Thread: US drones hunting for Somali pirates

Originally Posted by Dug

What nonsense are you spouting here.
Do you hear yourself?
You seem to think the U.S. is patrolling the gulf of Aden and protecting all the other nations ships for them? American arrogance.
Nato has at least two ships in the area, probably more.
Countries that have ships there to patrol and police the pirates, South Korea, India, China, Britain, France. the U.S.
These are only the ones I am aware of. There may be more.

Yes, there are more. I never said we were the only ones, but of those that you listed the U.S. and China have the most invested. The American 5th fleet patrols those waters.

Originally Posted by mordred

Yes, there are more. I never said we were the only ones

You are not only a buffoon, but a lying buffoon:

Originally Posted by mordred

Why should the we put up all the resources and have the rest of the world benefit from more secure shipping lanes?

Originally Posted by mordred

There is no other country that is willing to do the job.

Originally Posted by mordred

This is another police action we're getting involved in and if we're going to be asked to guard the world we should get a bit of respect for doing so.

Originally Posted by mordred

Let them pay us for providing safe passage if they aren't going to do it for themselves so we can pay down our national debt.

Buffoon.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Panda

Surveillance is about all these drones will do.

International laws re piracy actually protect the pirates at the expense of their victims. As it stands a countries navy can not arrest or kill pirates attacking merchant ships from another country. So the whole exercise of having all these various countries navys out there patrolling the area is pretty well useless unles they just happen to be lucky and intervene in a hijacking of one of their own countries ships. Otherwise they have just got to let the hijackers go and ensure they have safe passage home or back to the mother ship.

Drones are certainly no protection except for surveillance purposes. All this talk about how they are "capable" of carrying missiles is really nothing more than some muscle flexing with no real teeth unless exceptional circumstances arise.

Wait and see

Would you care to expand on that rather cryptic comment there RPETER65?

Not sure why my comment would be cryptic, merely stating wait and see what they use the drones for, I guess saying I beleive your assesment to be a bit premature.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by mordred

Yes, there are more. I never said we were the only ones

You are not only a buffoon, but a lying buffoon:

Originally Posted by mordred

Why should the we put up all the resources and have the rest of the world benefit from more secure shipping lanes?

Originally Posted by mordred

There is no other country that is willing to do the job.

Originally Posted by mordred

This is another police action we're getting involved in and if we're going to be asked to guard the world we should get a bit of respect for doing so.

Originally Posted by mordred

Let them pay us for providing safe passage if they aren't going to do it for themselves so we can pay down our national debt.

Buffoon.

Brilliant!

Lets see if an apology is forthcoming.

Lots of different navy ships in the area now. Only problem is that they are not allowed to do anything to stop the pirates until they attack a ship. And by the time the navy boats get to them the pirates have got hostages. So its game set and match over in the pirates favour. The pirates have moved further afield out of Somali territorial waters in thier activities recently so even if they do get caught hijacking a ship on the high seas the navy has to let them go and ensure safe passage unless it happens to be the navy of the same country as the ship being hijacked. The international law of the sea actually protects the pirates in most cases. And thats where the UN falls down in its attempt to control Somali piracy.
Virtually all UN member nations are opposed to any agreement over riding current international law of the sea that allows foreign navies to interfere with other countries shipping. Which includes boarding foreign ships at sea and detaining their crew on suspicion of whatever (including piracy). Its a genie that no country wants to let out of the bottle otherwise it will end up as a cold war tactic between competing countries, and could well end up provoking wars.

If you recall, even a ship from North Korea suspected of carrying weapons to Burma couldn't be stopped at sea despite a UN Security Council ruling.
It seems to be a virtually sacred international law that all countries want to preserve, probably for their not always so noble reasons.

Why can't they simply bomb Somalia into oblivion?

It's not as if anyone's going to miss it.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Would you care to expand on that rather cryptic comment there RPETER65?

Not sure why my comment would be cryptic, merely stating wait and see what they use the drones for, I guess saying I believe your assessment to be a bit premature.[/quote]

Would you care to explain why you think my assessment is premature?
Anyone can join in this discussion you know.
I take it you are inferring these surveillance drones may end up firing missiles at pirates? Under the present situation that would be exceptionally unlikely. An armed drone would have to be within range when the pirates were in the process of attacking a US merchant ship.

Dont be afraid to come out and say what you are thinking here.

Originally Posted by Don Juan

Why can't they simply bomb Somalia into oblivion?

It's not as if anyone's going to miss it.

You are a Yank, no?

Originally Posted by Don Juan

Why can't they simply bomb Somalia into oblivion?

It's not as if anyone's going to miss it.

let me tell you a story ,

it's about aussie blowfly's

kill one and a million come to it's funeral

Originally Posted by mordred

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

Originally Posted by mordred

I think it best that the U.S. not get involved in policing the area. Let the rest of the international community take care of their own ships or get them involved in patrolling those waters. Why should the we put up all the resources and have the rest of the world benefit from more secure shipping lanes? They will just question our motivation and find a reason to bitch about it in the future.

