Pirates in Kenya are not the best informed it seems. They tried to board a French Navy vessel.
Wow, how can one mistake a military ship for a commercial trading vessel? Just wow.
Well, the helicopter escort set them straight. :D
SUCCESS!!
Must hire better help... 
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/225459/?tab=featured
What the article "forgot" to mention was that the French Navy was testing out their new "commercial trading vessel" disguise in an attempt to lure out pirates!
I think you might have something there. I mean, screw entrapment, intent is already there when they pull said "fishermen" out of the water loaded for bear. Plus, international waters, right? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did they or did they not say after the harrowing Mersk Alabama rescue that American vessels/sailors would be given no quarter for the said outrage of, you know, defending our own citizens against violent criminals?
Why not disguise merchant vessels (this worked for the Germans very well [WW II]) or just load the Hell out of a perceived, fat, juicy freighter w/ coalition forces and sucker them in 1, 2, 3? Make an attractive target, let them bite off more than they can chew. Fair is fair, no?
Or give better "gainful employment" to all those Blackwater goon squads here. Less chance they'll kill innocent ppl, ie)Pirate boat in the water, "Shoot there." vs. bunch of ppl in the market, 1 has a gun, "Shoot everything."
And the real kicker, ppl slam the French military all the time, right? Why is it that they're the ones taking decisive action and getting results now?
The_HATED: Pirates need to be hanged. End of story.
Piracy is an international crime.
Anyone who commits themselves to piracy is already unintelligent...
Armed robbery is one thing, murder is another. Piracy is teeter tottering in the gray area somewhere. Still, look at the source. There is no real work in Somalia. It's been a Hell hole since before we got in the mix ('93 or so). No one is going to set up shop and try and employ these ppl as the area is just too damn volatile. Even Ethiopia was sick of them and skirmished/invaded them in the past to quell all the BS going on. So, they take the easy out, piracy. Remember, that 18 yr old pirate we snagged that had the Cpt. of the Alabama? He was 2 during the whole Black Hawk Down fiasco...
Still, "A short drop and a quick stop" (PotC) was the defacto answer back in the day. If we just wrangle them up and turn 25% of them loose, not exactly a message of we mean business. But we can't just kill them on the spot either. What do you all consider a likely solution(s)?
And the real kicker, ppl slam the French military all the time, right? Why is it that they're the ones taking decisive action and getting results now?
Yeah, I thought about that, too. I think it's Sarko - we're all so used to that pacifistic sloth Chirac that most of us inferred the whole country's attitude from his'.
And though I agree that, in this case, it is important to know the backgrounds (no employment, no education etc.), that's a long-term problem, and one we have little influence on. Piracy, on the other hand, is something happening to us right now, and something that needs (IMO) to be stopped short before getting out of hand. If the procedure seems heavy-handed and draconic, well, that's a pity, but they are the ones killing/kidnapping/robbing, so they're really in no position to complain, and we can at least hope to have a morale effect with such tactics. Piracy was a problem once in history, and got solved in a record amount of time by doing exactly what HATER suggested: hang them all. They didn't even bother to aks questions (in German, we even have a proverb, "Caught with 'em, hung with 'em" going back to that era), they just took everybody sailing under a black flag and put them to the sword. Sometimes, it's just necessary to take decisive action, and I think this is it now; the fact that pirates aren't citizens of our respective nations, but not enemy combatants either, makes the task even easier to justify.
the fact that pirates aren't citizens of our respective nations, but not enemy combatants either, makes the task even easier to justify.
Actually that makes it even harder to get any real legal justification through. It is a legal grey area. This is why most of the time they have to be let go since that is all they can really do. Unless the military ship is responding to a attack on a ship flying under that military nation's flag, or the military ship is under attack then yeah legal grey area.
For real change to happen you would need to probably bring in new pirating laws most likely through the UN, AU, most likely NATO, and the various international trading parties. So essentially it will become a political and legal death trap for any resolution being passed.
Actually that makes it even harder to get any real legal justification through. It is a legal grey area. This is why most of the time they have to be let go since that is all they can really do. Unless the military ship is responding to a attack on a ship flying under that military nation's flag, or the military ship is under attack then yeah legal grey area.
For real change to happen you would need to probably bring in new pirating laws most likely through the UN, AU, most likely NATO, and the various international trading parties. So essentially it will become a political and legal death trap for any resolution being passed.
That's of course one way to see it. I'd advocate another one, though (I'm no lawyer, so this might sound naive): instead of saying they're both civilians and pirates, you could say they are neither, thus approaching the problem from the opposite angle. That basically vindicates any kill-on-sight doctrine, because they end up having no rights at all - since they're not civilians or soldiers, they have no nation protecting them, and they jeopardized the rights applying to all humans by engaging in piracy in the first place.
Because in all honesty, the UN will do nothing about it. Maybe the NATO, who knows. I really hope Obama takes this seriously and makes the right decisions, whatever they may be, because right now, he's the only one who can (Sarko runs second).
For real change to happen you would need to probably bring in new pirating laws most likely through the UN, AU, most likely NATO, and the various international trading parties. So essentially it will become a political and legal death trap for any resolution being passed.
Too many cooks spoil the soup.I know, we need to be fair and diplomatic when dealing w/ these other nations, but millions are being lost, ppl are dying, and no one can agree on anything except an agreement of impotence, "Bad stuff is bad! See, we're doing our jobs and therefor relevant." Big pats on the back all around...
Before it was the big 4; Dutch, British, Spanish, and the French. It was simply understood as a criminal issue, not a national/political one. Easier solved w/ a cannon salvo than legislation, and that was it, no one cared.
Now, oh, that boy was really 16, not 18 and bla bla bla. Can't try him as an adult. Wtf? Were they not armed to the teeth and promised bloodshed vs. American vessels now as a result? Sadly, this is not the 1st time we've been hamstrung in Somalia about doing the right, and often, humane thing due to the perceived fallout in world opinion and legal mechanics.
Pirates, in the current US understanding of them, are presently considered terrorists. And thus enemy combantants... How this is not clear cut and to the point is beyond me.
Another problem is that shipping companies often will not allow their crews to be sufficiently armed to defend themselves nor do they receive adequate training to survive a pirate attack.
These pirates for all intensive purposes are civilians causing criminal actions in international waters, and they are civilians of a nation with no real functioning government. It is a real quagmire.
Really if Somalia was working properly, well first off there wouldn't be as much pirating. But also these pirates could be held accountable in Somalian courts of law, which currently are basically non existent.
These pirates for all intensive purposes are civilians causing criminal actions in international waters, and they are civilians of a nation with no real functioning government. It is a real quagmire.
Really if Somalia was working properly, well first off there wouldn't be as much pirating. But also these pirates could be held accountable in Somalian courts of law, which currently are basically non existent.
I agree with you on both points. But: the first is only a "quagmire" because we make it one; one country (I say US, Germany won't do that in 10e6 years) pass a law saying pirates aren't combatants (or are, it doesn't even matter), something that allows them to be shot like good, regular, AK-toting people.
And the second: of course. Fact. So? What are we going to do about it? We can't rebuild Somalia in two days, and we can't let piracy continue unchecked because unfortunately the country under whose jurisdiction it falls is powerless. It's our ships that are at stake, so we might want to start doing something about it. We can still worry about the poor Somalian government.
I think you can just look at the fiascos that went on with the Gitmo trails to see that being deemed a "enemy combatant" isn't even clear cut.
.
To be fair that was more of a consequence of a Government Commiting Illegal actions and not wishing to fess up to it.
I keep thinking that presently if you are a terrorist committing an act of terror, you can be shot dead on sight, as you are considered a Hostile? (unless you surrender)
Which is probably why it's better to train shipping crews and give them sufficient means to defend themselves if they are going to a region rife with piracy.
I agree with you on both points. But: the first is only a "quagmire" because we make it one; one country (I say US, Germany won't do that in 10e6 years) pass a law saying pirates aren't combatants (or are, it doesn't even matter), something that allows them to be shot like good, regular, AK-toting people.
And the second: of course. Fact. So? What are we going to do about it? We can't rebuild Somalia in two days, and we can't let piracy continue unchecked because unfortunately the country under whose jurisdiction it falls is powerless. It's our ships that are at stake, so we might want to start doing something about it. We can still worry about the poor Somalian government.
Actually, the US Constitution already has a clause to deal with Piracy.
Article One, Section Eight:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations [International Law]"
I think personally the best immediate solution would be to figure out a way to give other nations military some jursidication over the capture and containment of pirates who have assaulted another nations ship. This way we wouldn't need to release them and we could have a ton more cases like the pirate that is now in the US facing court.
I'm no fan of Obama but I must admit that he handled the pirate attack on the US ship correctly. The pirates made it as difficult as possible and he could have ended up looking weak or like a bumbling idiot. Instead, all crew were saved and that deadly force thing got used properly. They need to stop worrying about arresting these idiots and simply blow them out of the water on sight. Problem solved. Well, not exactly. Symptom of a problem largely eliminated is probably a more accurate look at it. ;)
They need to stop worrying about arresting these idiots and simply blow them out of the water on sight.
A. How would you identify the pirates "on sight?"
B. That's not how justice works.
A. How would you identify the pirates "on sight?"
They already can identify them on sight. Seen the pics of the pirates? I'm no military professional and I could manage to do it. Let's see, small boat full of guys with AK47s and RPGs about 300 miles offshore - a place a boat of that size simply cannot get on its own? Yeah, I'm gonna go with pirate. ;)
B. That's not how justice works.
In this case, it's exactly how it works. The gov't of the nation that these pirates hail from has given the international community the right to kill them. By becoming pirates, they have waived their right to trial. So says the doods in charge. Don't like it? Don't pirate.
They already can identify them on sight. Seen the pics of the pirates? I'm no military professional and I could manage to do it. Let's see, small boat full of guys with AK47s and RPGs about 300 miles offshore - a place a boat of that size simply cannot get on its own? Yeah, I'm gonna go with pirate. ;)
In this case, it's exactly how it works. The gov't of the nation that these pirates hail from has given the international community the right to kill them. By becoming pirates, they have waived their right to trial. So says the doods in charge. Don't like it? Don't pirate.
They already can identify them on sight. Seen the pics of the pirates? I'm no military professional and I could manage to do it. Let's see, small boat full of guys with AK47s and RPGs about 300 miles offshore - a place a boat of that size simply cannot get on its own? Yeah, I'm gonna go with pirate. ;)
.
Agreed. It's not like these guys are camouflaged or something.
Of course, that altruistic and noble purpose got subverted by dollar signs, but the Somali people remember that these pirates defended them when nobody else would. And there's still toxic waste being dumped off their shorelines and illegal fishing going on (what a combination, eh?), causing birth defects, many health problems, and more foreign food being sent in as aid, which then gets hijacked by pirates.
In short, it's a mess. But not so cut-and-dried as "they're evil, hang them." Some of the people labeled as pirates are still just trying to protect their home (though the vast majority are just pirates out to make money).
One thing that will go a long way to curbing the problem is to actually help the Somali people patrol their own coast to stop the illegal fishing and dumping. That will help to lessen the popular support the pirates currently enjoy.
Agreed. It's not like these guys are camouflaged or something.
Even if they were, a boat full of "grannies" armed with ak-47's and rocket propelled grenades 300 miles offshore would STILL raise some suspicions of piracy ;)
They already can identify them on sight. Seen the pics of the pirates? I'm no military professional and I could manage to do it. Let's see, small boat full of guys with AK47s and RPGs about 300 miles offshore - a place a boat of that size simply cannot get on its own? Yeah, I'm gonna go with pirate. ;)
It's pretty telling, yeah.
I mean, you're zeroed way the Hell out (miles of blue [hello, cover?], oh, look, fast moving spec on the horizon), then they hail them, get threat or static (neither are good signs), then a declaration of intent (read, gunfire usually), and it's on. Open and shut. These guys aren't exactly SEALs making precise insertions to capture ship 'x'. Brute force, no finesse.
What I'd like is for us to start targeting the motherships. You wisely mentioned the massive offshore range of speed boats...no mothership, no return. 2 birds, 1 stone. And a barnacled African trawler or small freighter isn't going to outrun a destroyer, frigate, or heli any time soon. But they posture and lie (same ole same ole), "No, it's a fishing vessel..." It's just this fishing vessel is packed w/ ordinance for some reason. The problem is lawfully finding then boarding them.
Perhaps local spies & better intel are the answer. Probably cheaper to pay the pittance for info than the millions for a ransom later...
Smarter bet too; take the smaller sure thing from the 1st world nation or the riskier big score and possibly get killed.It's just a matter of finding them in all that blue. They should dispatch a light carrier w/ round the clock AWACs to simply monitor area. They're not doing much good in the Persian Gulf. The implications of what that little plane can bring "after" detection is likely enough of a deterant after a few incidents. It's just there's so damn many of them (pirates). Plus, it's not like it's just us either. The French are flexing some muscle. We should take a page from their book. Obama handled the last attack well, but more will come.
In this case, it's exactly how it works. The gov't of the nation that these pirates hail from has given the international community the right to kill them. By becoming pirates, they have waived their right to trial. So says the doods in charge. Don't like it? Don't pirate.
Well said.
I doubt they were in much of a position to say, "You can't engage & incarcerate our nation's criminals when they're raiding your commercial and recreational ships!" Sadly, it's practically the only way to earn a living there. And when you get a 7 figure ransom (many have been paid), I bet that raises a lot of eyebrows. Teenagers w/ guns and boats...wow.
I have absolutely no problem with killing these guys. They go to sea armed and with the sole intent of causing someone someplace harm. Thing is, I kind of understand. What else can they do? Hell, if I lived there I may even become one myself. But if I did, I'd also have no illusions about what that meant for me. I am now an armed criminal posing a danger to other human beings. For that, I deserve to be killed if that's what it comes to.
They already can identify them on sight. Seen the pics of the pirates? I'm no military professional and I could manage to do it. Let's see, small boat full of guys with AK47s and RPGs about 300 miles offshore - a place a boat of that size simply cannot get on its own? Yeah, I'm gonna go with pirate. ;)
A boat full of guys with guns aren't committing any crimes, though.
In this case, it's exactly how it works. The gov't of the nation that these pirates hail from has given the international community the right to kill them. By becoming pirates, they have waived their right to trial. So says the doods in charge. Don't like it? Don't pirate.
The government of the nation in question is hardly a pillar of justice that we should all measure ourselves against.
Regardless, we have the permission to kill men engaged in acts of piracy, which I think is a reasonable thing to do. We absolutely must defend our international trade, and piracy is quite obviously a crime in just about any society.
Killing men who we think maybe might do piraty things is both unjust and extremely likely to lead to some poor fisherman getting blown to pieces because he made too quick a movement with his scaling knife. It's bad policy.
A boat full of brown guys with guns aren't committing any crimes, though.
What are they about to do, then? All sorts of guys with guns and RPGs have attacked unarmed merchant vessels in the area. What the hell else would these guys be doing? I've been fishing many, many times. In lakes and the gulf stream. Not once have I seen a boat full of guys with guns. They are obviously trouble.
The government of the nation in question is hardly a pillar of justice that we should all measure ourselves against.
Who said we should? The point is that they asked for help. In that asking, they allowed those willing to help to use deadly force.
Regardless, we have the permission to kill men engaged in acts of piracy, which I think is a reasonable thing to do. We absolutely must defend our international trade, and piracy is quite obviously a crime in just about any society.
Killing men who we think maybe might do piraty things is both unjust and extremely likely to lead to some poor brown fisherman getting blown to pieces because he made too quick a movement with his scaling knife. It's bad policy.
If that poor fisherman is "fishing" in a boat full of AK47s and RPGs, he ain't fishin' - at least not in the conventional sense. ;) I don't recall advocating blasting away at some guy holding a scaling knife. Thing is, a scaling knife is quite a bit different from an RPG and I'm fairly confident even the most near sighted seaman can tell the difference.
I feel I must stop this line of conversation right now. See, I'm disgusted with your presentation enough that I'm about to get angry - and that's something I don't allow myself to do on the net. I will, of course, explain why this has come about. You disappoint me. I had never pegged you as the type to thrust race into an argument just to make a jab or to garner some sort of sympathy or whatever the hell you're trying to do. I felt something like this was beneath you. I object to it and won't be party to this farce you're attempting to create. Race has nothing to do with this. In fact, a good number of "brown guys" are out there trying to stop these other "brown guys" from hurting other "brown guys" or anyone else. That's cheap. And I think it shows that your argument has been thoroughly defeated. If you of all people would resort to this, what else could it mean? Sickening. You should be ashamed of your behavior. This isn't some matter of evil rich whitey trying to come up with some excuse to kill the poor black man and you know it. These people pose a real danger and I'd advocate the same damn thing no matter what color they were. The fact that you'd dare imply otherwise has made this a line of conversation I cannot dignify with further response.
I'm no fan of Obama but I must admit that he handled the pirate attack on the US ship correctly. The pirates made it as difficult as possible and he could have ended up looking weak or like a bumbling idiot. Instead, all crew were saved and that deadly force thing got used properly. They need to stop worrying about arresting these idiots and simply blow them out of the water on sight. Problem solved. Well, not exactly. Symptom of a problem largely eliminated is probably a more accurate look at it. ;)
I agree with this somewhat. My only problems with how it was handled was that there was negotiations, which I didn't know that we the US negotiated with people doing terrorist acts, and that it took several days for us to react in the manner we did. It took the US something like half a week to kill the pirates. The French would probably have done that same thing in the first day. Waiting does nothing but make the pirates, and their terrorist supporters, think that we are weak. We need to use force and we need to be swift.
I agree with this somewhat. My only problems with how it was handled was that there was negotiations, which I didn't know that we the US negotiated with people doing terrorist acts, and that it took several days for us to react in the manner we did. It took the US something like half a week to kill the pirates. The French would probably have done that same thing in the first day. Waiting does nothing but make the pirates, and their terrorist supporters, think that we are weak. We need to use force and we need to be swift.
I fully agree with this statement. I didn't even know we tried negotiations. That's all sorts of bad. The people that have shelled out millions have encouraged this crap. They've had the wrong carrot. Now it's time to give them the right stick.
1. Confiuscate all property used in illegal activites.
2. Put them back exactly where you found them.
What are they about to do, then? All sorts of guys with guns and RPGs have attacked unarmed merchant vessels in the area. What the hell else would these guys be doing? I've been fishing many, many times. In lakes and the gulf stream. Not once have I seen a boat full of guys with guns. They are obviously trouble.
It doesn't matter what they're about to do. You advocated blowing up pirates on sight. In order to blow up pirates on sight, you need to identify the pirates on sight. The criteria you suggested was "guys with AK-47s." guys with AK-47s are not committing any crime. Should they be investigated? Absolutely. Should they be arrested? Probably. Should they be blown to smithereens simply for carrying weapons? Absolutely not. If I lived in Somalia, I would carry a weapon wherever I went, too.
Who said we should? The point is that they asked for help. In that asking, they allowed those willing to help to use deadly force.
And I agree with the use of deadly force. Not on sight, though. Deadly force should be used to save lives, as in the recent situation. Using it on sight means that some guy who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time gets blown to smithereens instead of being given an opportunity to defend himself before a court. It's that "innocent until proven guilty" thing that we seem intent on disregarding even in this country against our own citizens, much to our detriment. That's the standard that all justice should be measured against, international or not. Killing people should always be the exception.
If that poor fisherman is "fishing" in a boat full of AK47s and RPGs, he ain't fishin' - at least not in the conventional sense. ;) I don't recall advocating blasting away at some guy holding a scaling knife. Thing is, a scaling knife is quite a bit different from an RPG and I'm fairly confident even the most near sighted seaman can tell the difference.
OK, so we can only blow up pirates on sight if they are waving their AK-47s around. If the AK-47s are under a tarp, what then? Then they're free to go? This policy will only increase the theft of tarps in Somalia, while doing nothing to curb piracy. The people who act as pirates do so under constant threat of death already. The idea that they will suddenly find another line of work more promising because now they have to obscure their guns is more than a little ludicrous.
I feel I must stop this line of conversation right now. See, I'm disgusted with your presentation enough that I'm about to get angry - and that's something I don't allow myself to do on the net. I will, of course, explain why this has come about. You disappoint me. I had never pegged you as the type to thrust race into an argument just to make a jab or to garner some sort of sympathy or whatever the hell you're trying to do. I felt something like this was beneath you. I object to it and won't be party to this farce you're attempting to create. Race has nothing to do with this. In fact, a good number of "brown guys" are out there trying to stop these other "brown guys" from hurting other "brown guys" or anyone else. That's cheap. And I think it shows that your argument has been thoroughly defeated. If you of all people would resort to this, what else could it mean? Sickening. You should be ashamed of your behavior. This isn't some matter of evil rich whitey trying to come up with some excuse to kill the poor black man and you know it. These people pose a real danger and I'd advocate the same damn thing no matter what color they were. The fact that you'd dare imply otherwise has made this a line of conversation I cannot dignify with further response.
I threw "brown guys" in there because it is another factor that would inevitably be used to identify these guys, but I see exactly what you are talking about and I apologize. I will edit my previous comment.
It's that "innocent until proven guilty" thing that we seem intent on disregarding even in this country against our own citizens, much to our detriment.
Doesn't the US military go by "guilty until proven innocent"? Is it only for court-marshaling or is it for war/conflict type stuff too?
Doesn't the US military go by "guilty until proven innocent"? Is it only for court-marshaling or is it for war/conflict type stuff too?
It depends on the mission.
War: guilty until innocent.
Police action: innocent until guilty.
The military is better at the first one but good enough at the second one that we ought to be able to bring some of these guys in.
Of course, when I say that deadly force should only be used to save lives, that includes the lives of the military people sent to capture the pirates. If they resist, oh yeah, sink 'em before we risk the lives of our own men and women.
That's of course one way to see it. I'd advocate another one, though (I'm no lawyer, so this might sound naive): instead of saying they're both civilians and pirates, you could say they are neither, thus approaching the problem from the opposite angle. That basically vindicates any kill-on-sight doctrine, because they end up having no rights at all - since they're not civilians or soldiers, they have no nation protecting them, and they jeopardized the rights applying to all humans by engaging in piracy in the first place.
