America must be removed from the "Islamic World."

[Warren Dew]

It's the best system ever devised by mankind. That's just a simple fact. If everyone followed it, as originally designed, things would be much more peaceful worldwide.

Unfortunately, it seems somewhat unstable, as originally designed. There's a tension between "majority rules" and "individual rights" that in a democracy tends to result in the gradual but inevitable erosion of the latter.

[Warren Dew]

As well as stronger action against the pirate ships, it may well be valuable to attack their bases, but in a very precise and targetted way that minimises civilian casualties.

The pirates themselves are civilians, as are those in their entire support infrastructure. By definition, if you go after them, you're going after civilians.

Possibly some attacks on ports could be useful, but I think with modern satellite tracking techniques, a gloves off approach to destroying pirate vessels would be sufficient. Their speedboats could be taken out pretty easily with Apache miniguns if we weren't overly concerned with taking the pirates themselves alive.

I'm unconvinced about the value of a formal "coalition" of countries. There are already forces from many navies patrolling the area and they are cooperating informally, but requiring them to go through a bureaucratic international chain of command would likely doom operations against nimble pirate vessels.

Action against the "mother ships" might require a bit of coordination with the nation that was the flag nation of the ship before it was pirated.

[pErvinalia]

But I expect them to not only openly repudiate those aspects of Islam, I expect them to participate in the extirpation of those aspects, and those who engage in violence to further those aspects, from the face of the earth. After all, "peaceful" Muslims constantly plead their case and say that they aren't radical and that we should be able to coexist peacefully, and yet only on the rarest of occasions do any "peaceful" Muslims, or "peaceful" Muslim religious authorities openly and harshly criticize and repudiate the radical Muslims who are sowing terror and death across the planet.

As if you'd know whether they did or not, living in FoxNewsVille.

Utter and complete nonsense. I'm willing to bet we have more news sources than you folks do. You're in Australia, right?

Define "news"!

Define the word "define."

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Then why'd you bring it up?

It's SeEth we are talking about here.

Then there wasn't a reason to make ignorant statements about things you plainly know nothing about.

He's admitted that Fox News is his primary "news" ( ) source.

Fox News is one of dozens of available television news sources, there hundreds of available AM, FM and Satellite radio stations available, internet radio and news websites by the hundreds, and in any major metropolitan area, dozens of print newspaper sources, dozens of print magazine news sources.

What most people complain about Fox News is not the news programs but the commentary programs. Glenn Beck is not, for example, a "news" source. He's a commentator with no pretense at fact-only news reporting. He is an opinion man. Many such persons exist on the various cable news channels, and they come from all political perspectives.

Why are you telling me all this? Tell SeEth.

[pErvinalia]

It's not as simple as that. I am not anti-American as such; I still value the American alliance with Oz, for example. However, people from the US need to listen to the pronouncements of their leaders (including Obama) about world events, listening as if they were non-Americans. There is a level of arrogance which may not be perceived from within...

There is likewise a level of arrogance that thinks that being non-American means one thinks about the world in a less insular way than Americans. Are Canberra residents better at imagining themselves as non-Australians?

Given that a large portion of them have been overseas, YES.

[pErvinalia]

On the other hand, American "exceptionalism" is a national belief, and not one that is unjustified.

Quoted for posterity.

I have no real problem with my government telling socialists and dictators that they are wrong and evil,

Huh? According to you your government ARE Socialists! This is all a bit confusing Seth.

and I have no problem with our advocating of US-style republicanism. It's the best system ever devised by mankind. That's just a simple fact.

No wonder they kicked you off ratskep, if that's what you think a "fact" is.

[Ian]

The lack of an actual government in Somalia and the size of the area of the seas over which the pirates operate are among the problems. That said, if the U.S. Navy were given a free hand, the pirates' range could be curtailed by sinking their mother ships. The issue seems to be that Obama insists on a law enforcement response rather than a military response. Remember that SEAL sniper from last year? He'd been there for days waiting to shoot, but wasn't allowed to by the FBI until his target pointed a gun at a captive.

Incorrect.
There were four pirates and one US captive. One of the pirates was onboard the nearby destroyer trying to negotiate the hostage's release. Meanwhile, several SEAL snipers watched the covered lifeboat from topside on the destroyer. There was a brief moment when all three remaining pirates were visible at the same time. All three went down at once, and the fourth guy was taken into custody.

[Warren Dew]

Incorrect.

My description is absolutely correct. The SEALs were not allowed to shoot until one of the pirates pointed a weapon at the hostage because of the law enforcement style rules of engagement requiring "imminent danger" to the hostage. See for example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/ns ... ws-africa/

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Phillips, 53, was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed because a pirate on the lifeboat held an AK-47 assault rifle to the back of his head.

Why do you think the Navy sources emphasized the words "imminent danger" in all the quotes found in the news reports? They wanted to make sure Obama had no excuse to court martial them for violation of the rules of engagement. They played it well, too - Obama had no choice but to congratulate them in public, even though my SEAL sources say he was privately seething about the fact that violence was used to resolve the situation.

[Ian]

Incorrect.

My description is absolutely correct. The SEALs were not allowed to shoot until one of the pirates pointed a weapon at the hostage because of the law enforcement style rules of engagement requiring "imminent danger" to the hostage. See for example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/ns ... ws-africa/

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Phillips, 53, was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed because a pirate on the lifeboat held an AK-47 assault rifle to the back of his head.

Why do you think the Navy sources emphasized the words "imminent danger" in all the quotes found in the news reports? They wanted to make sure Obama had no excuse to court martial them for violation of the rules of engagement. They played it well, too - Obama had no choice but to congratulate them, even though my SEAL sources say he was privately seething about the fact that violence was used to resolve the situation.

