Somalian pirates capture US ship

Users who are viewing this thread

Albino

Master Knight
Discuss.

I think the pirates ****ed in the long run, with the US navy and all. The captain of the ship, who knows how to deal with pirates,is well prepared enough for this kind of ****, too. It seems like the pirates finally took this a little to far.
 
Poor guys, resorting to the fun crime of piracy to feed their wives and children because the country is effectively in anarchy and warlords are fighting each other.
 
I'm trying to resist the urge to report you for talk of piracy right now, just to see how the admins take it...

But yeah, pretty interesting stuff.
 
Archonsod said:
US versus Somalia rematch?

The last time we faced pirates, we kicked their ass, while the French, and even the mighty British, just payed em off. I guess the Barbary states are back with a vengeance now, I suppose. Which is kinda cool. Kinda liked the idea of a pirate/bandit state.  :twisted:

Yarr! *curves finger into a hook*

 
Course, it probably cost you more money in the longrun to first off find Somalia, next send a fleet there. Not to mention the lasting bitterness which could easily spark more conflicts.

Way to go!
 
Elenmmare said:
Course, it probably cost you more money in the longrun to first off find Somalia, next send a fleet there. Not to mention the lasting bitterness which could easily spark more conflicts.

Way to go!

Bah, we'll just make it a quicky. Like the whole Spanish-American war thing, except even quicker. Probably won't even bother with the whole reform thing this time. Everyone seemed to hate us for that, so we'll leave that whole thing in the capable hands *snicker* of the U.N. Then everyone can hate them instead!  :grin:
 
Really not much of a match.

They chose to board the wrong nation's ship. Already they got ****ed up and the crew retook the ship, now all thats going on is a couple pirates floating around with the captain in a raft, with US ships circling around.
 
It's a shame the U.S. decided to invade Iraq instead of invading Somalia to install some form of a working government and quell the warlords. That nation really needs some industries, especially the fisherman.
 
Swadius said:
It's a shame the U.S. decided to invade Iraq instead of invading Somalia to install some form of a working government and quell the warlords. That nation really needs some industries, especially the fisherman.

I thought we tried that before, and it didn't work so well? Could be wrong, but there are too many warlords and the like to oppose anyone who is actually fit for the job. Somalia is now just another hellhole of the earth, just like Afghanistan.
 
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Swadius said:
It's a shame the U.S. decided to invade Iraq instead of invading Somalia to install some form of a working government and quell the warlords. That nation really needs some industries, especially the fisherman.

I thought we tried that before, and it didn't work so well?

Yes, it was U.N. effort, U.S. troops were dragged through the street of the capital after their helicopter was shot down. The U.N. as customary decided to leave at that point. Someone should have hired Executive Outcomes instead, at least they can manage a country relatively well as an occupying force.

Could be wrong, but there are too many warlords and the like to oppose anyone who is actually fit for the job. Somalia is now just another hellhole of the earth, just like Afghanistan.

Afghanistan does have hope of reverting back into the Republic it once was without the bastard who organized the coup. Attempts to build other nations generally don't go very well if it doesn't have any background in what's proposedly being built. Japan and Germany had the democratic structures necessary for post-war development. They actually have a some what working government back then before the Soviet decided to invade. The Shahs before the coup weren't all that bad either, at least compared to other dictators; you'd also have to pardon the assassinations of the royal family. It generally didn't affect everyday life all that much, as far as I know.
The civil war was what really tore it apart after the invasion.
Somalia is on the coast, any place where it has a sea route tend to have an advantage over the ones that are inland and have no sea ports. It's proximity to the Arabian peninsula could help it's prosperity if got its act together.
 
Elenmmare said:
Course, it probably cost you more money in the longrun to first off find Somalia, next send a fleet there. Not to mention the lasting bitterness which could easily spark more conflicts.

Way to go!

No, ignoring piracy would cost more in the long run. It's best to stop things before they get out of hand, I think.
 
Swadius said:
Yes, it was U.N. effort, U.S. troops were dragged through the street of the capital after their helicopter was shot down. The U.N. as customary decided to leave at that point. Someone should have hired Executive Outcomes instead, at least they can manage a country relatively well as an occupying force.

Yeah thats way off the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

 
ealabor said:
Swadius said:
Yes, it was U.N. effort, U.S. troops were dragged through the street of the capital after their helicopter was shot down. The U.N. as customary decided to leave at that point. Someone should have hired Executive Outcomes instead, at least they can manage a country relatively well as an occupying force.

Yeah thats way off the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Wow, my history instructor really represented that differently.
 
Bellum said:
Swadius said:
It would probably have cost even less to fix the problem before the pirating even started.

No use arguing that point now.

Euhm... why? Look, killing people's fathers, making them martyrs, doesn't stop piracy. Giving someone a job and a purpose, however, does.
 
Back
Top Bottom