Because in all honesty, the UN will do nothing about it. Maybe the NATO, who knows. I really hope Obama takes this seriously and makes the right decisions, whatever they may be, because right now, he's the only one who can (Sarko runs second).
I agree with what you said in the first paragraph of this post. I would view them as neither civilians nor soldiers; thus they would not have the normal rights that would be given.
I'm not really sure what Obama will do. If our current government's track record is any indication, we might end up giving the pirates a corporate bailout...it worked for AIG...
Am I the only person in the world who feels that the Somali gov't doesn't do anything about the problem because they're probably somehow involved with the pirates and making money from the "problem"? It wouldn't be the first time that a government openly opposed something and supported it behind the scenes.
....isn't that called a navy?Oh, and if the "government" supports them, they're privateers, not a navy - the government doesn't employ them directly, after all. Technically. But that doesn't matter in the slightest, because the government really is as much a bunch of (admittedly land-bound) pirates as the dudes on the zodiacs.
Hmm... I think that here we are overestimating the concept of government in Somalia. There really isn't any. There's just a bunch of warlords, almost all of whom support piracy/terrorism/war crimes on some level or another, and one of those just happens to be internationally recognized. However, since we can't just fly in and bomb the whole place back to the Stone Age (well, we can, and I certainly wouldn't object, but it's probably not a good idea at the moment, anyhow), I'm afraid we'll have to forget the "government"-thing for a minute and just deal with the part concerning us.
I agree that the immediate problem must be dealt with efficiently. It's one of the most ancient responsibilities of governments to protect their seagoing merchants, and there's no reason to back off that responsibility now.
However, I think any responsible policy towards the piracy must include an aspect of crime reduction and prevention. No matter how many pirates you kill, as long as piracy is lucrative there will be pirates. If being a hitman were the most lucrative job in America, there would be a lot more people strongly considering that career path, as well.
Providing opportunities for the people of Somalia is the most effective way of reducing the number who are drawn into piracy, and that means strengthening the rule of law in that country first and foremost. This is especially true of the people who live on the periphery of the piracy – the pirates' support network, which is likely vast. When the most successful people in Somalia are no longer the pirates or the people who support them either morally or materially, the number of pirates in the future will drop off far more rapidly than simply by killing the individuals who are pirating right now.
I agree that the immediate problem must be dealt with efficiently. It's one of the most ancient responsibilities of governments to protect their seagoing merchants, and there's no reason to back off that responsibility now.
However, I think any responsible policy towards the piracy must include an aspect of crime reduction and prevention. No matter how many pirates you kill, as long as piracy is lucrative there will be pirates. If being a hitman were the most lucrative job in America, there would be a lot more people strongly considering that career path, as well.
Providing opportunities for the people of Somalia is the most effective way of reducing the number who are drawn into piracy, and that means strengthening the rule of law in that country first and foremost. This is especially true of the people who live on the periphery of the piracy – the pirates' support network, which is likely vast. When the most successful people in Somalia are no longer the pirates or the people who support them either morally or materially, the number of pirates in the future will drop off far more rapidly than simply by killing the individuals who are pirating right now.
Yes.
But:
Taking care of the perspective on life of people in Somalia isn't our problem. Well, maybe in some convoluted philosophical way it is (which is why we keep sending money there), but it's not our immediate problem. That's what the Somalian "government" is supposed to be doing, and if it can't, tough luck. We got our own countries to take care of. It's not like we fight piracy because it's a humanitarian problem; we fight it because it affects us.
And about the individuals pirating right now: Somalia will have run out of inhabitants long before we will have run out of ammo - and I bet big money that the knowledge that driving a pirate ship yields you an Exocet to the face no questions asked will diminish the piracy going on a lot faster than any long-winded approach of humanitarian aid to get the kids jobs (which does not mean that is to be neglected; we just can't wait that long).
And about the individuals pirating right now: Somalia will have run out of inhabitants long before we will have run out of ammo - and I bet big money that the knowledge that driving a pirate ship yields you an Exocet to the face no questions asked will diminish the piracy going on a lot faster than any long-winded approach of humanitarian aid to get the kids jobs (which does not mean that is to be neglected; we just can't wait that long).
You can place that bet, but it would be both immoral and incorrect. Nothing diminishes criminal behavior more effectively than providing better, non-criminal opportunities for the potential criminals.
What you are proposing is a war. Maybe not officially, but in practice that is what it will be. Wars are never resolved militarily. There is no such thing as a war where you simply send in a bunch of heavily armed guys and just resolve the issue right there. What happens when you go to war is that your enemy changes his tactics, adapts to the new rules of engagement, and goes right on being your enemy. War is always a temporary solution. And as long as piracy is lucrative, there will be piracy, war or no war.
Deploying a significant force to this tiny channel is not a tenable long term solution. Again, these people already live under constant threat of death, and if I had to choose between a bullet to the head (maybe, if I get caught) and my family starving to death slowly and painfully (all but guaranteed), I would most definitely choose the former. Besides, criminals do not go into criminality assuming they will get caught, which is the same reason that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent here in the States.
If Somalis are going to brush off the pirates attempting to recruit them because piracy is too dangerous, it needs to actually be more dangerous than living your life in Somalia. Killing pirates just won't make that so. Only reducing your typical Somali's chances of getting shot in the head while not engaging in piracy will do that. Strengthening the rule of law in that country will also allow more private sector businesses to flourish, which will further decrease the allure of piracy. When your choice is between pumping gas and not getting shot in the head, or engaging in piracy and possibly getting shot in the head, the choice is more clear than as it currently stands: engage in piracy and maybe get shot in the head while making a subsistence living in the interim, or just starve to death or get shot in the head with nothing to show for it.
Wait, are you imply that pirates might opperate with the support of a nation? LIES! Such a thing could never happen.
Heh. Nice. :D
I think a host of English privateers might have a thing or 2 to say about that. In short, anything w/ a sail and rudder was fair game, English or no. War kicks up again. Queen has a gentle "aside" w/ them, essentially granting them a pardon; "Pirate away, particularly Spanish ships if you will, but leave anything flying the Unionjack alone." And they did, and it worked.
The incentive was sweet; free license upon Spanish vessels, the richest around, open English ports to fence the booty at decent prices and no one giving you static for taking a ship as prize which was an exponential problem as well; captured Spanish ship, flying faux Spanish colors-> looks doubly safe, until you see the Jolly Rogers go up w/ in range of their long 9's, but by then it's too late. Viscious circle. English lawfully backed them. War = $.
Now, I'm sure Somali warlord 'x' and 'y' are getting healthy cuts, provide good fences, Hell, probably sell the same payload right back to the original nation. It's just, they're not officially at war w/ anyone; too disorganized and stupid.
Worst case piracy scenario:
Show
Consider us at war w/ a comparable 1st world nation that was granting writs of outlawery as well as pardons for piracy. There'd be so much chum in the water, military or no. At least navies will often except surrenders. It's a big ocean(s) and was it not pirates that coined the term, "Dead men tell no tales."?
Or, if you rather, today, even the most badass speedboat armed to the teeth w/ small arms, RPGs, whatever, is no match for a guided missle frigate and even an inept crew of raw recruits. Then, refitted pirate sloop or merchantman vs. Spanish war galleon (no contest). Tech curve has changed a lot since 1760. Gonna' get worse; now, they are already finding stockpiles of explosives in other pirate ships beyond the rank and file Warsaw Pact munitions they normally use. This is very bad; consider the difference between peppering the deck of a Saudi tanker w/ small arms fire (easilly avoided) to facilitate goods/$ vs. a shaped charge at the waterline w/ the same demands. Now, up the ante moreso w/ a dubious financier or terrorist/national patron; imagine "skinnies" in the water w/ Harpoons & Tomahawks, Phalanxes and Stingers, Hell, torpedos even...you'd see the price of anything steaming through the Gulf of Aden rise very fast.
Or, if you rather, today, even the most badass speedboat armed to the teeth w/ small arms, RPGs, whatever, is no match for a guided missle frigate and even an inept crew of raw recruits. Then, refitted pirate sloop or merchantman vs. Spanish war galleon (no contest). Tech curve has changed a lot since 1760. Gonna' get worse; now, they are already finding stockpiles of explosives in other pirate ships beyond the rank and file Warsaw Pact munitions they normally use. This is very bad; consider the difference between peppering the deck of a Saudi tanker w/ small arms fire (easilly avoided) to facilitate goods/$ vs. a shaped charge at the waterline w/ the same demands. Now, up the ante moreso w/ a dubious financier or terrorist/national patron; imagine "skinnies" in the water w/ Harpoons & Tomahawks, Phalanxes and Stingers, Hell, torpedos even...you'd see the price of anything steaming through the Gulf of Aden rise very fast.
But guys, why diplomancy? I don't understand. This is not war. There's nobody to diplomatize. There's only criminals. In this one respect, lofgren is wrong: we are not fighting a war, but rather sort of a global law-and-order problem, and one which can only be solved by swift, unrelenting justice. I am not saying we should not build up Somalia. But if we only send them money, they'll say Thanks, buy new guns, get cooler ships, and keep pirating. I think we're messing up the order to do things: let's first make it clear nobody screws around with our ships, and then see to it that the Somalis get hope for their lives. Because pumping money into a failed state is a pretty certain way of not solving the problem at all.
You simply can't do one first and the other second. You have to do both at the same time. You protect the merchant vessels militarily for the shorthand solution, and you build a legal infrastructure in Somalia for a long term solution.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that simply putting a bunch of American sailors in the ocean will reduce the number of pirates. The number of successful acts of piracy, definitely, but if you don't take steps to undermine the root causes you will be sitting there indefinitely. It will be cheaper in both blood and treasure in the long term to entice Somalis away from piracy with safer, more lucrative jobs that don't involve robbing and killing.
I don't think anybody has advocated diplomacy directly with the pirates, nor sending lots of free money to Somalia. I have suggested strengthening the rule of law in that country, which is a task that would be triangulated with the UN and AU, would likely require making treaties with the least rotten of the various factions, and require an internationally unified approach to dealing with whatever faction is currently most powerful. It may even require the deployment of troops to that country, hopefully for a short period.
If we – or any government, preferably one that is closer geographically (and eventually an independent Somali government) – can provide the rule of law, the free market will take care of the money (again, in the long term) and creating less objectionable opportunities, and that in turn will drain manpower from the piracy trade.
I admit, it sounds insurmountable, but it simply must be done.
You simply can't do one first and the other second. You have to do both at the same time. You protect the merchant vessels militarily for the shorthand solution, and you build a legal infrastructure in Somalia for a long term solution.
That's what I was getting at - the "then" referred to the latter being a long-term thing.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that simply putting a bunch of American sailors in the ocean will reduce the number of pirates. The number of successful acts of piracy, definitely, but if you don't take steps to undermine the root causes you will be sitting there indefinitely. It will be cheaper in both blood and treasure in the long term to entice Somalis away from piracy with safer, more lucrative jobs that don't involve robbing and killing.
Of course. But at the same time, you need to show them piracy is no longer an option. Because right now, it is.