THe comments of some folks even here in this thread would prove your attitude to be spot on. BUT, The US has the greatest resources and by Taking Part is behaving as a responsible world citizen. THe fuck-wits that scream about any and all so-called "American Transgressions" here would simply do the same if we were to sit back and wait it out. it really doesn't matter what the US does in this or any other situation, these folk will piss & moan about the U.S. no matter what action the U.S. takes, this rendering their opinion not worth the air it take to voice it.

I seem to remember early on in the discussion of the Somali Pirates some one asking "What is the U.S. doing in this?" While I am not in agreement with many aspects of U.S. foreign policy and believe there is MUCH room for criticism, those that criticize every international act (or lack thereof) do fuck-all for their own cause and are best ignored. The deployment of drones in this case is an excellent use of U.S. resources that is benefit to the international community.

At this point, rather than "authorizing military acts" (December, 2008 BTW) the UNSC needs to get off it's ass and organize a multinational force to occupy and pacify Somalia. The lack of governement or any semblance of order has become an international issue and threat to the security of any nation with international commercial need to use the shipping lanes in that region. The UN did the right thing by getting involved in Bosnia when this was clearly am internal problem and even classified a "civil war." It is time they picked up their shorts and went in here as well.

THe UN has become largely ineffectual as an international peacekeeping (read PO-lice) entity. Although they seem ery good at passng resolutions and many other entities within the UN have done much to further the cause of environmentalism, etc. They now tend to sit on their hands when decisive action is called for. This leaves the situation up to individual nations.

Sooner or later the need to invade and occupy Somalia in order to eliminate this threat to international trade and security is going to become unavoidable. The UN has simply "authorized" this action but done little to organize a multi-national force to do so.

SO. Who you want to go in there? The french? The English? The Ozzies? Rooskies? Chinese? Do the Mexicans have an army? The UNSC has become a weak-assed "Rainbow Coalition" unable to act but merely "authorize." Authorize, does this mean "get somebody else to do the dirty work?" So if hte U.S. sits this one out. WHO??

No namby-pamby fucking coalitions now as that is what the UNSC is and it has NOT ACTED, so name a country that is best suited to go in and stop this shit. I agree, the UN SHOULD ACT. but it HAS NOT.

I agree with you Frankie and my post was a bit of a jab at those who complain about everything the U.S. does. There is no other country that is willing to do the job. On the other hand, I'm not interested in my country going further into debt to protect ships owned by countries that sit by and wait for us to do something about the situation. We've enabled the rest of the world to look to us to solve problems and we're going broke as a result. We shouldn't take on the task of policing the world while endangering our future and the quality of life of our citizens. This is another police action we're getting involved in and if we're going to be asked to guard the world we should get a bit of respect for doing so. Let them pay us for providing safe passage if they aren't going to do it for themselves so we can pay down our national debt.

I do believe this is a more positive way to use our military force than killing a group of people stuck 500 years in the past.

There always a few bleeding heart Yanks crying foul when things are not going their way.
Fact is that USA has chosen to to be the worlds policeman by virtue of its massive military build up and geopolitical/military involvement in other countries around the world. A few disgruntled US patriots threatening to take their bat and ball and go home on some Internet forums ain't going to change US foreign policy.
US foreign policy in relation to military activity is foremost in American interests rather than solely humanitarian reasons.

Being the richest country in the world and the worlds only military superpower does endow USA with a certain degree of respect as well as a certain degree of responsibility in return for that respect.

As much as I disagree with some of the US foreign policy (and my own countries as well for that matter), I do believe that USA is probably the best of a bad bunch to have as the worlds ruling military power at the moment. If the USA was to downsize its military and skulk off home to hide behind its own borders, China or Russia would certainly move in to fill the military/financial void. And I would certainly rather have the Yanks, corrupt as their agendas are, to be the leading world power rather than the Russians or Chinese.

The Yanks are by far the pick of a bad bunch as far as world powers go at the moment, but that doesn't mean their excesses shouldn't be criticized by other people in the world.

^ Word

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Would you care to expand on that rather cryptic comment there RPETER65?

Not sure why my comment would be cryptic, merely stating wait and see what they use the drones for, I guess saying I believe your assessment to be a bit premature.

Would you care to explain why you think my assessment is premature?
Anyone can join in this discussion you know.
I take it you are inferring these surveillance drones may end up firing missiles at pirates? Under the present situation that would be exceptionally unlikely. An armed drone would have to be within range when the pirates were in the process of attacking a US merchant ship.

Dont be afraid to come out and say what you are thinking here.[/quote]


Not afraid at all, just don't like to waist my words.

