SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Somali Piracy - what is the answer?? Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-12-2011 05:38 PM
VetMike I would agree with Dog that nothing will change until Somalia has a stable government. However, that is very unlikely to happen soon. We went into Mogadishu and look what happened. Moreover, the pirates are holding something like 600 prisoners who would be killed if anyone tried to rescue them or attacked the pirates where they live. We could certainly begin attacking any ship in the area with guns on board and even stopping suspicious ships but that would guarantee the deaths of the hostages currently held and any that may be taken in the future. I do not think the world would stand for that.
03-12-2011 12:44 PM
GNWFast Minnewaska,
You are absolutely correct about the national commitment necessary to achive the original goal. It has worked in the past and would work in the future. This goal would need the George S. Patton type of committment, not current form of the " let me take a poll and call Wall St to get permission " kind of committment. Not since before Korea have we had leaders with the right stuff.
I just sayin'.

It's better to have and not need ... than to need and not have
03-12-2011 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by robotopdx View Post
Invasion and occupation has worked so well for us recently...
This is my point. In many ways it has. However, to pull it off completely, it will take a very very long time.

If you don't have that kind of commitment, don't go. But that doesn't mean, it wouldn't work.
03-12-2011 12:03 PM
GNWFast MarkofSeaLife,
You couldnt be more correct in your grasp of what should be obvious to all.
I am reminded of a time not so long ago, where an country in the interior of Africa was was being run by warlords and the combatants were using machettes and sharpened car leaf springs to kill and mame each other because neither side had enough modern weapons to go around.
The combatants were raping and killing everyone that came before them.
Somolia is no different. All of the indigenious Afircan peoples are tribal and very few have moved into the 21st Century.
If they are capable of those horrors upon their own peoples and race, what possible scenario could anyone else imagine that they would treated any different, more than likely probably worse.
The people who have been in charge of our great country since the Korean debacle have turned our foreign policy into the neighborhood bully syndrome. I wish it weren't true, but history paints a better picture of the real truth.
We as a nation need to stay out of other peoples business and quit subsidizing terrorism by supporting the flavor of the month dictator.
I could be wrong, and well, it's just my opinion of how things are these days.

It's better to have and not need ... than to need and not have
03-12-2011 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by robotopdx View Post
Invasion and occupation has worked so well for us recently...
Yeah, its funny people have such a knowledge of history

At least they could get Blackhawk Down from the video store and realise that if it wasn't such a monumental SNAFU if would have been blindingly funny:

43 killed
153 wounded
1 killed
3 wounded
1 killed
1 killed
All those people died just trying to deliver FOOD to a starving population.

Unified Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

03-12-2011 10:43 AM
Originally Posted by ArcherBowman View Post
First - establish a policy of paying no ransoms under any circumstances. If you pay for something, you get more of it. This will reduce the motivation.

Second - give captured pirates drumhead courts-martial aboard naval vessels and hang those who are convicted immediately.

Third - burn their bases ashore.

Forth - invade and occupy Somalia, and install a functioning government.
Invasion and occupation has worked so well for us recently...
03-12-2011 10:34 AM
Originally Posted by dhays View Post

It isn't a lawless zone. If a military vessel captures suspected pirates, where is the appropriate jurisdiction for bringing them to trial?
I'm not sure. People have been prosecuted in a number of countires: USA and Denmark, but mainly Kenya. But the Kenyans wanted to stop having to be the prosecutors but were pleaded with by the West and have started up again. So I thinks its got something to do with countries local to the incidents; the origin of the navy's involved; and the country of origin of the pirates.
More like the country with the ability to bring the charges.

Someone else should know.

Originally Posted by dhays View Post
If a private vessel defends itself in international waters, is it subject to the laws of the country in which it is flagged?
I don't think the flagged country, normally. I thought it was the next country you stop at you need to report incidents and they are ment to investigate.
Certanly the laws of a flagged country can't be exclusivly held as that would be called extraterritoriality it would need to be international law.

I sure as hell wouldn't be reporting I shot 6 pirates when docking in Djabouti, Sudan or Egypt. You wouldn't be hear from again!

Originally Posted by dhays View Post

Would arming commercial vessels (or putting military units on board) provide enough deterrence over time?
As I understand it commercial vessels can't carry weapons because too many ports refuse them entry. A cargo ship has to be able to go anywhere. So none have guns.

Maybe someone on here is a lawyer with international law experience? Just give us 3 minutes of your time and send your $10,000 bill to!

03-12-2011 10:11 AM
GNWFast Minnewaska,
Heckler & Koch G3A.
Remember, what ever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Where ever your Vegas may be.

It's better to have and not need ... than to need and not have
03-12-2011 09:58 AM
GNWFast dhays,
Good point about the legalities of international waters, and the question of lawlessness in those waters.
I would also be interested in the finer points of the laws that appearantly cannot be enforced by the Nations of the World, or not.
While those laws are obviously unenforceable doesn't that make it incumbent upon us to seek coucil with our peers and take the appropriate actions to protect ourselves from the human hyenas that seek to do us wrong?
My personal answer is, Most Definitely.
I would defend me and mine with extreme prejudice until the threat was neutralized.
All lawlessness should be treated as such.
I maintain situal awareness at all times when sailing. That rule applies to all aspects of my life, some times more than others.

It's better to have and not need ... than to need and not have
03-12-2011 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by GNWFast View Post
Yeah that givin' it back thing was tough. There are a number of links that a good search engine will get you to the place you seek. type in m.... gu...
Truthfully, not all that practical for me anymore. While I'm sure the weapon performs the same as always, I'm getting too old for it.

Though, it does remind of the song.... I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.....
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome