The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Dug

[quote=Panda;1220932]The ethics and legality of using such a weapon against Civilians and using them against pirates are completely different wouldn't you agree.
So why does it follow that a discussion of the use of these weapons against pirates would include discussion of their use against civilians?
It doesn't.
In fact I don't know what you're even getting at. Are you suggesting that because drones have been used (unintentionally) against women and children they shouldn't be used against pirates.
It would then follow that any weapons that have hurt women or children should not be used, which would be a lot.
I'm all for using whatever weapons are available against the pirates.

__________________
CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

StrontiumDog

Something needs to be done about the pirates, that boat of theirs can go underwater! And their captain is immortal. As for the Kraken....

I say well done the yanks. Not sure how you kill an immortal with a drone plane thingy, but it's good to see someone doing something about it.

__________________
Eat plutonium death, mutant scum...

Panda

[quote=Dug;1220958]Some strange reasoning there.
Are you on medication for your problem?

Dug

[quote=Panda;1220991]It's your reasoning that's in doubt.
Why would there be an issue with using Drones against pirates if they've been used against women and Children.
yes? what's the conection? why 'of course?Why?
It may be unethical and illegal to use them against women and children, does that mean it is unethical and illegal to use them against pirates? to use them at all?
What is your point? Why 'of course' would there be any such discussion at all about the weopons?

friscofrankie

Actually, as a poster here he has every right to offer his opinion on the value of your posts.

Don't be so arrogant, your coment does not make the whole of the discussion.

hmmm, no mention of military acts at sea though... Surely a simple ommission by the W.P. reporter?
These drones are a cost effective and efficient deterrent they can srat in the air much longer and more of them can be deployed with out the need for the infrastructureof a fighter group. Here, again, a few folks have got their anti-American knickers in a twist where there is no justification.

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.

__________________
For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication.

insanity...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

friscofrankie

Can you discuss an issue without making lame personal attacks?

Panda

The voice of reason, and coming from someone who never makes personal attacks himself of course.

I will try to be better behaved in future for you Frankie.

friscofrankie

Discussion of issues at hand and the trolling actions of posters are a different kettle of fish. You've done nothgn in this so-called discussion but rabble rouse, repeat anti-American rhetoric (OK, I guess, and to be expected) and make personal attacks.

There is a time and place for all things, you as an adult should understand this. Too bad you do not.
Well thank you for that. It is most appreciated.

BTW, you have anything to add to the discussion of the UN's role in this international fiasco? An on-subject point you did bring up.

Panda

I wouldn't gloat over the UN resolutions too much there Frankie. The resolutions have no real teeth and all they do is authorize international military to enter Somali territorial waters and/or land in an attempt to contain the piracy. The navies still cant round up the pirates on the high seas or in Somali waters. All they can do is intervene when they see an act of piracy in progress.

Here's an example of what I am saying, --

"On Wednesday morning pirates were reportedly foiled after attempting to attack a Chinese-owned ship in the Gulf of Aden - a day after three other vessels were seized.
The Chinese crew held off the pirates long enough for back-up to arrive, AFP news agency reported.
"Military helicopters came and they managed to chase the pirates away," Noel Choong, of the International Maritime Bureau, told AFP.
'Calculated jab' The BBC's Peter Greste in Nairobi says the latest attacks appear to be a calculated jab at UN attempts to clamp down on piracy."
BBC NEWS | Africa | UN approves piracy land pursuit

Here's a link to the toothless UN resolution you are referring to,--
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9344.doc.htm

BTW, I take on board your comments quoted below and understand that it is simply a form of paternal advice from a mod rather than any attempt to provoke an argument here in order to get me jailed.

" You've done nothgn in this so-called discussion but rabble rouse, repeat anti-American rhetoric (OK, I guess, and to be expected) and make personal attacks."

Your opinion, as always, is valued appropriately. Thanks Frankie.

friscofrankie

Actually part the point I was making. (please note the sarcastic comment abot the WP reported forgetting to mention the "at sea" bit) The UN has done fuck all. But I think we can agree there is a real need for some kind of action to protect not only international commerce but private citizens as well. My gloatig was merely gloatig over the uselessness of the UNSC in this matter and for my moeny it is EXACTLY the kind of thing the UN Security Council should be sticking it's nose. in.

The Piracy off the Somalia coast is of a higher concern to most nations other than the U.S. on the planet. It is not profitable to have a ship registered under the U.S. flag and the bulk of merchant seaman are not U.S. citizens anymore. SO. If not the UN; WHO?





Gotta love that "value appropriately" bit
although you could consider it that it is not. Fuck all that modly shit.I'm just a guy that has been posting on the forum since it started . I've always enjoyed the banter and freedom with which we can discuss most current events without some censor/schoolmarm peeking in and giving reprimands. One of the things about TD has always been a bit of self moderation or moderation by consensus of the pack (not always, but nothng's perfect). Of late the place has become a fucking zoo, perhaps I am over-sensitized to it.

Rural Surin

Ah....but the secret is that the U.S. has always had a military presence in Africa. Just another surface extension of the worldwide military empire.