The way I see it, just a matter of time until the right people get fed up with a bunch of punks costing millions of dollars damage to some pretty big players in the world, and takes out a mother ship or two to send a message.Why would they need to wait to catch them in the act, do they wait to catch terrorist in the act in Pakistan.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Germany, Russia . . . and the list goes on.

You can send a few boats in a show of "unity", but you can't compare the operating cost of one ship to several and claim equality.

Originally Posted by mordred

Originally Posted by panama hat

Germany, Russia . . . and the list goes on.

You can send a few boats in a show of "unity", but you can't compare the operating cost of one ship to several and claim equality.

You are a buffoon.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by mordred

Yes, there are more. I never said we were the only ones

You are not only a buffoon, but a lying buffoon:

Originally Posted by mordred

Why should the we put up all the resources and have the rest of the world benefit from more secure shipping lanes?

Originally Posted by mordred

There is no other country that is willing to do the job.

Originally Posted by mordred

This is another police action we're getting involved in and if we're going to be asked to guard the world we should get a bit of respect for doing so.

Originally Posted by mordred

Let them pay us for providing safe passage if they aren't going to do it for themselves so we can pay down our national debt.

Buffoon.

A lying buffoon who can't admit to having been in the wrong

Originally Posted by panama hat

You are a buffoon.

Originally Posted by panama hat

You are not only a buffoon, but a lying buffoon:

Originally Posted by panama hat

Buffoon.

Originally Posted by panama hat

^Word

Originally Posted by panama hat

A lying buffoon who can't admit to having been in the wrong

So this is how you get an impressive 7,600 posts...by adding nothing but insults to the conversation?

Originally Posted by mordred

Originally Posted by panama hat

^Word

So this is how you get an impressive 7,600 posts...by adding nothing but insults to the conversation?

Bloody hell! Was PH insulting me with that comment. I wondered what it meant.
He can be a bit of a sneaky bugger at times. Remind me to send him a red.

Originally Posted by mordred

So this is how you get an impressive 7,600 posts...by adding nothing but insults to the conversation?

Calling you a buffoon is more realistic and appropriate than the tripe you spew onto your keyboard

You are not only a lying buffoon but also a coward . . . care to take a stance on your claims.

Originally Posted by Panda

Bloody hell! Was PH insulting me with that comment. I wondered what it meant.

Red me and I'll call you 'word' again! It is considered a grave insult in some areas of Cornwall

I really couldn't care about your pretty little flags . . . and I'm not British so I care even less.

You started your diatribe by going on about how the US is the only one patrolling the waters and battling pirates, which shows that you don't read newspapers and possibly watch FOX to gather your 'news'.

You then go on to say that the US 5th fleet patrols that body of water anyway and that the world asks the US to be the. policeman.

You then go on to say that . . .



Whatever . . . you are a buffoon.

Killer US drones pursuing pirates off the Horn


The East African - Killer US drones pursuing pirates off the Horn




Rating

By KEVIN KELLEY (email the author)


Send Cancel


Posted Monday, November 9 2009 at 00:00

The Obama administration is escalating US military involvement in East Africa, with pilotless aircraft known as MQ-9 Reaper drones tracking suspected pirate ships in the Indian Ocean.

Officials of the US Africa Command (Africom) say the drones could also be used to hunt and attack Islamist militants inside Somalia.

But while the Reapers are capable of firing guided missiles and bombs, they have not yet been equipped with such weapons, Africom officials say.

A less powerful type of drone, known as the MQ-1 Predator, has repeatedly launched Hellfire missiles at targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the past three years.

And these attacks have become more frequent since President Obama took office last January, according to a recent study by the New America Foundation.

In less than 10 months, the Obama administration has carried out 41 drone strikes in Pakistan, compared with 34 for all of President Bush’s final full year in office, the think tank reports.

It estimates that civilians account for about 300 of the roughly 1,000 people killed in Pakistan as a result of drone attacks since 2006.

That death toll has drawn criticism from the United Nations’ special investigator of extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

Phillip Alston, who has investigated the post-election violence in Kenya as part of his UN mandate, warned last month in a report to the UN General Assembly’s human rights committee that the US drone strikes may be violating international law.

Mr Alston warned that if the Obama administration continues its policy of declining to explain its drone-targeting measures, “You have the really problematic bottom line — that is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a programme which is killing significant numbers of people, and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws.”

At the same time, however, the Obama administration appears to be taking precautions to avoid civilian casualties when it conducts air raids on Islamist militants inside Somalia.

US forces relied on weapons fired from helicopters in a mid-September attack in southern Somalia that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an al Qa’ida fugitive linked to the 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as well as to the 2002 attack on Paradise Hotel near Mombasa.

American military sources said the operation that killed Nabhan was carried out on a desert road with no civilians nearby.

The Bush administration, by contrast, had used remotely fired cruise missiles to hit targets in Somalia on at least five occasions.

Several civilians were reportedly killed in some of these strikes, stoking anti-American fury on the part of many Somalis.