I don't think anybody has advocated diplomacy directly with the pirates, nor sending lots of free money to Somalia. I have suggested strengthening the rule of law in that country, which is a task that would be triangulated with the UN and AU, would likely require making treaties with the least rotten of the various factions, and require an internationally unified approach to dealing with whatever faction is currently most powerful. It may even require the deployment of troops to that country, hopefully for a short period.
Forget the UN. If we're gonna do that, we need some sort of Western coalition (US-Britain-France, for starters) unimpeded by crazy individual interests.
If we – or any government, preferably one that is closer geographically (and eventually an independent Somali government) – can provide the rule of law, the free market will take care of the money (again, in the long term) and creating less objectionable opportunities, and that in turn will drain manpower from the piracy trade.
I admit, it sounds insurmountable, but it simply must be done.
I never said the opposite. But, again, this leads nowhere if we do not first make it abundantly clear that piracy will no longer be accepted.
Of course. But at the same time, you need to show them piracy is no longer an option. Because right now, it is.
And again, the only thing that will make that no longer so is if we give them other, better options. Right now a lot of these people choose the "option" of piracy because their other "option" is starving to death. No amount of killing pirates will change that.
Yes, there are evil, violent people who will choose to be pirates no matter what we do, and these will need to be captured or killed no matter what our approach. but the bulk of their manpower right now does not come from people who desire to be criminals, only from people who desire to eat.
Military force in this matter should be used defensively. Not necessarily in a reactionary manner – it definitely makes some sense to seek out and capture or kill these guys before they strike. But operations should be conducted with an eye towards getting the most merchant vessels safely through the channel, not with killing the most pirates. These two priorities are not likely to coincide.
Forget the UN. If we're gonna do that, we need some sort of Western coalition (US-Britain-France, for starters) unimpeded by crazy individual interests.
I would oppose any action that did not involve local governments as unsustainable and potentially colonial in execution. But you're right, unfortunately we cannot rely on the UN at this juncture, which is kind of horrifying to me. If we can't agree that freaking piracy needs to be stopped, what can we agree on?
I never said the opposite. But, again, this leads nowhere if we do not first make it abundantly clear that piracy will no longer be accepted.
And again, that's already as clear as it could possibly be made through violence. The pirates know they risk death with every act, and have known that for a long time.
Why must "we" give them better options?
Because it will make us safer, and because I lack the magical powers necessary to compel others to do the dirty work for us.
Isn't that up to their gov't?
They have no government to speak of, and they are unlikely to achieve a government that respects the rule of law within our lifetime if we don't give them help.
Again, people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop placing the blame on other things... America shouldn't be expected to drag people out of the fire after they have wrecked their own country through corruption and incompetence.
What if their country was wrecked through abusive trade policies, colonization, and international support for lawless regimes?
Defense doesn't win war.
In this case neither will an offense. You cannot beat desperation and hopelessness on their own terms. You have to change the terms.
You are a liberal aren't you?
I go where the evidence takes me. It's abundantly clear that the rule of law encourages free market economies, which in turn increase opportunity and, properly regulated, reduce the need of poverty-stricken populations to resort to crime. You can see this on a smaller scale in urban revitalization efforts all over this country. You can see the opposite all over the world. As the rule of law erodes, countries inevitably slide through kleptocracy through thugocracy to anarchy.
As a conservative, I would think you would support creating a framework that would allow the free market to resolve a problem that government simply can't, or at least which would be far more costly for the government.
A war on piracy is doomed to be about as effective as the war on drugs, I guarantee.
I am bowing out of this right now...
Ah, the drive-by, barely comprehensible liberal bashing. Hallmark of people unable to defend their ideas everywhere.
But guys, why diplomancy? I don't understand. This is not war. There's nobody to diplomatize. There's only criminals.
Truly, quite right. I think a better term would be negotiations. I mean, a slew of other countries/corporate entities have negotiated w/ them, but essentially, this means, "Pay vast sums of $ to get cargo, ship, crew back." Then you get the Mersk Alabama rescue and the French yacht intervention days prior to it. Pretty much like terrorism (piracy) and we don't negotiate w/ them. Firm but fair. Bullets work faster/cheaper.
we are not fighting a war, but rather sort of a global law-and-order problem, and one which can only be solved by swift, unrelenting justice.
There are other alternatives, but the expense & difficulty is the issue. We've already paid for a bad ass Navy that's basically mirroring other nation's and their navies and doing not much else (that we know of ;)). Use it. This will help polish up the otherwise tarnished image of our nation's political aspirations using the military (irresponsibly) as a vehicle. It'd be nice to be on the winning team for a change and have the moral fiber to prove it, no?
Even nations that don't like us are getting hit in the wallet as well and getting on board, taking action...slowly. This could be used as a diplomatic tool (w/ each other, not the pirates). I'm a firm believer in that 2 demographics are only really united when there is a common enemy. See pretty much every war on the planet's history. This is why we probably won't have world peace until aliens land and we gear up. Who's got the pirate's backs? Now, who supports sea-going commerce and the jobs and profits it brings (especially in this economy)? No-brainer.
I am not saying we should not build up Somalia...
I am. To be clear, "We should not build up Somalia." There, it's out. :D Please do not think less of me for this bout of pragmatism.
It didn't work before ('92-'93) when conditions were much better, why now, when we're already facing a 2-front war, a tattered economy, mounting global instability, and so on, is it a good idea?
You get a bunch of other nations (not the UN thank you) that are taking these commerical hits to ante up (fairly) as well, then, yeah, I'd back that in a heartbeat. We're always the gobal police. Why must we always take up the slack of other ppl's indulgences?
But if we only send them money, they'll say Thanks, buy new guns, get cooler ships, and keep pirating.
Your estimation is likely very accurate here. Even funneling in tons of cash and food aid w/ UN escourt before, well, look how well that worked. We pulled out, things got worse. Islamic extremists moved in, violence escalated more so if you can believe it, and Ethiopia invaded. And can you blame them having a bunch of unruly/dangerous kids as their neighbors?
...let's first make it clear nobody screws around with our ships
Ditto. Our grunts & jarheads are getting plenty of trigger time in many applications that might be deemed less than righteous. I think it's fair to say our squids should now, and this is totally justified, met w/ rousing applause. Just like Iraq or any other modern war, use it to field test all the new gadgets & strategy. Make allies w/ our economic equals, actually instill a sense of pride (where'd it go?) for doing the right thing for a change, etc.
and then see to it that the Somalis get hope for their lives. Because pumping money into a failed state is a pretty certain way of not solving the problem at all.
Mounting nervousness:
Show
This is where I chafe a bit. How are we to do that if we have less ways & means than we did before (when it failed miserably)? We're (most of the planet really) already in such horrific debt, how would it be feasible?
I would just as soon back Ethiopia & Eretria to mount another invasion/coup and duke it out by proxy. Cheaper anyway. Somalia's neighbors hate them too. Same thing in pre-war Iraq. Most of the ppl against the '03 invasion were those making VERY lucrative weapons/oil deals w/ Iraq (France, Russia namely). But wouldn't you know it, the Saudis, Iranians (still bitter from '80-'88 war), Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Turks, and so on said, "Yeah, do it." Some even said, "Use our land as staging areas. We'll help, we despise Saddam."
This is where I chafe a bit. How are we to do that if we have less ways & means than we did before (when it failed miserably)? We're (most of the planet really) already in such horrific debt, how would it be feasible?
I would just as soon back Ethiopia & Eretria to mount another invasion/coup and duke it out by proxy. Cheaper anyway. Somalia's neighbors hate them too. Same thing in pre-war Iraq. Most of the ppl against the '03 invasion were those making VERY lucrative weapons/oil deals w/ Iraq (France, Russia namely). But wouldn't you know it, the Saudis, Iranians (still bitter from '80-'88 war), Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Turks, and so on said, "Yeah, do it." Some even said, "Use our land as staging areas. We'll help, we despise Saddam."
Why must "we" give them better options?
I agree. Why are 'we' talking about what to do, when the first step should be what to stop doing, mainly the illegal fishing and the dumping toxic waste? Why are 'we' even pretending to care about justice, when all 'we' are interested in, is to punish those who bother 'us' personally, while letting the people who share a large part of the responsibility for things ever going this far go free? Talk all you want about killing pirates, and punishing before helping, but please spare me the lectures about responsibility
I am. To be clear, "We should not build up Somalia." There, it's out. :D Please do not think less of me for this bout of pragmatism.
It didn't work before ('92-'93) when conditions were much better, why now, when we're already facing a 2-front war, a tattered economy, mounting global instability, and so on, is it a good idea?
You get a bunch of other nations (not the UN thank you) that are taking these commerical hits to ante up (fairly) as well, then, yeah, I'd back that in a heartbeat. We're always the gobal police. Why must we always take up the slack of other ppl's indulgences?
Because we're the most powerful guys around, and we got that way by encouraging and taking advantage of bad situations around the world. Calling our involvement in Somalia in '92 a best effort would be laughable if it weren't so horrifying. Not that that refutes your point in any way.
Thusly, keep our intervention minimal (the occupied always resent our invovlement) and let the local states deal w/ it as it's their backyard; more culturally kin, less language barriers and logistic nightmares, etc. We'll take care of the seas (as best able) given our incredible maritime might, you guys deal w/ that sandbox o' Hell and then we'll talk...
They're going to need our help, and they're sure as hell not going to a create a stable and just society and reduce acts of piracy against us out of the kindness of their hearts. It's really weird to me when Americans throw themselves a pity party and whine about why do we have to go into this or that country and why can't other people solve the problem. Because we don't have control over other people. Because other people don't have the problem. Other countries, especially those who don't even share our shipping lanes to the same extent, don't give a **** if American vessels get boarded and robbed. And anyway, creating a safer, more just global society benefits everybody pretty much automatically.
But I agree that this is not something the U.S. can accomplish alone by simply invading. If we are practically unable to take any action for some time except the military defense of our own vessels, so be it. But that is not a desirable state of affairs and definitely something we should work towards correcting. I think our only disagreement comes because I lack sufficient detail to look as closely at the immediate timeline as you do. That is to say, I'll take your word for it, because I sure as hell don't have anything better to offer.
I agree. Why are 'we' talking about what to do, when the first step should be what to stop doing, mainly the illegal fishing and the dumping toxic waste?
I wasn't aware that "we", our country, did that, so much as privately owned and operated corporations. Seems a lot of trouble to travel 1/2 around the globe to offload some mercury and what not.
Why are 'we' even pretending to care about justice, when all 'we' are interested in, is to punish those who bother 'us' personally...
"Bother"? Kidnapping? Arms smuggling/trafficing? Last time I checked armed robbery and murder were more than a little bothersome.
At least that's what Columbus PD said at the trial for the 3 carjackers that killed my boy in '96. They robbed and killed him for profit. It's opportunism at another's expense and a universal concept of, what's the word, "wrong". No one forced their hand here or there.
The circumstances of their poverty I am sympathetic to. As such, I support INTELLIGENT, actionable resolutions to fix. However, none are forthcoming. Please, indulge me; I would very much like to hear some theoreticals as this thread is gaining steam and shedding light beyond the "stop the pirates" bit.
