medicineman
New Member
OK, By your logic, we should attack China because their exports are harming our economy.Those ports are profiteering just as much as the pirates who get in the boat....
out.
you just took an American ship .............
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
One heck of a leap of Logic MM. I don't see how you can state that this has any connection with the fact that China is capable of producing goods at lower prices than the United States, and the accessories to piracy in Somalia.
There's a vast difference. China isn't benefiting from violating another person's right. China is benefiting because they can produce goods less expensively, and thus charge less for them.
Whereas the Somalian Pirates are stealing goods that are then distributed at the ports that they base themselves out of. Thus the ports are also benefiting from the crimes the pirates are committing. In a court of law they'd be called accessories to the crime, because they received a benefit from the stolen property or extorted money.
CrackerJax
New Member
Logic? Is that what you call it? 
You are too kind TBT.
out.
You are too kind TBT. out.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
The economic situation is very different now at least for Somalians and Indonesians. This is not an isolated incident, and not one that is unique to large corporate ships. There have been many incidents (not big news until a US ship is taken) of these same pussies around Somalia and the Straits of Malacca involving private sailors, many who have taken on these punks with stashed small arms (handguns and shotguns mostly). It usually does not take much more than knowing that you will shoot back to deter these hungry little boys.
I sail and I do not even feel comfortable in waters off Baja unarmed, and would certainly not attempt an offshore sail without a small arsenal, understanding that in the ports where this is most needed, being armed is illegal.
The solution is not the US Navy trying to find a needle in a haystack...it is a change in maritime policy allowing armed security forces. Good for retired military special ops dudes, they could cross train for other jobs (maybe) so they could be mechanics, cooks, navigators etc...many probably already have some of these skills. ALL crew are cross trained as firefighters.
If we keep paying them off, they will continue to collect their easy money, and then will be able to afford better equipment...if that happens and the "escalate" the fight then involve the Navy. If the sailors are allowed to protect themselves and their ship now this will not happen...look what happened when they attacked an UNARMED group of people who have not historically bowed down to the Ak-47...they fought back, and almost succeeded.
If these punks knew they were very likely to be hit with a .50 cal browning when they got too close or would be thrown overboard if they attempted to illegally board, they would go back to extorting the local merchants in their home sh!thole.
I sail and I do not even feel comfortable in waters off Baja unarmed, and would certainly not attempt an offshore sail without a small arsenal, understanding that in the ports where this is most needed, being armed is illegal.
The solution is not the US Navy trying to find a needle in a haystack...it is a change in maritime policy allowing armed security forces. Good for retired military special ops dudes, they could cross train for other jobs (maybe) so they could be mechanics, cooks, navigators etc...many probably already have some of these skills. ALL crew are cross trained as firefighters.
If we keep paying them off, they will continue to collect their easy money, and then will be able to afford better equipment...if that happens and the "escalate" the fight then involve the Navy. If the sailors are allowed to protect themselves and their ship now this will not happen...look what happened when they attacked an UNARMED group of people who have not historically bowed down to the Ak-47...they fought back, and almost succeeded.
If these punks knew they were very likely to be hit with a .50 cal browning when they got too close or would be thrown overboard if they attempted to illegally board, they would go back to extorting the local merchants in their home sh!thole.
CrackerJax
New Member
The next thing you know...pirates with torpedoes and sea mines.
out.
out.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Really, try telling that to some of the leftists (that I'm too kind) I was actually under the impression that I was the equivalent of Beezlebub or another one of the Great Demons of Hell in their lexicon.Logic? Is that what you call it?
out.
Or maybe the equivalent of a Thomas Jefferson, Locke or Andrew Jackson, seeing as how they are opposed to personal freedom.
CrackerJax
New Member
The barb of truth can never be too sharp...
out.
out.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
exactly.
Maybe this is different for a cargo ship, but sailing a flag is more of a political statement, which affiliates your vessel with a civilized country of port, for other mariners and customs...rather than...a pirate vessel. It is the country of your home port. Flying a US flag does not mean that they are obligated to provide protection....as a matter of fact in or out of the San Diego Harbor if you get in the shipping lanes, they will run you over without even slowing down.It's called Maritime law... If you sail under the US flag... YOU ARE THE US. If you are attacked, the US is attacked.
Like I said (kindly) before, you're always a step behind TIPS....
out.
