem is not to get rid of it, the best way is to deal with it...

Yea, and then it becomes a problem AGAIN. Get rid of the problem to deal with it PERMANENTLY

No, if you get rid of the problem you don't deal with permanently, if get rid of it you get rid of it permanently.

OK, let's take a look back at history: We got rid of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, and they're no longer problems. Negotiations didn't work, and what did? Going in and eliminating the problem.

Did you even read my post?

What I mean is that while you can get rid of a problem it's better to deal with it.

It's like... Prison vs death penalty. You can get rid of the problem (death penalty) or you can deal with it (prison).

 

[The_Chief]

I SAY ALL THE COUNTRIES FORM A HUGE PIRATE GROUP AND KILL ALL THE REGULAR PIRATES. BUT WE GET ROCKET LAUCHERS AND MACHINE GUNS! WOO PIRATE FIGHTS

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Algiers
No port, no pirates.

So you're using a 200 year old example to justify your statement?

 

[timmytom1]

]Oh, so the poor Somalis are attacking cargo vessels because we are stealing their fish? Not because they are LUNATICS IN A SHIT BIN OF A COUNTRY THAT HAS NOT FUNCTIONED PROPERLY SINCE ITS INCEPTION?

Funny thing is the US is involved there too

 

[Ushario]

The reason behind the piracy is poverty.
These people have no livelihoods, their nation has been stripped clean by Western companies.
How can you condemn a man who can't put food on his own table, for taking desperate measures?

The pirates that were shot had actually negotiated the release of the captain, without any ransom, because things were obviously going south. According to the pirates at any rate.

It would be cheaper for these shipping companies, and the countries that have mobilised ships to the area, to give aid to those in need. Some of these ships have been ransomed for eight million dollars or more. That could help out a lot of people in a nation like Somalia.

It's like... Prison vs death penalty. You can get rid of the problem (death penalty) or you can deal with it (prison).

I would prefer a death sentence over life in a cage. I'm sure some others would as well.

 

[soren7550]

Did you even read my post?

What I mean is that while you can get rid of a problem it's better to deal with it.

It's like... Prison vs death penalty. You can get rid of the problem (death penalty) or you can deal with it (prison).

But for something like prison, let's say the guy either has to spend life there or get the lethal injection. He gets life, that's about forty years (assuming he lives forty more years.) of room, board and three square meals a day that the taxpayers are providing the scumbag who should be dead. Give him the ol' l.i., that saves the taxpayers a lot of money, plus that provides a jail cell for someone who commits a lesser crime.
Let's say the guy at hand is a mass murder, who holds no remorse for killing, let's say thirteen people. Should we deal with him by keeping him alive (and endangering the lives of those who have to be near him at any time.), or do we get rid of the known and possibly future threats by simply killing him back?

 

[LockHeart]

I think a good solution to the problem would be to reintroduce Q-ships: ships that look like civilian shipping vessels but carry concealed heavy weapons and marines. They allow the pirates to come in close, lulling them into a false sense of security, then reveal the weapons and blow them out of the water.

I doubt pirates would be willing to attack knowing full well that they could end up in little bits.

 

[WheresMyCow]

Arr they be killin' me pirate kin!
On a the less piratical side, America! F--- Yeah!
Nationalism set aside, I think it was the best thing to do in that situation... and it was awesome.

 

[LockHeart]

I think a good solution to the problem would be to reintroduce Q-ships: ships that look like civilian shipping vessels but carry concealed heavy weapons and marines. They allow the pirates to come in close, lulling them into a false sense of security, then reveal the weapons and blow them out of the water.

I doubt pirates would be willing to attack knowing full well that they could end up in little bits.

Thats what I mean by bait ships- have some lure cause them heavy losses enough they start getting skittish.

Ah sorry, missed your first post

 

[Liverandbacon]

No, if you get rid of the problem you don't deal with permanently, if get rid of it you get rid of it permanently.

What does that even mean?


I think that the US navy acted in precisely the right way. They tried to reach an agreement, and when that failed, they acted quickly without hesitation. 3 less pirates, and one more innocent man who can go back to his family.

 

[Thanatos34]

Agreed.The Navy handled this perfectly, they waited the terrorists out, trying to come to an agreement. When that fell through Saturday night, they sent the Seals after them.

And btw, those were some terrific shots. On the seas, where you are moving up and down constantly, and at night, with one of the terrorists holding an AK-47 to the captain's back.

pirates not terrorists

Meh. They captured a tanker that was bound for ?Somalia?, which had food for the poor and starving there. Then they held the captain hostage. They fit the bill of both terrorist and pirate quite nicely.

 

[Thanatos34]

No, if you get rid of the problem you don't deal with permanently, if get rid of it you get rid of it permanently.

What does that even mean?


I think that the US navy acted in precisely the right way. They tried to reach an agreement, and when that failed, they acted quickly without hesitation. 3 less pirates, and one more innocent man who can go back to his family.

Exactly. Although, everyone knows that negotiation is merely

"The art of talking to the enemy while your sniper gets the range."

And I too would like to know what the hell Xvito meant by that post. It seems like a direct contradiction.