...while letting the people who share a large part of the responsibility for things ever going this far go free? Talk all you want about killing pirates, and punishing before helping, but please spare me the lectures about responsibility
I think it is the concern (I do not speak for the others, thanks/respect) that said help may only in fact facilitate another easy out. My position is based namely on our past XP when our military intervention, UN peacekeeping troops, food aid, cash, engineering, and so forth got us, and more importantly, them, nowhere fast. Money pit and more needless deaths. Seems like the way of all thing there now. Pardon if I sound cynical given growing up through it and hearing my g/f's father's & a mutual gamer friend's stories about Mogadishu and the Hell their deployment was there.
I am. To be clear, "We should not build up Somalia." There, it's out. :D Please do not think less of me for this bout of pragmatism.
I don't ;) . I know what you're saying, and you're probably right. Guess I'm just an idealist - to me, you're a global power (not just the US) built on the principles of same rights for everyone, you have to fight for them in other countries as well (you know, the power-responsibility thing Marvel and White Wolf have been trying so hard to teach us
) - that's why I support the Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that's why I also support humanitarian aid for countries in need (which doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to cut back in times of crisis).But it's quite possible that the world indeed does not work this way, and every country is best left to its own devices - but I sure as all Hell hope not.
*I know I said I was bowing out, but...*
... just where did I "bash" liberals?
It was in your tone. Don't think I didn't hear the contempt just oozing from your "You are a liberal, aren't you?"
It isn't anybody else's responsibility to bail those people out but their own.
Last time we tried helping them it didn't work because of the knuckleheads.
They need to be dealt with with something they understand and have respect for... violence. We should bomb them up to the Stone Age.
Considering it's a problem that we helped create, that resolving the problem is undeniably in our best interests, and that bombing "them" back to the stone age is the same as advocating mass murder, I would say we share some responsibility.
See, I could have reported the above statement to the mods, but it is exactly because I am not a liberal that I didn't...
Now I am bowing out because I am having a hard time holding my tongue...
Er, what? You're quite obviously unable or unwilling to defend your ideas with any hint of rationality. That's just an observation. If I violated the CoC by noting your habit of slipping in and out of conversations in order to leave behind incendiary remarks about liberals, then I apologize to the mods. Doesn't make it any less true.
I shouldn't do this...
Ok, first things first. Piracy = bad. No excuse. As such, dealing with it harshly and without mercy or remorse seems perfectly fine to me, especially if their own government is unwilling or unable to deal with it.
Second, it is never one governments responsibility to build up another. At best, it is a kindness. At worst, it creates a sense of false obligation and entitlement. It is nice to help other countries. Is is friendly to help other countries. But no country has a responsibility to do so.
If any serious military action should be taken beyond merely protecting our own vessels, it should be done through the UN. That's what it's there for.
I wasn't aware that "we", our country, did that, so much as privately owned and operated corporations. Seems a lot of trouble to travel 1/2 around the globe to offload some mercury and what not.
Some of the companies doing this are Western. Maybe not American, but I really don't care at this point. The point is that Somalia's problems aren't merely caused by the Somalis themselves, so starting to rave about justice, and fairness, and personal responsibility is ridiculous. Some people don't have a huge army, or tons of weapons of mass destruction, and they can't defend themselves when others take advantage of their situation. I don't think they owe the world anything if the world doesn't help them.
It has always been my impression that Americans see the US as a sort of global, moral guardian. At least, every time someone suggests that US military involvement, and all the death and suffering caused by it, is done merely to benefit the US, people are outraged and deny it, and claim it was done to save the poor civilians in the country that gets attacked. If it's not about using the military power for good, helping others, and affecting the world in a positive way, but just about doing and taking what you want, regardless of the cost to others, just say so. But make up your mind, because I'm seriously confused
"Bother"? Kidnapping? Arms smuggling/trafficing? Last time I checked armed robbery and murder were more than a little bothersome.
At least that's what Columbus PD said at the trial for the 3 carjackers that killed my boy in '96. They robbed and killed him for profit. It's opportunism at another's expense and a universal concept of, what's the word, "wrong". No one forced their hand here or there.
Frankly, I don't think governments care a lot about the human lives. Not to mention there hasn't been that many killings (hostages=money, no hostages=no money, the pirates are in it for the money, do the math).
The circumstances of their poverty I am sympathetic to. As such, I support INTELLIGENT, actionable resolutions to fix. However, none are forthcoming. Please, indulge me; I would very much like to hear some theoreticals as this thread is gaining steam and shedding light beyond the "stop the pirates" bit.
How about we give the pirates a free pass against anyone doing any illegal fishing and dumping? As it is now, they stand a good chance of being labelled as terrorists if they attack, especially if they start cutting off people's limbs, or something like that, to discourage further dumping. And while we're at it, how about holding the nations of said companies resposible?
I think it is the concern (I do not speak for the others, thanks/respect) that said help may only in fact facilitate another easy out. My position is based namely on our past XP when our military intervention, UN peacekeeping troops, food aid, cash, engineering, and so forth got us, and more importantly, them, nowhere fast. Money pit and more needless deaths. Seems like the way of all thing there now. Pardon if I sound cynical given growing up through it and hearing my g/f's father's & a mutual gamer friend's stories about Mogadishu and the Hell their deployment was there.
Yeah, how terrible to give poor people money
I agree there's a chance of the money going to corrupt warlords and things like that, but that's why I support stopping illegal fishing and toxic dumping, and give the common people better ways of providing for themselves. It can be pretty easy, if you're just willing to give the ships belonging to foreign countries the same treatement you plan to give the pirates (if a ship is observed fishing, and it isn't Somali, just blow it up. The people sending the ships will realise it's not worth it eventually, likely before the pirates). But that'll never happen, which is why I'm so tired of all the moral BS on this thread.But I think we're getting off topic (making light-hearted jokes about desperate people resorting to kidnapping and robbery, often to prevent themselves and their familes from starving), and into the forbidden realm of politics
But I think we're getting off topic (making light-hearted jokes about desperate people resorting to kidnapping and robbery, often to prevent themselves and their familes from starving), and into the forbidden realm of politics
Any group of people on a speed boat with rifles trying to take over a whole military vessel with the hopes of ransoming the capitain if funny, especially if it's accidental.
@The_HATED
If your going to be an ass-hat (And come on, you and everyone else knowes that you are going to.) atleast have the descency to be an ammusing ass-hat. Please stop trying to get my thread locked. (Not that I'm particularly attached to it or anything, I'd just rather see it get locked due to an actual disscussion, not just because people kept yelling worthless titles back and forth.)
It has always been my impression that Americans see the US as a sort of global, moral guardian. At least, every time someone suggests that US military involvement, and all the death and suffering caused by it, is done merely to benefit the US, people are outraged and deny it, and claim it was done to save the poor civilians in the country that gets attacked.
Don't be hypocritical. It sounds like you want the US to intervine in world events but still retain the right to bash their motives but are simultaneously trying to say people shouldnt want to avoid helping people because everyone says they do it for the wrong reason.
(Wow, that sentence made no sense. If I can think of a better way to phrase that, I'll let you know.)
Any group of people on a speed boat with rifles trying to take over a whole military vessel with the hopes of ransoming the capitain if funny, especially if it's accidental.
But talking about how people ought to be shot on sight, and deny them both the rights of criminals and the rights of soldiers, just because people think they've found a technical loophole, is not.
Don't be hypocritical. It sounds like you want the US to intervine in world events but still retain the right to bash their motives but are simultaneously trying to say people shouldnt want to avoid helping people because everyone says they do it for the wrong reason.
I don't, I just want them to be consistent. Either be the world's policemen (and take responsibility when it goes wrong, just as you take credit when it works out), or stay the hell away and let the UN handle things.
My thoughts on the matter are perfectly logical and rational.
You may interpret my "tone" any way you wish.
You seem to be a very unhappy person.
I hope you feel better.
A problem we helped create?
Really?
And I guess the famine (like Hurricane Katrina) was George Bush's fault too...?
I'm thinking you must be off your meds today, because these sentences are completely disjointed and irrational.
Yes, we, by which I mean everybody in the developed west, helped create the problems of famine and war in the third world, and especially in Africa. Those problems we did not create we exacerbated and profited from. I was not even aware this was up for debate anymore.
But even if you don't agree, the fact is we need these shipping lanes and it behooves us to make those countries who threaten them into prosperous allies, something that will never be accomplished by bombing them into the stone age.
I have no idea what George Bush, Katrina, or my relative unhappiness has to do with any of these things. I am glad I managed to make it onto your list of people who you hope feel better, though. If I were Somali, you would just be hoping I get blown up.
Wait, what? That's moderate? Huh. I'm pretty sure that's a conservative viewpoint... or at least, what conservative used to mean 'round here. You know, the whole 'sticking out for our own interests first, seeing charity to others as a kindness not a responsibility'...
Re: the HATED
Well, you were throwing labels around, and I'm pretty sure that the mods look unfavorably on using labels as insults. Not to mention that being a liberal or not has nothing to do with whether or not you'd report a post. In most political domains I'd be called a 'liberal', yet I have spoken on more then one occasion about my disdain for reporting posts. That's just an aspect of the individual, not of political ideals.
Oh, they have a language filter. Heh, that's just funny.
Inb4lock.
Of course your in the thread before it was locked. Everyone who is in the thread was in the thread before it was locked, and it is not possible to get in the thread after it is locked, on account of it being locked. Stop spewing nonsense.
Some of the companies doing this are Western. Maybe not American, but I really don't care at this point.
And that's where credibility slips then...when you stop caring. Pro or con, doesn't matter (both are relevant), I'm not judging. Just want impartiality and reason. This isn't it. It's this apathy and laziness that fosters misinformation, slander, libel, and a general haphazard reactionary measure(s) after the fact that prompts poor descisions or none at all out of fear.
The point is that Somalia's problems aren't merely caused by the Somalis themselves, so starting to rave about justice, and fairness, and personal responsibility is ridiculous.
Are you actually inferring that I did "rave" when it's clear I didn't? If this is not the case, you should illustrate your attacks more clearly rather than take pot shots that afford more deniability given the likely reprisal that's enroue.
As I've said (CLEARLY), no one country is 100% responsible for every little thing that goes on under their aegis, capital, flag, whatever. I certainly didn't say it was our sole responsibility nor did I say it was soley their's either.
It has always been my impression that Americans see the US as a sort of global, moral guardian.
300 million of us that dissent w/ each other all the time. I cannot share your conceit, nor do most of my friends, contemporaries, or family. Plus, we're likely the most decadent nation on the planet. It's a farce. But, that's your impression, and I respect that, but most would disagree. Other ppl/nations across the globe really seem to resent our "moral guardianship" as you put it. Odd that we're all about girl's schools but the Taliban aren't. We promote acceptance of other's faiths but many kill/suppress/bar our missionaries & clergy. Send and pay for peace keeping troops to stop genocide/war but are routinely attacked. Etc. Always a catch.
At least, every time someone suggests that US military involvement, and all the death and suffering caused by it, is done merely to benefit the US, people are outraged and deny it, and claim it was done to save the poor civilians in the country that gets attacked.
This is patently unfair and more than a little slanderous. Re-evaluate and maintain some semblance of critical perspective, don't overgeneralize.
