Navy Seals, OMGBBQFTW

[Dean]

The president did immediately respond to the situation and he discussed it in at least 3 speeches I saw on CNBC, but the prime time media was more focused on the family, crew and animations.

I agree the world should be patrolling off their coast, but what is a fishing boat one minute becomes a pirate ship the next. They aren't a bunch of Black Pearls flying the Jolly Roger floating around to sink. I blame the French since this happened to them last...

Remember, it was not the Navy's ship, and this is not the territorial waters of the U.S.A.. Everything I was hearing basically came down to the shipping/insurance company lawyers were in charge. By international law, the president and Navy had no authority over the Maersk Alabama or her lifeboat except in the event of imminent loss of the captain's life.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened on the sea, or in the conference rooms. The lawyers will make sure of that.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Well, the reason we haven't attacked them on land yet is because no one wants to send troops back into Somalia. We all remember what a clusterfuck it was the last time we tried that.

I'd also guess that the main reason this saga went on for 5 days is that.. it could. Those guys were trapped in a lifeboat with no power and a limited amount of food, surrounded by Navy warships. The most prudent thing to do was just let them sweat until they made a mistake, which is what they did, and promptly got their heads blown off.

I doubt that any cruise ships will be jacked, simply because they're harder targets. They are relatively fast and their lowest exposed deck is high off the water. Tankers and container ships ride very low in the water when loaded, and are very slow. Pirates are predators, and follow predator behavior patterns. There is no good reason for them to expend extra effort trying to board a cruise ship when there are 20 fat, juicy container ships in the same area that are far easier targets.

[Dean]

I was also thinking that instead of arming the ships, no matter how much I like Scott's idea, it wouldn't be that hard to put automated water canons on the sides of the ship. You can't board a ship if you are being hit by a 3" stream of water in the face or body.

[Kevin M]

The terrorist comment was based on methods, not motives. Taking hostages used to be a pretty standard page from the terrorist playbook.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by Dean

I was also thinking that instead of arming the ships, no matter how much I like Scott's idea, it wouldn't be that hard to put automated water canons on the sides of the ship. You can't board a ship if you are being hit by a 3" stream of water in the face or body.

I think the ships should have doors that fall down and guys on jet skis fly out with machine guns and missile launchers. Dirt will also be very valuable in this scenario.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think the ships should have doors that fall down and guys on jet skis fly out with machine guns and missile launchers. Dirt will also be very valuable in this scenario.

The mental imagery is killing me..

[sperry]

I think the US has a pretty good case that when our citizens are being put at risk, we have the right to defend them without concerning ourselves with the lawyers of the owners of the ships. But it's not the 17 year old kids w/ AKs in motorboats that we should be killing. Those kids are only pirates because it pays better than doing something else in Somalia. The US needs to go after the war lords that are running the show. I think we'd be totally justified in throwing salvos of Tomahawks into the pirate's basecamps.

But there's a problem. The US has a big PR issue with the rest of the world due to the Iraq war. We have a reputation of taking unjust unilateral action, and since Obama's trying to repair the damage Bush did, he simply can't act unilaterally in other nation's borders, even in cases where it's totally justified. We're simply going to have to follow the slow channels of multinational action... go to the UN, get a coalition taskforce together, etc. And in the meantime, there are going to be more ships hijacked, more people killed, and more drama.

[GusGus91]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think the ships should have doors that fall down and guys on jet skis fly out with machine guns and missile launchers. Dirt will also be very valuable in this scenario.

isn't that from a movie? Haha

[TrueNative]

Originally Posted by GusGus91

isn't that from a movie? Haha

That works, or.... "Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"

[ScottyS]

"SMOKERS!!!!"

[Libila]

Originally Posted by sperry

But there's a problem. The US has a big PR issue with the rest of the world due to the Iraq war. We have a reputation of taking unjust unilateral action, and since Obama's trying to repair the damage Bush did, he simply can't act unilaterally in other nation's borders, even in cases where it's totally justified. We're simply going to have to follow the slow channels of multinational action... go to the UN, get a coalition taskforce together, etc. And in the meantime, there are going to be more ships hijacked, more people killed, and more drama.

I'm glad someone finally pointed this out.

Yes, it would be great if we had the bodies and resources to go Pirate hunting but in all reality we have much larger problems to deal with. I think President Obama is doing the right thing by trying to refresh the world's view of the US because let's face it, we aren't World Police. Taking any further action in to such a small problem, on open seas none the less, would be counterintuitive in every sense of the word.