Originally Posted By wahooskipper It is the theif suing you for cutting his hand on the knife you left on your dining room table. Gotta love the law.
Originally Posted By mawnck I'm glad it worked out the way it did, but the facts are (1) They got a lucky shot and (2) This sort of thing is going to happen again any second now, and it might not turn out so nicely. I suspect Fox News can't wait.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Lucky shot?<< The lifeboat was enclosed. All three of the pirates stood up in the lifeboat's back window at the same time, giving all three sharpshooters a clean shot. You can assume they won't make that mistake again.
Originally Posted By mawnck I'm not dissing the marksmanship (which was obviously amazing - three kills from one moving boat to another through a small window). I'm only commenting on the fortuitous circumstance under which it was utilized.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>All three of the pirates stood up in the lifeboat's back window at the same time, giving all three sharpshooters a clean shot. You can assume they won't make that mistake again.<< Those three won't, that's for sure.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad This is a clear victory for Obama in all senses. Although, had this been W giving orders to shoot to kill... Just sayin' Bottom line: I commend my president for doing the right thing.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad ^ ^ ^ Or at least for NOT doing the WRONG thing...which would have been to do nothing.
Originally Posted By mele <<Although, had this been W giving orders to shoot to kill...>> I wouldn't have had a problem with it. I don't so much care when idiots like this get shot.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<We have navies to deal with this problem and they are tackling it.>> From the article linked in the original post: "Gortney said the Alabama had reported being harassed by pirates the day before the pirates' successful attack on Wednesday. When the Alabama crew made the call, "our closest vessel from all the navies that were out there -- we have 16 navies that are patrolling those waters -- and the closest one was the USS Bainbridge, and it was over 300 nautical miles" away he said." <<Piracy affect about 0.15% of the world's shipping.>> Yes, the overwhelming majority of the world's waters are piracy-free. Hence, there is a very low overall world-wide percentage. Piracy is concentrated in a couple of areas, in which its occurence is fairly high. It makes sense to invest in arming or otherwise effectively protecting the ships that travel the high-risk areas. And by "fairly high," I mean that it happens even relatively infrequently. If the attack rate in pirate-infested waters is 1%, it is way too high. That means that if a ship travels those waters twice a month for four years, it is virtually assured of facing an attack. According to the OP's article, currently 200 sailors are being held hostage by pirates. We need to ramp up protections for ships that travel these waters.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Piracy is concentrated in a couple of areas >> The coast of Somalia and the other high-risk waters of the Horn of Africa cover a coastline that is larger than the entire coastline of the U.S. eastern seaboard, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes regions. Its nice to think this problem is "concentrated," but the area of concern is enormous. It is also one of the most underdeveloped regions of the world. Logistical sustainment of naval forces operating in this region is very difficult. << It makes sense to invest in arming or otherwise effectively protecting the ships that travel the high-risk areas. >> The sealanes in the Horn of Africa are at the crossroads of the world. There is an enormous amount of shipping that travels this area. You can't just arm ships in that vicinity without arming all merchant vessels since the odds are in favor of a vessel and its crew transiting that area at some point in the operational life of any particular ship or crew. Arming crews entails a cost of training and equipping that is not only expensive, but very difficult to manage. You can't just hand a merchant mariner a gun and expect them to use it effectively. They need to be trained on its use and periodically refreshed for proficiency. This training would have to happen ashore. You would also need to start screening merchant marine crews for criminal behavior and other factors that would prevent them from operating firearms. Arming crews of all these vessels is not a simple solution that is easily or cheaply implemented.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Arming crews entails a cost of training and equipping that is not only expensive, but very difficult to manage. You can't just hand a merchant mariner a gun and expect them to use it effectively. They need to be trained on its use and periodically refreshed for proficiency. This training would have to happen ashore. You would also need to start screening merchant marine crews for criminal behavior and other factors that would prevent them from operating firearms. Arming crews of all these vessels is not a simple solution that is easily or cheaply implemented.*** Good point. What about the equivalent of "air marshals" assigned to ships at random? It would seem a good investment to me, since the shipping companies are now becoming accustomed to paying out million zillion dollar ransoms every time this occurs. Wouldn't a few (certified) commandos on board be useful when the pirates come a knockin?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***or cheaply implemented*** Certainly things aren't "cheap" right now. Obviously these pirates are making out like bandits (or pirates lol) with their high end hauls and/or handsome ransom demands (which, I gather, are usually MET? by the shipping companies?). And how much money does it cost to deploy three U.S. Navy vessels to an area for an extended engagement with a lifeboat anyway? Who paid THAT check? Oh, right. Me. (and you. and all the other taxpayers) I hope they forwarded the bill to the shipping company in question (yeah..right).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And how much money does it cost to deploy three U.S. Navy vessels to an area for an extended engagement with a lifeboat anyway? >> Good point. I'd say the fuel costs alone for 3 ships is probably just shy of $1M a week. But it's also sort of a moot point. Those vessels were forward deployed and operating already. You were paying the bills for those ships operating regardless of any event that happened to be going on at the time. You might even argue that you got some bang for your buck out of this week's events since those ships that you were already paying for successfully accomplished an important mission.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, that's a fair way to look at it as well (and while we're on the subject, is the American military kick ass or what!? talk about handling a situation with absolute perfection!).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***talk about handling a situation with absolute perfection!*** And before anyone chimes in with "brokered solution" or whatever, let's not forget the criminals had DAYS to surrender and instead demanded 2 million bucks and safe passage...tough cookies, imho.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Although, had this been W giving orders to shoot to kill...>> If I might. On Easter Sunday while an innocent American was put in harms way what did the President do. He participated in an Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn. While our military was put in a potentially deadly situation, you were made to look a buffoon by talking to the Easter Bunny and not having your microphone work. While the seas ran red with the blood of Somalis on your orders sir, you read a simple children's book something akin to your intelligence level. I HAVE TO ASK. HAVE YOU NO SHAME SIR? HAVE YOU NO SHAME? TODAY YOU ARE THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD. Or something like that.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I wouldn't have had a problem with it. I don't so much care when idiots like this get shot.>>>