Yes, we've had our fingers in many pies to be sure w/ nasty fallout at times, but they aren't all for purely national gain. Correct me if I'm wrong in the following:
-Kuwait begged us to intervene given Iraqi onslaught in Gulf War
-South Vietnam given North's invasion (which we did bungle I'll admit)
-Bosian Muslims asked us to help given Serbian genocide
-Kurds asked for help as they were being nerve gassed and massacred too
-Massive disaster relief campaigns of epic proportions; Sri Lankan tsunami, Mexican quakes and drug war relief, etc.
etc. etc.
If it's not about using the military power for good, helping others, and affecting the world in a positive way, but just about doing and taking what you want, regardless of the cost to others, just say so. But make up your mind, because I'm seriously confused
Wtf are you talking about? You're projecting and trying to draw this into a series of dynamic opposites (dangerous). Convenient, but unrealistic and stupid. It's not so black and white, you can't just examine it as "this" or "that".
Frankly, I don't think governments care a lot about the human lives.
Noting your cynicism; who do you think pays for the govt? They care, maybe not all of them for noble causes, but you can't tax what's not there. Plenty are draconian and self-serving, but again, you can't lump it all under 1 aegis and say, "Govt's don't care!" Elements w/in and w/out do not just make one big autonomous collective of corrupt men in suits doing evil. Your penchant for oversimplifying a very complex issue to make it easier to understand is only furthering the cancer.
Not to mention there hasn't been that many killings (hostages=money, no hostages=no money, the pirates are in it for the money, do the math).
Do you know what happens to a lose end (witnesses)? Rank and file crew aren't often worth jack and are liabilities. Captains and those from wealthier countries, that's different. Cargo/ship itself are the end goal usually, not personel. You can ransom 1 guy, likely to his country of origin. A tanker full of crude fetches cash anywhere ppl have internal combustion engines. There are plenty of killings, just not what you catch on your nightly news. No one at CBS gives a sh-t about some poor, dead Indian sailor. Slap an American face on American news, that's different. Sad but true.
How about we give the pirates a free pass against anyone doing any illegal fishing and dumping?
How about no...it's incredibly dangerous if not outright retarded. You take a bunch of uneducated and undisciplined ppl (nonmilitary btw, many, teens), give them milspec weaponry and turn them lose like wild west deputies. What do you think is gonna' happen? The potential for abuse and corruption is staggering. Will never happen, not in a million years.
Who would they answer to? They're the power then. Plus, practically speaking, it's not profitable or even actionable. Piracy is quicker $, easier.
As it is now, they stand a good chance of being labelled as terrorists if they attack, especially if they start cutting off people's limbs, or something like that, to discourage further dumping. And while we're at it, how about holding the nations of said companies resposible?
Man, you're really pushing that fishing/dumping agenda, huh? Perhaps you could furnish us w/ some news links, a fact, something, anything impartial and true. Cuz' given the hotbed of activity, National/International law, lack of sources, and common sense, it's not really adding up.
This wave of piracy started much like all the rest. Back in the day, you could be a privateer sponsored by your gov't during a time of war (and sometimes not). Once the war ends or your papers are revoked, you can go back to fishing, tilling the fields or just keep on piratin' and makin' the phat lewts. Today, you could fight for your nation's - such as it is - water and risk your life for no real reward. Or you could try and sack a cruise ship full of rich people, rob them and then ransom them back home. See, all of the nobility has plumb run out of this venture. If they were still only attacking criminals, I'd be down. That's not what's happening any longer.
I think it is the concern (I do not speak for the others, thanks/respect) that said help may only in fact facilitate another easy out. My position is based namely on our past XP when our military intervention, UN peacekeeping troops, food aid, cash, engineering, and so forth got us, and more importantly, them, nowhere fast. Money pit and more needless deaths. Seems like the way of all thing there now. Pardon if I sound cynical given growing up through it and hearing my g/f's father's & a mutual gamer friend's stories about Mogadishu and the Hell their deployment was there.
This. It's the entire Middle-East all over again. The Israelis complain, we offer a bit of help, they use it to more successfully kill Palestinians. We try to offer some non-monetary aid in an effort to ease the conflict; it lasts long enough for the Ministers of both countries to make an appearance here, then return to their Eternal Death-Match.
Every time we try to offer aid, all over the WORLD, the options turn into A) leave them to just frikkin' kill each other, and hopefully enough civilians will be left afterward to rebuild; or B) Invade by force, and MAKE THEM stop fighting.
Neither is a good option, but WE didn't tell people of countries X and Y to start killing each other, or destroy each other's economies until they were both destitute, or perform genocide on innocent civilians for BS reasons; these countries have their own problems.
Why doesn't someone invade a chunk of America and give us some aid already? I know retired military men who have a wife and kids, and even though they have the retirement pay, both parents have jobs, and the kids aren't even in college yet, they have trouble making ends meet some months. That's crap, but nobody else is gonna fix it FOR us.
It's kind of indecent that WE are expected to do this type of service for everyone ELSE, receiving nothing in return but a bad rep as "over-entitled enforcers" and the combined hatred and disgust of half the world.
spoilered for size
Morally, I don't care who started it, who continued it, who escalated it, and who's doing it now. It's irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is that many of these people are in a desperate situation which, for the most part, wasn't their fault. I don't care about distributing the precisely the correct amount of blame, I just can't stand people trying to make it as easy as “We don't have any responsibility because it's their own fault”.
I wasn't talking about you, just the general tone the discussion had taken.
Nonetheless, the general tone in conversations about American military involvement seems to be all about how America tries to help other nations who need them, and yet here, it's mostly about “Kill them all, I don't care, Shoot on sight, Not our problem”. It's confusing. Even you are talking about American military involvement in foreign affairs as a sort of charity, and you seem fairly moderate.
The Soviet Union weren't opposed to girl's schools either, but the Mujahideen you supported were. Sometimes, there are things that are deemed for important than, say, girl's schools, and maybe it's the right decision and maybe it's not. If I had to choose, I think I'd prefer living as a woman in the Soviet Union to living as a woman under Taliban, but I can't say I blame the US for that decision, I'd just appreciate if everything weren't painted black and white (and if wars like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't painted exclusively as a case of brave Western soldiers fighting an evil menace their countries have never had anything to do with, especially combined with no one apparently caring about the Somali).
And, speaking of the Mujahideen, they also asked you to help them gain control over Afghanistan, which you did. You can always find people who'll ask you to kill others, being asked isn't the same as being justified, or not having any personal interest in the conflict, and it definitely isn't the same as being able to make things better. The trick is understanding the conflict (which is usually more complicated than good guys vs. bad guys), killing the right people in the right way at the right time, giving the right (non-violent) help in the right way at the right time, and knowing when not to interfere. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't, but you have to be open about it.
As far as I can understand, Americans tend to think of the military actions of their country as being justified, like most other people do, and often on the grounds that it helped innocents of other countries, rather than benefiting the US. Considering the amount of American military interventions, it's hard not to get the impression that America sees itself as a sort of world police, so it's very strange when the attitude suddenly shifts to 'this doesn't concern us, just blow them up'.
Some people on this thread definitely seems to see it as black and white (blow them up on sight before even thinking about dealing with the problems of the locals), I'm just trying to understand how, and which, countries and conflicts qualify as black, and which ones qualify as white. Well actually, I'm mainly just expressing my annoyance over people being so damn self-righteous about it.
And the US is a wealthy country. If it's only about the US, there's no need to dwell on any other killings.
Probably about the same as with every other poorly planned 'They're Evil, we're Good, shoot on sight'-intervention. But at least then people could make the pretence that the local Somali had gotten a fair chance, and screwed it up themselves.
I don't think it's any secret that it happened. It's anyone's guess how often it happens today, but nevertheless, it's a bigger, and more complicated, issue than a bunch of evil criminals deciding to kill people for easy money.
And that's where credibility slips then...when you stop caring. Pro or con, doesn't matter (both are relevant), I'm not judging. Just want impartiality and reason. This isn't it. It's this apathy and laziness that fosters misinformation, slander, libel, and a general haphazard reactionary measure(s) after the fact that prompts poor descisions or none at all out of fear.
Morally, I don't care who started it, who continued it, who escalated it, and who's doing it now. It's irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is that many of these people are in a desperate situation which, for the most part, wasn't their fault. I don't care about distributing the precisely the correct amount of blame, I just can't stand people trying to make it as easy as “We don't have any responsibility because it's their own fault”.
Are you actually inferring that I did "rave" when it's clear I didn't?
I wasn't talking about you, just the general tone the discussion had taken.
300 million of us that dissent w/ each other all the time. I cannot share your conceit, nor do most of my friends, contemporaries, or family.
Nonetheless, the general tone in conversations about American military involvement seems to be all about how America tries to help other nations who need them, and yet here, it's mostly about “Kill them all, I don't care, Shoot on sight, Not our problem”. It's confusing. Even you are talking about American military involvement in foreign affairs as a sort of charity, and you seem fairly moderate.
Other ppl/nations across the globe really seem to resent our "moral guardianship" as you put it. Odd that we're all about girl's schools but the Taliban aren't. We promote acceptance of other's faiths but many kill/suppress/bar our missionaries & clergy. Send and pay for peace keeping troops to stop genocide/war but are routinely attacked. Etc. Always a catch.
The Soviet Union weren't opposed to girl's schools either, but the Mujahideen you supported were. Sometimes, there are things that are deemed for important than, say, girl's schools, and maybe it's the right decision and maybe it's not. If I had to choose, I think I'd prefer living as a woman in the Soviet Union to living as a woman under Taliban, but I can't say I blame the US for that decision, I'd just appreciate if everything weren't painted black and white (and if wars like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't painted exclusively as a case of brave Western soldiers fighting an evil menace their countries have never had anything to do with, especially combined with no one apparently caring about the Somali).
This is patently unfair and more than a little slanderous. Re-evaluate and maintain some semblance of critical perspective, don't overgeneralize.
Yes, we've had our fingers in many pies to be sure w/ nasty fallout at times, but they aren't all for purely national gain. Correct me if I'm wrong in the following:
And, speaking of the Mujahideen, they also asked you to help them gain control over Afghanistan, which you did. You can always find people who'll ask you to kill others, being asked isn't the same as being justified, or not having any personal interest in the conflict, and it definitely isn't the same as being able to make things better. The trick is understanding the conflict (which is usually more complicated than good guys vs. bad guys), killing the right people in the right way at the right time, giving the right (non-violent) help in the right way at the right time, and knowing when not to interfere. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't, but you have to be open about it.
As far as I can understand, Americans tend to think of the military actions of their country as being justified, like most other people do, and often on the grounds that it helped innocents of other countries, rather than benefiting the US. Considering the amount of American military interventions, it's hard not to get the impression that America sees itself as a sort of world police, so it's very strange when the attitude suddenly shifts to 'this doesn't concern us, just blow them up'.
Wtf are you talking about? You're projecting and trying to draw this into a series of dynamic opposites (dangerous). Convenient, but unrealistic and stupid. It's not so black and white, you can't just examine it as "this" or "that".
Some people on this thread definitely seems to see it as black and white (blow them up on sight before even thinking about dealing with the problems of the locals), I'm just trying to understand how, and which, countries and conflicts qualify as black, and which ones qualify as white. Well actually, I'm mainly just expressing my annoyance over people being so damn self-righteous about it.