Rural Surin

Doesn't matter the label. Most buy into it. Drones....part of the broader metaphore of this story.

baldrick

Two Worlds of a Drone Pilot

was also a good wired article , but I cannot find it with a quick search

Rural Surin

Pirates? Privateers? Swashbuckling Buccaneers? As are the reflective courses of history, one has to ask: Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

Dug

^No one doesn't.

friscofrankie

And what the fuck is that crap supposed to mean? People are being kidnapped, shipping lanes are not safe for commerce, cruising or transportation and you come up with this comment? I've attacked others in this very thread for personal attacks, how can I then tell you you shouljd not comment? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TO CURTAIL THE PIRACY? have anything of value to adde otehr than some lame-brained rhetoric? I mean seriously, calling your somment s rhetoric is a braod leap in trying to attach any legitimacy I'm tryin' REAl fucking hard to be nice here.

people are being held against their will, fortunes are being held for ransome. THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS has gone up = the end consumer is getting fucked. People even die. and all you can say is... ".part of the broader metaphore of this story" what the fuck are you talking about? What the Fuck does that mean? seriously, Needs an explanation.

The bad gys are the ones taking what doesn't belong to them and holding it for ransom. The bad guys are teh ones stealing the bad guys are teh ones holding innocnt civilian yachtsmen for ransom. Ny god man just dont even post you are an idiot. (excuse me Pnady, But it's true!)

Ther is never a more clear cut case of right and wrong in all of history. Ther is never a more clear cut need for the UNSC to step up ad take an iniative thanexists today withe the 18year old anarchy tha is Somalia. For one I'd liek to see France, the UK or some other country to tell teh UN to go fuck themselves walk in and take over teh fucking country., God forbid the US takes on anoteh POS "war" the "international community" (i.e. teh UN) has been sitting on its collective hands while this shit goes on. and on. and on. Fuck the at sea pirates. Cut their support options to none. These pirates need fuel, supplies a palce to stow their booty Tae that away and they wither and die. Cover them from the air so they cannot move (drones are good for that! hey!) These are not some fairy tale swashbuckling heros. These fucking scum bags are simply road agents f the seas taking advantage ofa weak fuking international community situtation.

IF the UNSC cannot rally a force to deal with these international criminals then they should be disbanded, the UN accepted as a failure dismantled and an individual nation should step up and starting from the interior, proceed to cut some fucking pirate throat (figuratively speaking).

Aft several years of this shit the UN has proved themselves to be a Lame fucking joke nd unnecessary. waste of time. The Un headquaters in NYC would be best used to house the homeless and the seat of "Power" for the un best moved to some obscure African shithlole nation and given a fuckng hut to ork out of.

My country tis of thee, willeventually act unilaterally and kill off this problem and Rghtfully so. One has to wonder what this worthless waste of time could have done to prevent the Iraqi conflict. Just think, If teh UNSC had been a tad bit stronger the weakness ofthe UNSC is amazing I cannot see how it still survives.

panama hat

I don't believe that is accurate, Panda. Recent examples would show otherwise, I think.
Added to that the Straits of Melaka are patrolled by local navies that protect all nations' ships.

Did you take your red, white and blue blindfold off to write this tripe?

As usual some uninformed half-wits would lead us to think that the US is the only country to undertake, or be involved in, international peace-keeping or patrolling efforts . . .

So . . .

The US goes it alone: The US is the world's policemen. Ra-ra-ra

Other nations do so: The US is the world's policeman. Ra-ra-ra


Get stuffed, mate

RPETER65

Wait and see

Panda

I cant recall any instances where navies have arrested or killed pirates attacking a ship on the high seas that was not of their own nationality. Things may have changed however.

Territorial waters are a different matter to international laws that govern the high seas. As you point out in the Melakan Straight local navies have the right to arrest who they like in their own territorial waters if they deem they are committing a crime under their countries jurisdiction.

The UN Security Council resolution was at the request of the Somali government and allows international navies to act on behalf of the Somali government ONLY in Somali territorial waters. I believe the laws governing the high seas still remain as such is the reason the pirates have moved thier opperations further out to sea and outside of Somali territorial waters where they are protected.

Below is an extract of discussion prior to the vote on the UN resolution 1816/2008

"
Speaking prior to action on the draft, Indonesia’s representative emphasized the need for the draft to be consistent with international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to avoid creating a basis for customary international law for the repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Actions envisaged in the resolution should only apply to the territorial waters of Somalia, based upon that country’s prior consent. The resolution addressed solely the specific situation off the coast of Somalia, as requested by the Government.

Speaking after the vote, Viet Nam’s representative said the resolution should not be interpreted as allowing any actions in the maritime areas other than Somalia’s or under conditions contrary to international law and the Law of the Sea Convention.

The representative of Libya said he had voted in favour of the draft on the understanding that the resolution related only to acts of piracy in the maritime areas under jurisdiction of Somalia.

South Africa’s representative said that it was necessary to be clear that it was the situation in Somalia that constituted a threat to international peace and security and not sea piracy in itself. Furthermore, the resolution must respect the Law of the Sea Convention, which remained the basis for cooperation among States on the issue of piracy. The Council should not lose focus on the larger situation in the country, most importantly the need to address the political, security and humanitarian situation on the ground.

China’s representative said that the Council’s actions should facilitate international assistance in combating piracy and avoid negative consequences. Such assistance should be based on the wishes of the Government and be applied only to the territorial waters of Somalia. It must comply with the Law of the Sea Convention and must not constitute conflict with existing international legislation. The resolution adopted today responded to those requirements to the greatest extent possible"

Panda

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