Sorry, you're still incorect. Capt. Phillips was in "imminent danger" from the moment those pirates seized his ship. Maybe Obama would've preferred a peaceful resoultion, but that's beside the fact. While a peaceful resolution was being discussed, the snipers took the first available shot.

And how would I know the details of the incident anyway? Because I was the guy who stood up at a podium and briefed the details to the CO of the Office of Naval Intelligence the next morning. And my sources did not include MSNBC.

[Seth]

Along those lines, I cannot understand why we haven't gone in and wiped out the viper's nest of pirates in Somalia like we did in Tripoli way back when. Now THAT'S worthy of committing our Airborne and Marines to, to rescue American citizens from savages. Then carpet-bomb the whole area whenever our satellites see someone trying to set up again. Fucking cowardice on the part of the President I suppose. An international interdiction zone off Somalia that simply sinks any vessel that's not under positive identification and control of military forces is what's needed as well. See 'em, shoot 'em, sink 'em and forget 'em.

The lack of an actual government in Somalia and the size of the area of the seas over which the pirates operate are among the problems. That said, if the U.S. Navy were given a free hand, the pirates' range could be curtailed by sinking their mother ships. The issue seems to be that Obama insists on a law enforcement response rather than a military response. Remember that SEAL sniper from last year? He'd been there for days waiting to shoot, but wasn't allowed to by the FBI until his target pointed a gun at a captive.

There were TWO SEAL snipers, and they held fire till the situation deteriorated and they had a shot. But I agree that the situation involved way too much arm-chair quarterbacking from Washington. This is thanks to our communications capability and the lack of trust in our military officers. Used to be that the captain of a US military vessel was vested with the authority to summarily deal with pirates and hang them from a yardarm.

Sadly, I hear that the four hostages on the yacht were all killed before the SEALs could save them. Last report I had was that the pirates fired an RPG at a ship and the SEALs attacked and ended up in a knife fight with one of the pirates inside the yacht, but all four Americans were dead already.

This SHOULD be the trigger for a night-time invasion of the pirate's nest.

I agree that there should be much tougher action on the pirates, although it would be better if it were done by a coalition of countries rather than the US acting alone. However, let's not go OTT with absurdities such as carpet bombing. As well as stronger action against the pirate ships, it may well be valuable to attack their bases, but in a very precise and targetted way that minimises civilian casualties.

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

[Seth]

Incorrect.

My description is absolutely correct. The SEALs were not allowed to shoot until one of the pirates pointed a weapon at the hostage because of the law enforcement style rules of engagement requiring "imminent danger" to the hostage. See for example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/ns ... ws-africa/

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Phillips, 53, was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed because a pirate on the lifeboat held an AK-47 assault rifle to the back of his head.

Why do you think the Navy sources emphasized the words "imminent danger" in all the quotes found in the news reports? They wanted to make sure Obama had no excuse to court martial them for violation of the rules of engagement. They played it well, too - Obama had no choice but to congratulate them, even though my SEAL sources say he was privately seething about the fact that violence was used to resolve the situation.

Sorry, you're still incorect. Capt. Phillips was in "imminent danger" from the moment those pirates seized his ship. Maybe Obama would've preferred a peaceful resoultion, but that's beside the fact. While a peaceful resolution was being discussed, the snipers took the first available shot.

And how would I know the details of the incident anyway? Because I was the guy who stood up at a podium and briefed the details to the CO of the Office of Naval Intelligence the next morning. And my sources did not include MSNBC.

Bravo!

[Warren Dew]

Capt. Phillips was in "imminent danger" from the moment those pirates seized his ship. Maybe Obama would've preferred a peaceful resoultion, but that's beside the fact.

When the Commander in Chief says to resolve the situation without violence, it's pretty clear he doesn't agree that there's already reason to shoot.

And how would I know the details of the incident anyway? Because I was the guy who stood up at a podium and briefed the details to the CO of the Office of Naval Intelligence the next morning. And my sources did not include MSNBC.

Evidently your sources didn't include the actual snipers, either. Or maybe you just heard what you wanted to hear.

[Gawd]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

[Feck]

Um I think if the Merkins want hostages rescued they had better contract out the work to somebody who knows how to do that .Recent history suggests that your life as a hostage is going to be significantly shorter if a rescue by Merkins is attempted either from the middle east or Somalia . Were I to be taken hostage in the Indian ocean I would pray it was on a South Korean ship .

[Ian]

Capt. Phillips was in "imminent danger" from the moment those pirates seized his ship. Maybe Obama would've preferred a peaceful resoultion, but that's beside the fact.

When the Commander in Chief says to resolve the situation without violence, it's pretty clear he doesn't agree that there's already reason to shoot.

And how would I know the details of the incident anyway? Because I was the guy who stood up at a podium and briefed the details to the CO of the Office of Naval Intelligence the next morning. And my sources did not include MSNBC.

Evidently your sources didn't include the actual snipers, either. Or maybe you just heard what you wanted to hear.

I think you only heard what you wanted to hear. A peaceful bargain would've been great, in fact preferential, but the snipers nevertheless had the go-ahead (provided there was a good opportunity) from the moment they had the range. They couldn't have fired otherwise, and they wouldn't have been spending much time lying on the deck of a ship staring through sniper scopes waiting for the perfect shot if they weren't able to take it when it came up. End of story.

Are we really on different pages here? I think we might be discussing the same thing from different angles.

[Feck]

If you take hostages and you end up in the cross hairs of a highly trained sniper then you end up dead . Peaceful resolutions may well be a possibility but If they have the shot then they should take it .