BF2S Forums Yarr matey, we be vowing vengeance for this belligerent act!

Bomb the pirate ports? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've heard.

The pirates are operating out of legal fishing ports. There is no pirate base.

By all means increase your naval presence, and baby sit cargo ships if you want. It'd be much easier to simply arm the cargo vessels crew. But they won't do that because it increase travel time since they must go through customs and weapon smuggling searches.

Seriously, bomb Somalia's ports? It's not like the US navy has anything better to do. lol

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Bomb the pirate ports? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've heard.

The pirates are operating out of legal fishing ports. There is no pirate base.

Well maybe the law-abiding citizens of Somalia should help stop this piracy from occurring if they don't want to lose their fishing ports.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll throw all their economic might behind the situation, omg it is Somalia...

The reason you've got pirates is because the country is so badly in poverty.

I just think bombing the ports which are used by fisherman and many other people for a legal and law abiding living shouldn't be held to account due to the actions of so called "pirates" when the pirates don't have a base of operation.

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I just think bombing the ports which are used by fisherman and many other people for a legal and law abiding living shouldn't be held to account due to the actions of so called "pirates" when the pirates don't have a base of operation.

What do you mean so called "pirates"? You said do nothing when they took hostages. I'm not surprised that you suggested a weak approach after the rescue as well. I don't know if bombing the ports is the correct action, although it's hard for me to believe that the armed and militant aren't in complete control of those ports. I would hope that there is some intel available to validate any action. Sinking their vessels or physically going in and taking them, no matter what the size, may be whats needed.

Setting up an International port authority might be an option although probably very dangerous. These kidnappers/hijackers have vowed revenge for not letting them extort us.

Find me the post where said do nothing when the pirates took hostages. Go on. I did no such thing. Usmarine posted out of the three scenarios:

A)  send their skinny asses back to the stone age, B)  do some stupid clinton-like mission and accomplish nothing, C)  do nothing

I said of those three

C) Makes the most sense. It's the ships crew who choose not to bring weapons with them, because it delays a journey because they have to pass more thorough inspections by anti-arms trafficking regulations, etc.

And that was not in relation to what should happen during the hostage situation, it was in relation to the next step. Which should be arming supply ships crew members so they can defend themselves.

Do you really think babysitting oil tankers and bombing raids on Somalia's ports is appropriate action for the US military and navy?

The crew of these ships should be better supplied, something which they can do themselves.

AussieReaper wrote:

Bomb the pirate ports? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've heard.

The pirates are operating out of legal fishing ports. There is no pirate base.

No, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

How can a port be considered legal if it allows pirates to freely use it



Bomb the ports, bomb them to hell. Somalia is a shithole with or without ports it doesn't make a difference to the non-Pirates

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I just think bombing the ports which are used by fisherman and many other people for a legal and law abiding living shouldn't be held to account due to the actions of so called "pirates" when the pirates don't have a base of operation.

What do you mean so called "pirates"? You said do nothing when they took hostages. I'm not surprised that you suggested a weak approach after the rescue as well. I don't know if bombing the ports is the correct action, although it's hard for me to believe that the armed and militant aren't in complete control of those ports. I would hope that there is some intel available to validate any action. Sinking their vessels or physically going in and taking them, no matter what the size, may be whats needed.

Setting up an International port authority might be an option although probably very dangerous. These kidnappers/hijackers have vowed revenge for not letting them extort us.

Find me the post where said do nothing when the pirates took hostages. Go on. I did no such thing. Usmarine posted out of the three scenarios:

A)  send their skinny asses back to the stone age, B)  do some stupid clinton-like mission and accomplish nothing, C)  do nothing

I said of those three

C) Makes the most sense. It's the ships crew who choose not to bring weapons with them, because it delays a journey because they have to pass more thorough inspections by anti-arms trafficking regulations, etc.

And that was not in relation to what should happen during the hostage situation, it was in relation to the next step. Which should be arming supply ships crew members so they can defend themselves.

Do you really think babysitting oil tankers and bombing raids on Somalia's ports is appropriate action for the US military and navy?

The crew of these ships should be better supplied, something which they can do themselves.

Simply arming the untrained will only ensure more shootouts. The hopes of hijacking needs to be decimated not escalated.

I did not say that was the right action. What I said was that we need intel in order to justify the appropriate actions. In fact I specifically said I do not know if that is the right action. I think it's funny that scoff at babysitting escorting ships through dangerous international waters. I mean seriously wtf is it to you? Is the big bad US navy presence in international waters as a response to an unprovoked attack to much for you to handle? Pussyfooting around is exactly why these PIRATES are encouraged.

Tackling something like this is so much easier than tackling terrorists on land. It's not like there's tons and tons of Somali boat traffic in which the pirates can hide in, no they're pretty much out in the open, the very very big open, and that requires big ships, and big ships are easy to find with modern technology (hell even small ships are), and even if they aren't, they have to dock somewhere from time to time, and they can't just dock anywhere

Tackling the pirate problem would be nothing like trying to tackle terrorists and insurgents and guerrillas on land

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-13 10:49:50)

Snake wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

How can a port be considered legal if it allows pirates to freely use it

How can you be so sure that the authorities at the ports in question do NOT know that they have pirates operating out of them? Do we even know which ports are being used??
Who's to say that pirate groups aren't, shock horror, launching from beaches and coves and then landing back there too?

Bombing them wont help, if anything, it will further it. The only way to stop it, is to arm the crews and provide more security. If theres a risk of retaliation, most people will back off. I guess it depends if they are suicidal or not, in which case, they can get shot off of the side and become shark bait.

I'd have faith in the intelligence community to find the correct targets, wherever and whatever they may be, and then attack them. Like I said, it surely wouldn't be that hard. It wouldn't be as complicated as it would be for the Insurgents etc.. in Iraqi/stan.  I'm no expert, but I'd say fighting these pirates would be much more conventional than other conflicts and thus a much easier jobs for the forces if they actually wanted to tackle the problem properly.

Snake wrote:

Intelligence like we had to invade Iraq with?

Boy that's going to be milked for decades. It's as if all intelligence (actually designed to prevent collateral) will forever be null and void. The irony of course being that the failures in Iraq have indeed caused more scrutiny in the intelligence gathering community.

bring it

Meh, sounds like the pirates are just butt-hurt that some sailors kicked their asses.

Three amazing shots.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/afric … breakdown/

When the pirates first boarded their vessel, a tussle ensued, during which one of the crewmen stabbed the pirate in the hand. Four days later, the pirate's departure from the lifeboat to accept U.S. medical help -- and try to negotiate the captive's release -- left only three for the U.S. snipers to keep their eyes on.

The three were "tired," Gortney said. "The sea state was picking up. They agreed for us to tow them into little better waters as the ship was bouncing around. It was very tense."

The pirates had repeatedly threatened to kill Phillips, Gortney said.

A Navy SEAL team had parachuted in and taken up positions on the Bainbridge's back deck.

The military had orders from President Obama authorizing lethal force if there was imminent danger.

They were bouncing around quite a bit.