Do you know what happens to a lose end (witnesses)? Rank and file crew aren't often worth jack and are liabilities. Captains and those from wealthier countries, that's different.
And the US is a wealthy country. If it's only about the US, there's no need to dwell on any other killings.
How about no...it's incredibly dangerous if not outright retarded. You take a bunch of uneducated and undisciplined ppl (nonmilitary btw, many, teens), give them milspec weaponry and turn them lose like wild west deputies. What do you think is gonna' happen?
Probably about the same as with every other poorly planned 'They're Evil, we're Good, shoot on sight'-intervention. But at least then people could make the pretence that the local Somali had gotten a fair chance, and screwed it up themselves.
Man, you're really pushing that fishing/dumping agenda, huh? Perhaps you could furnish us w/ some news links, a fact, something, anything impartial and true. Cuz' given the hotbed of activity, National/International law, lack of sources, and common sense, it's not really adding up.
I don't think it's any secret that it happened. It's anyone's guess how often it happens today, but nevertheless, it's a bigger, and more complicated, issue than a bunch of evil criminals deciding to kill people for easy money.
I don't think it's any secret that it happened. It's anyone's guess how often it happens today, but nevertheless, it's a bigger, and more complicated, issue than a bunch of evil criminals deciding to kill people for easy money.
Exactly.
It's a bunch of criminals deciding to kill people for easy money.
There reasons for doing it are not really all that important. Very very very few people do criminal 'bad' or 'evil' things without a reason.
(Unless your playing in Pigknight world, in which case everyone does evil things just 'cause they are the crazies.)
As far as I can understand, Americans tend to think of the military actions of their country as being justified, like most other people do, and often on the grounds that it helped innocents of other countries, rather than benefiting the US. Considering the amount of American military interventions, it's hard not to get the impression that America sees itself as a sort of world police, so it's very strange when the attitude suddenly shifts to 'this doesn't concern us, just blow them up'.
Allow me to explain it then. Alot of Americans think their military is doing and has done alot of good for alot of people in the world. Alot of Americans also think it is a thankless job that does nothing but waste American money, American lives, and make the rest of the world hate America. What you are seeing now is alot of Americans now deciding it just isn't worth it to try to help people who don't seem to want to change and will only resent you for helping. There is a rapidly growing minority (Majority? Not sure how widespread it is really) of people who no longer want their government to play world police. Who instead want the US to start looking out for its own intrests and the intrests of its people. Another way to phrase this view would be "America keeps giving others gifts to try to help. Everyone keeps taking thoes gifts, then spitting on America while laughing at it. Why keep careing about and trying to help them?"
People help Somalia. Help the pirates. Help the sea born industry. Help the young teens in need of an after school job. Help these teens be successful in their jobs so that they can one day make their way up the corporate ladder so that they can reach management. Please, have a caring heart.
Allow me to explain it then. Alot of Americans think their military is doing and has done alot of good for alot of people in the world.
For what it's worth, a lot of people from other countries do so as well (OK, granted, we might not be many in Germany, but I found many people in Poland and Scandinavia of one mind with me on that one). I agree that it's a thankless job, but I would find it sad if cynicism and (other people's) blindness destroyed that.
Exactly.
It's a bunch of criminals deciding to kill people for easy money.
There reasons for doing it are not really all that important. Very very very few people do criminal 'bad' or 'evil' things without a reason.
(Unless your playing in Pigknight world, in which case everyone does evil things just 'cause they are the crazies.)
Only, when we're talking about morality (such as whether or not it's just and right to start shooting them, and denying them all their rights just because of a technical loophole, the thought of which, quite frankly, scares the **** out of me), their motivation, as well as past wrongs, is very important. People shouldn't try to claim they're being anything but selfish about this, when the truth is that they would do the exact same thing in the exact same situation. Saying "We've got the guns and money, they've got nothing, too bad, sucks to them, but we don't care about anyone but ourselves" is at least honest. Starting to reason it with how they're technically not real criminals, and technically not official soldiers either, and how it's only their own fault, is not.
Allow me to explain it then.
Four issues with this:
First off, this isn't about America having the sole responsibility, but the people talking about how they have no responsibility here all seem to have been American. Secondly, the way in which the US decide to distribute this 'charity' makes it dubious if it's actually charity, at least to most people. Ironically, one of the things the US is most loved for in Europe (by people who love the US) seems to be the Marshal Plan, not any of your more recent 'charities'. And third, you've already interfered enough to have a moral responsibility in many parts of the world. Suddenly backing out now and blaming everybody else, because others aren't sufficiently grateful, all the while people are getting shot with your old weapons, seems irresponsible, arrogant, and cruel. And fourth, the US wont stop interfering, and everybody here knows that, so this whole line of thought is useless.
Only, when we're talking about morality (such as whether or not it's just and right to start shooting them, and denying them all their rights just because of a technical loophole, the thought of which, quite frankly, scares the **** out of me), their motivation, as well as past wrongs, is very important.
Um, there is a difference between a random US citizen that says shoot them and the US military that has a policy that they can't shoot back until they've been shot at. This of course means that quite often our troops can't defend themselves until there is a casualty. So basically the pirates will be taken is a prisoners, and likely taken to jail to stand trial for their crimes, unless they of courses resist which allows for the US troops to use force.
First off, this isn't about America having the sole responsibility, but the people talking about how they have no responsibility here all seem to have been American.
Again there is a difference between a US civilian and a US politician and/or soldier. The US citizens would like our government to care about us for a change. The US government seems to care about everyone else most of the time. There are times when it almost seems as if those in power have forgotten about the citizens.
Secondly, the way in which the US decide to distribute this 'charity' makes it dubious if it's actually charity, at least to most people. Ironically, one of the things the US is most loved for in Europe (by people who love the US) seems to be the Marshal Plan, not any of your more recent 'charities'.
The charity was never a charity it was just cold war stuff. The US didn't help anybody to just help them; the US helped others in order to counter Russia. For the last 20 years there hasn't really been any BBEG for the US to fight so since the collapse of the USSR, the US has been fighting ghosts so to speak. Looking important, not really doing much, and still forgetting about it's citizens.
And third, you've already interfered enough to have a moral responsibility in many parts of the world. Suddenly backing out now and blaming everybody else, because others aren't sufficiently grateful, all the while people are getting shot with your old weapons, seems irresponsible, arrogant, and cruel. And fourth, the US wont stop interfering, and everybody here knows that, so this whole line of thought is useless.
Backing out now just isn't an option because we are the most powerful, as far as military goes, at the moment. If WWI and WWII are an indicator of anything, if we pull out now there will be some sort of huge large scale war that will happen again, which would cause us to need to come out of isolation once more to stop it.
I really do wish every gosh dang, or just about every, nation would stop come crying to the US whenever they have a problem. The US government has more important things to do than give the whole world free handouts.
Um, there is a difference between a random US citizen that says shoot them and the US military Again there is a difference between a US civilian and a US politician and/or soldier.
I know, but I don't hear anyone complaining about US military involvement elsewhere, so why is it such a terrible idea to have just helped Somalia in the first place?
The charity was never a charity it was just cold war stuff. The US didn't help anybody to just help them; the US helped others in order to counter Russia. For the last 20 years there hasn't really been any BBEG for the US to fight so since the collapse of the USSR, the US has been fighting ghosts so to speak. Looking important, not really doing much, and still forgetting about it's citizens.
I know, but the Marshal Plan was one of the few charities that worked, and left the countries who received it better off because of it, which is why it's so appreciated.
Backing out now just isn't an option because we are the most powerful, as far as military goes, at the moment. If WWI and WWII are an indicator of anything, if we pull out now there will be some sort of huge large scale war that will happen again, which would cause us to need to come out of isolation once more to stop it.
Pull out where? Where are you currently, where you're not just part of UN forces? One of the only places I can think of is Iraq, and that was never a threat.
I really do wish every gosh dang, or just about every, nation would stop come crying to the US whenever they have a problem. The US government has more important things to do than give the whole world free handouts.
I really do wish the US would stop involving themselves, then withdraw, then involve themselves again, and then complain how they had nothing to do with the current situation. Not to mention stop making confusing statements about how the "the US didn't help anybody to just help them", only to turn around complaining that the US cares too much about others.
I know, but I don't hear anyone complaining about US military involvement elsewhere, so why is it such a terrible idea to have just helped Somalia in the first place?
We, and other countries, have been helping out Somalia with aid but non of it seems to have helped. Any money, food or other resources that are sent over always ends up in the hands of the warlords. Getting aid to the people just wont be possible until the warlords are removed.
I know, but the Marshal Plan was one of the few charities that worked, and left the countries who received it better off because of it, which is why it's so appreciated.
Well the Marshall Plan plan wasn't a charity. It was a defensive political and military move.
The US seems to be able to help out countries the best if they are blown up first and destroyed. Europe and Japan have been built up very well after they were destroyed by war but that is partly because the US was pumping tons of money into those two places while starting to ignore it's own citizens.
Pull out where? Where are you currently, where you're not just part of UN forces? One of the only places I can think of is Iraq, and that was never a threat.
The US has bases in just about every region of the world. Most of our troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We, and other countries, have been helping out Somalia with aid but non of it seems to have helped. Any money, food or other resources that are sent over always ends up in the hands of the warlords. Getting aid to the people just wont be possible until the warlords are removed.
I'm not talking about pointless aid (part of what made the Marshall Plan work was that the countries receiving it didn't have unusually corrupt governments). In this case, I'm talking about things such as UN vessels patrolling the coasts and helping the locals keep foreign fishers out, as a start (which is probably too late now, but should have happened a long time ago).
Well the Marshall Plan plan wasn't a charity. It was a defensive political and military move.
But it was nonetheless help, and a very direct form of help, unlike the mixed blessing of having your house blown up while some foreigner ensures you it's for the sake of your own freedom.
The US seems to be able to help out countries the best if they are blown up first and destroyed. Europe and Japan have been built up very well after they were destroyed by war but that is partly because the US was pumping tons of money into those two places while starting to ignore it's own citizens.
Some of the countries receiving the aid weren't blown up. Plus, it's a little harder to get people to be grateful for helping them build up their nation, if you were the ones who blew it up in the first place (and spent a thousand times more money on it).
And the US didn't ignore its own citizens, part of the idea was to eventually boost the American economy by making Europe import American goods, which seems to have worked, and the other part was all about weakening the communists, which was in the personal interest of the US. Considering the general American hate of communism, I have a hard time imagining it wasn't what the population wanted.
The US has bases in just about every region of the world. Most of our troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And are/were Iraq and Afghanistan huge international threats? I also have to remark that the US have been involved with these countries long before you invaded them, so you can't say you did it merely to fix problems you had nothing to do with in the first place.
And the US didn't ignore its own citizens, part of the idea was to eventually boost the American economy by making Europe import American goods, which seems to have worked, and the other part was all about weakening the communists, which was in the personal interest of the US. Considering the general American hate of communism, I have a hard time imagining it wasn't what the population wanted.
sure we got stuff from Europe and Japan but there we tons of products from the US that in turn were not being bought by Europeans and Japan and that hurt the US quite a bit.
And are/were Iraq and Afghanistan huge international threats? I also have to remark that the US have been involved with these countries long before you invaded them, so you can't say you did it merely to fix problems you had nothing to do with in the first place.