And though flying the US flag may mean that if attacked, US property and citizens are being attacked, but that is the same as traveling US citizens or corporate interests on foreign soil having crimes committed against them by the local citizens...the military does not get involved in this. This is crime not an act of war
Exactly, at a fraction of the price of the US Navy...who may have better things to do. These guys are in wooden boats that a good shot from a sling shot would disable their outboard motors.
If they could get on board through the .50 cal fire...having an extra gun is not really a big deal...and maybe it is too late for a logical solution.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
As I was trying to say, if these people are not willing to defend themselves first, then they should not expect the Navy to listen to them whine when they fail to do so.exactly.
Maybe this is different for a cargo ship, but sailing a flag is more of a political statement, which affiliates your vessel with a civilized country of port, for other mariners and customs...rather than...a pirate vessel. It is the country of your home port. Flying a US flag does not mean that they are obligated to provide protection....as a matter of fact in or out of the San Diego Harbor if you get in the shipping lanes, they will run you over without even slowing down.
And though flying the US flag may mean that if attacked, US property and citizens are being attacked, but that is the same as traveling US citizens or corporate interests on foreign soil having crimes committed against them by the local citizens...the military does not get involved in this. This is crime not an act of war
Exactly, at a fraction of the price of the US Navy...who may have better things to do. These guys are in wooden boats that a good shot from a sling shot would disable their outboard motors.
If they could get on board through the .50 cal fire...having an extra gun is not really a big deal...and maybe it is too late for a logical solution.
The people on these ships should be willing to defend themselves. Clearly if they get hijacked by pirates it's a bit too late for the navy to prevent it.
Of course, the Navy should also be involved, because it's job is to protect any commerce that is flying the US Flag.
Either that or it should be terminated as being a pointless waste of money which would mean that the Federal Government is no longer fulfilling its contractual obligations under the Constitution in which case the Union would need to be dissolved.
CrackerJax
New Member
Under admiralty, the ship's flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship's crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.
When that ship sets sail under the flag of the United states, it is still governed by those laws and protections. This does not limit the rescue vessel from being under the US flag however, an Indian military vessel if in the area would have responded as well. It is the responsibility of the US Navy to keep shipping lanes free and unfettered for OUR ships. One of OUR ships was attacked. There is nothing wrong with the US responding. Now, it needs to be nipped in the bud.
out.
When that ship sets sail under the flag of the United states, it is still governed by those laws and protections. This does not limit the rescue vessel from being under the US flag however, an Indian military vessel if in the area would have responded as well. It is the responsibility of the US Navy to keep shipping lanes free and unfettered for OUR ships. One of OUR ships was attacked. There is nothing wrong with the US responding. Now, it needs to be nipped in the bud.
out.
olosto
New Member
and maybe it is too late for a logical solution.
Words of truth right there. Were dealing in a climate where these people don't give an eff. Not only that they got nothing to lose.
here is a question.. If private ships armed themselvs with say a few commando types with proper weaponry, would this problem go away?
Or, would these pirates find some way to steal these boats in harbor giving them merchant ships with guns to defend itself.
I just don't see anyway that violence and tactics are not going to escalate over this.
Also, the US has long been the global police. 20 years ago if this happened like this we would be there in force I think.
Do we not want to be to global police anymore and lose the influence that goes with it? I sure as hell don't know!
Big P
Well-Known Member
heres the answer to your question with a question:
If there was going to be world police, would you rather the policeman be one of us, or one of them?
I for one live in America because I think its the best place to live for me. So natuarlly I would want Americans to protect us as policeman. If I didnt, i prolly would have already moved to the country that I want to police the world.
but the fact remains it would be unfair for one country to be the policman by themselves
problem is, United Nations will never work. therefore it would be a nightmare if we relied on them to protect nations from worldwide threats. there is too much differences in all the countries of the world
what really needs to happen before we have united nations there should be like an amrican united nations, a european united nations, mediterainin united nations, Asian united nations & african united nations.
then all these united nations can meet and create a united Regional Nations where only the heads of each united nations shall be present and speak for thier respective region, they would meet: Asia, mediteranian, european, american, african
any country who doesnt want to be a part of thier regional united nations doesnt have to, just tellem good luck dont let the door hit you.
cuz then when you have a problem in one part of the world it would fall into that regions resposibility
like say this pirate thing would be fixed by the African united nations. or the AFUN
I kind just came up with this as i typed and i am pretty high, but sounds like that would be how a real united nations should work,
i mean there are just way too many nations to deal with each one indiviually.
its akin to, in america instead of having states with reps we would have reps from every city in the counrty come to washington and try to get things done. theres just too many.