Ya might have missed it a few posts back so let me state it once more. After the fall of the USSR, the US has had no BBEG to fight and has since then been chasing ghosts. No these places weren't really threats at all but the US government felt that had to do something so that we can still seem important and powerful cuz there is nothing that looks weaker, and dumber, than getting bombed by someone, or anything similar, and just standing around afterwords with your own thumb up your ass.
sure we got stuff from Europe and Japan but there we tons of products from the US that in turn were not being bought by Europeans and Japan and that hurt the US quite a bit.
The other way around, 'making Europe import American goods'.
Ya might have missed it a few posts back so let me state it once more. After the fall of the USSR, the US has had no BBEG to fight and has since then been chasing ghosts. No these places weren't really threats at all but the US government felt that had to do something so that we can still seem important and powerful cuz there is nothing that looks weaker, and dumber, than getting bombed by someone, or anything similar, and just standing around afterwords with your own thumb up your ass.
When was the US last bombed by someone? Plus, it still doesn't address the question of how the US government can both ignore it's own citizens, and not care about anyone else, unless the US government doesn't care about anyone, not even its own country, in which case I suggest getting a new one.
When was the US last bombed by someone?
9/11. Bombed with our own planes.
Plus, it still doesn't address the question of how the US government can both ignore it's own citizens, and not care about anyone else, unless the US government doesn't care about anyone, not even its own country, in which case I suggest getting a new one.
The US politicians, for the most part, only care about the citizens as much as they need to in order to get elected. For the most part, on both sides of the aisle, tend to never follow through with their campaign promises and those that they do follow through with are just the bare minimum so that they can get reelected over the guy running against them. For the most part, it seems as if the government is more concerned with what the world thinks about them rather than what the citizens thing about them.
About getting a new country. I'm sure that other counties are much worse. That, and I don't want to have to learn a new language. That's too much work for my lazy ass.
9/11. Bombed with our own planes.
That's somewhat different. Furthermore, if that's what you're trying to avenge, what are you doing in Iraq, and why aren't you in Saudi Arabia?
For the most part, it seems as if the government is more concerned with what the world thinks about them rather than what the citizens thing about them.
If that's the case, they (especially the last one) did a ****** job, unless they subscribe to the philosophy that it's better to feared than respected.
About getting a new country. I'm sure that other counties are much worse. That, and I don't want to have to learn a new language. That's too much work for my lazy ass.
A new government. If you government haven't cared about you since WW2, and haven't even cared about anyone else to make up for it, there's something wrong.
Obama isn't part of that network, so maybe we'll see some decent changes around here (I've noticed a few of the members of Congress and the House seem to be stepping away from that particular network, as well). Until then, they're still in charge.
Nonetheless, did you skip my post on how people in other countries have been mercilessly (and with great fervor) killing each other for thousands of years? And how nothing anyone (much less us) can do will stop them from continuing their eternal bloodbaths? That's not our fault, and while I personally don't think we should ever have gotten involved, now we are, and everything sucks because of it. So yeah.
Our government is currently run by the "Good Ol' Boys" network, which is a (comparatively) small network of rich fat-cats who could care less for anyone or anything but their own pockets. Due to the fact that they BSed their way into office (and consequently, a lot of money) and have scads of political backing as well as the support of most large companies, they are now almost impossible to completely remove, short of point-blank gunshot wounds to send a message to the rest of them.
Obama isn't part of that network, so maybe we'll see some decent changes around here (I've noticed a few of the members of Congress and the House seem to be stepping away from that particular network, as well). Until then, they're still in charge.
Nonetheless, did you skip my post on how people in other countries have been mercilessly (and with great fervor) killing each other for thousands of years? And how nothing anyone (much less us) can do will stop them from continuing their eternal bloodbaths? That's not our fault, and while I personally don't think we should ever have gotten involved, now we are, and everything sucks because of it. So yeah.
About this:
Obama isn't part of that network, so maybe we'll see some decent changes around here (I've noticed a few of the members of Congress and the House seem to be stepping away from that particular network, as well). Until then, they're still in charge.
Obama was just a part of one of the most corrupt good ole boys networks in the nation: the Chicago netwrok and that of all Illinois. Oh, and didn't he bring in the chief of staff that Clinton used? Oh, and isn't he using his power to completely fill many of the support jobs with very left wing people who are supporting a particular agenda rather than being 'for the people'? It is just a different network but the same result.
First off, this isn't about America having the sole responsibility, but the people talking about how they have no responsibility here all seem to have been American. Secondly, the way in which the US decide to distribute this 'charity' makes it dubious if it's actually charity, at least to most people. Ironically, one of the things the US is most loved for in Europe (by people who love the US) seems to be the Marshal Plan, not any of your more recent 'charities'. And third, you've already interfered enough to have a moral responsibility in many parts of the world. Suddenly backing out now and blaming everybody else, because others aren't sufficiently grateful, all the while people are getting shot with your old weapons, seems irresponsible, arrogant, and cruel. And fourth, the US wont stop interfering, and everybody here knows that, so this whole line of thought is useless.
Hey, don't you start talking to me that way. Try a little perspective and a little less venom, damnit. You said you where confused, so I explained the thought process behind the things you claimed to be confused about. If you don't agree with people having thoes thoughts or feeling, well, I really do not care. People still think and feel that way regardless of wether or not you think they should, and thats part of the reason why they say and do thoes things that confuse you. Don't feign ignorance as an exscuse to be rude to people when they explain things for you.
I know, but I don't hear anyone complaining about US military involvement elsewhere
Then you haven't heard me rant about US of A military actions over the last four decades. Which, you know, isn't entirely surprising, because I doubt I've ranted on it before 'round here.
But from my own anecdotal experience the viewpoint that our government should stop meddling all over the world isn't a terribly rare one over here. Of course, that may be my college background showing, where such viewpoints are a bit more common.
Seriously though, have you never heard about the fact that every major military action since sometime in the 60s-70s has met public protest? I admit it doesn't make the news as much in the last ten years, but protests are still pretty common. Not everyone here wants America to be meddlers.
And really, the argument that "we're already involved, we must see it through"... doesn't work. That's called a commitment bias, and it can lead to all sorts of bad places, where people get involved in things they never would have jumped into if they had been fully aware form the beginning, and throwing good resources after bad.
China does an enormous amount to support the government of Darfur because of the oil it gets. This is regardless of the genocide the government has been perpetuating for years.
I have seen European protests over many U.S. things.
Are there similar large scale protests against China and its work in Africa? Especially the veto of measures in the UN to attempt to take care of such things? (Since the UN is supposed to be the one doing it if the U.S isn't...)
Then you haven't heard me rant about US of A military actions over the last four decades . Not everyone here wants America to be meddlers.
Sure, some people rant about the US for various reasons, including military involvement, but it's rarely, if ever, the same people who go "We have every right to shoot them on sight, it's their own fault" :P
And really, the argument that "we're already involved, we must see it through"... doesn't work. That's called a commitment bias, and it can lead to all sorts of bad places, where people get involved in things they never would have jumped into if they had been fully aware form the beginning, and throwing good resources after bad.
Then step out saying "We (or our past leaders) have screwed up before, big time, and we realise now that we're likely to make things worse if we try to interfere, so we'll try to stop now, and hope for the best", or something, anything other than "We've done so much good for the world, but they failed to appreciate our graciousness, so we don't owe them anything". Not that I believe it's necessary to stop any interference, but it'll be nice with a (hopefully) happy medium between telling the world "**** you, not our problem", and "Be grateful and praise us as saviours whenever/however we interfere, because it's always for your own good".
I will bring up a point that was brought up somewhere else...
China does an enormous amount to support the government of Darfur because of the oil it gets. This is regardless of the genocide the government has been perpetuating for years.
I have seen European protests over many U.S. things.
Are there similar large scale protests against China and its work in Africa? Especially the veto of measures in the UN to attempt to take care of such things? (Since the UN is supposed to be the one doing it if the U.S isn't...)
Well, whenever there's an international conference or something, people always talk about whether or not China should get invited, but nobody disputes the right of the US to be there. When the Olympic Games are held in the US, no one makes a big deal out of it, but when they're held in China, there's a vigorous debate about if we can allow ourselves to even participate, considering how it might come off as (indirect) support.
The levels of acceptance of China and the US is not even comparable.
Hate to break it to you, but if that's what you want you'll never get it. The fact is, we have states bigger then some countries, and more mixing and clashing cultures then some continents. Uniform support behind any standpoint is pretty unlikely. So asking that all of us agree on anything... well, it's unrealistic.
For myself, I do feel the US should stop meddling, and quite frankly I don't give a flying rat's ass whether the rest of the world loves us or hates us. We've interfered (for variouis reasons, both well-intentioned and not-so-well-intentioned) for long enough, and I think it's time to try something new. It's not going to happen, but that's the rhetoric I stick to.
Too bad (in my own opinion) that kind of rhetoric doesn't get people into public office.
I want to be clear here... you're upset/annoyed/slightly peeved/discontent/whatever-word-you-want-to-express-your-displeasure-to-just-the-right-level-of-significance because you aren't getting a unified message from the US of A?
No. I'm confused I'm getting mixed signals from what seems like the same people (which doesn't include you). And I'm also personally very curious about what the people who keep saying “not our problem”, and blame people for wishing to better the cause of the piracy, think of US military involvement elsewhere.
PS: I don't think your last government, or many governments before that, cared a lot about whether or not the outside world liked them.
I have seen European protests over many U.S. things.
Are there similar large scale protests against China and its work in Africa?
No. But that's because of mainstream media. Most people around here have no idea about what is even happening in Darfur, much less that the Chinese are sponsoring it. On the other hand, you hear half-sane rants about US "war crimes" and such constantly. Hearing it, I sometimes seriously wonder if our news networks have some contract with al-Djazeera.
I'm afraid the mainstream culture has been against you since Vietnam - and with this sort of BS even preached in our schools, I'm afraid it won't get better anytime soon. Still got some hope with the internet, though.
1) If the rest of the world doesn't want the US to 'meddle' then maybe we shouldn't. Stop sending any financial aid to anywhere, stop sending our troops to help anyone...just stop. You can't pick and choose though; if you want the US to stop 'meddling' then we should stop any sort of 'meddling' whether it be positive or negative. Even though I don't agree with many of the things we get involved with, I do feel that there are a lot of positive causes that we support, but I'm sure we could use the money to help fix things here.
2) Saying that Obama's administration is less corrupt than the Bush administration is a stretch in my opinion. An example: Obama preached that he wanted change, yet his plan to fix the economy is the exact same plan which Bush had - give away money to corporate executives and make no effort to track what they do with it. Are you seriously suggesting that billions of dollars vanished and there were no signs that something shady was going on? The government noticed that I made a mistake of 20 cents on my tax return within a week of recieving it, yet somehow they didn't notice that over a half-trillion dollars wasn't where it was supposed to be... and we talk about piracy in other areas of the world...
3) Honestly, after seeing how the world is handling the pirate problem, I really see no reason why I wouldn't be a pirate if I were there. I'd make far more money than I otherwise would, and there's really no big threat of me getting into serious trouble. I wonder how valued someone with military training would be to a pirate crew; hmm...