If there was going to be world police, would you rather the policeman be one of us, or one of them?
I for one live in America because I think its the best place to live for me. So natuarlly I would want Americans to protect us as policeman. If I didnt, i prolly would have already moved to the country that I want to police the world.
but the fact remains it would be unfair for one country to be the policman by themselves
problem is, United Nations will never work. therefore it would be a nightmare if we relied on them to protect nations from worldwide threats. there is too much differences in all the countries of the world
what really needs to happen before we have united nations there should be like an amrican united nations, a european united nations, mediterainin united nations, Asian united nations & african united nations.
then all these united nations can meet and create a united Regional Nations where only the heads of each united nations shall be present and speak for thier respective region, they would meet: Asia, mediteranian, european, american, african
any country who doesnt want to be a part of thier regional united nations doesnt have to, just tellem good luck dont let the door hit you.
cuz then when you have a problem in one part of the world it would fall into that regions resposibility
like say this pirate thing would be fixed by the African united nations. or the AFUN
I kind just came up with this as i typed and i am pretty high, but sounds like that would be how a real united nations should work,
i mean there are just way too many nations to deal with each one indiviually.
its akin to, in america instead of having states with reps we would have reps from every city in the counrty come to washington and try to get things done. theres just too many.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_re_af/af_piracy
"Sharmarke said his government is willing to share information that could boost the new U.S. initiative to freeze pirates' assets and pursue the money trail of their multimillion-dollar ransoms.
"We have information on who is behind this, who is involved," Sharmarke said. "There is a lot of money flowing in. ... We are following very closely how money is distributed here."
Behind the pirates are some powerful businessmen — and a few high-ranking politicians, according to one captured bandit — people whom Sharmarke said his government has identified."
"Sharmarke said his government is willing to share information that could boost the new U.S. initiative to freeze pirates' assets and pursue the money trail of their multimillion-dollar ransoms.
"We have information on who is behind this, who is involved," Sharmarke said. "There is a lot of money flowing in. ... We are following very closely how money is distributed here."
Behind the pirates are some powerful businessmen — and a few high-ranking politicians, according to one captured bandit — people whom Sharmarke said his government has identified."
CrackerJax
New Member
Yes, the AMAZING Shamarke will have a plan ready next week...
"First, let me start by saying this is going to cost alot of money". ahem....it's amazing!!!
out.
headlines: "Somali receives bailout!"Yes, the AMAZING Shamarke will have a plan ready next week...
"First, let me start by saying this is going to cost alot of money". ahem....it's amazing!!!
out.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
Thank you for clearing this up....(without slapping me around!)Under admiralty, the ship's flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship's crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.
When that ship sets sail under the flag of the United states, it is still governed by those laws and protections. This does not limit the rescue vessel from being under the US flag however, an Indian military vessel if in the area would have responded as well. It is the responsibility of the US Navy to keep shipping lanes free and unfettered for OUR ships. One of OUR ships was attacked. There is nothing wrong with the US responding. Now, it needs to be nipped in the bud.
out.
CrackerJax
New Member
Headline: "THE U.S. WILL RECEIVE FULL DIPLOMATIC HONORS IN RETURN FOR THE MONIES!!"headlines: "Somali receives bailout!"
Glad I could make it clear for you.Thank you for clearing this up....(without slapping me around!)
out.
tipsgnob
New Member
When working people have the choice to form unions, they can ensure that they receive the proper training to keep the safe on the job.
The American crew members of the Maersk Alabama - a ship recently hijacked by Somali pirates - fought back and won. They specifically cited their union membership as a reason for how they were able to beat the pirates.
Third Engineer John Cronan, a member of both the Seafarers International Union and the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, said this about their efforts:
The American crew members of the Maersk Alabama - a ship recently hijacked by Somali pirates - fought back and won. They specifically cited their union membership as a reason for how they were able to beat the pirates.
Third Engineer John Cronan, a member of both the Seafarers International Union and the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, said this about their efforts:
"We are American seamen. We are union members. We stuck together, we did our jobs. And that's how we did it."
CrackerJax
New Member
Your reading comprehension is reprehensible...
out.
out.