I was in no way implying that we or anyone else should actually carry out such craziness. I was ruminating aloud and mentioned it as one potential outcome and that’s all. Apologies to **Mighty Girl **if I was less than clear.
Also, no, I don’t think that there is an easy, 30 minute solution to this. I never said that. I said that with the combined efforts of the parties involved, that there must be *some *kind of solution.
The French have rescued some hostages from a French yacht that had been hijacked by Somalian pirates, resulting in the death of an hostage. Apparently they stormed the yacht.
I think that the only long-term solution is improving the lives of Somalis. It would have to get worse for anyone to get off their collective asses and implement any type of concerted solution. As it is, everyone just puts off with the “minor” inconvenience because it’s cheaper and doesn’t require any type of consensus.
I hope that the powers that be decide to do something about Somalia before it gets to the point where armed retaliation is necessary. That will not benefit anyone.
I saw that Obama was asked about this situation and he declined to answer the question. Smart guy. Whatever he says will piss off a bunch of people under the current circumstances. He probably knows that there’s no solution that doesn’t require a commitment of soldiers and money. And if he says he’s going after the hijackers he risks the captain’s life, if he says he’s not, somebody will accuse of “appeasement” or some other such nonsense.
Yeah. I’m sure that even if Obama had answered the question he would have had to keep his wording pretty vague.
I also agree that improving the lives of Somalians is the long-term solution. The prospect of a US troop presence in Somalia is pretty unnerving though, given the outcome of our last incursion there.
I find it ironic that the Maersk Alabama was a ship bound for another African country in need (was it Kenya?), loaded with food aid.
It obviously isn’t a solution to the overall problem, but is there any reason why, in this specific hostage situation, we can’t just say “the boat is surrounded; release the captain and be arrested, or we sink the ship and reimburse Maersk?”
Kill the captain by sinking the ship? That’s better than paying a ransom? What dollar value his life worth in your mind?
I think I am not following you. What exactly would this solve? Because I can tell you it would create a load of problems. How does this resolve anything? Apart from the satisfaction American get from blowing things up?
Why do you keep repeating this as if there aren’t any Americans that don’t like blowing things up, or killing people? Or as if there aren’t many many other nations filled with people that do like those things?
I don’t understand this. You realize that the captain isn’t on his ship, right? He and the pirates are on a lifeboat. Why would you sink the ship at this point?
Look at the responses in this thread. I could be wrong but from my point of view Americans are much more inclined to use violence to resolve issues. Whether it is their love for firearms, their nationalism, their pro-military attitude, America’s military spending, the use of the death penalty, it all shows Americans like to resort to violence more often and sooner than people in other developed countries. When America resorts to violence and European allies express any reserve about the wisdom of it we have to hear Americans calling us cowards. Because for those Americans the only reason one would not resort to violence or support a friend who does would be cowardice. Americans as a whole support the use of violence and those who don’t are shouted down and called cowards if not America haters and terrorist lovers. Because there is no other explanation.
I can think of no European government which would so easily and readily resort to violence. Russians or Chinese would think nothing of assaulting a building full of hostages just to make the point that they have no qualms about using violence. European governments would do that only as a very last resort. America in that regard is closer the Russia and China.
And please spare me the “not every American is like that” lecture which I get every time. Please read this post of mine.
I wonder if there’s a chance they could coordinate some snipers on the US warship and kill the bad guys with a sychronized set of shots?
Probably get at least as many of the other hostages held by pirates killed for your trouble.
Well, there’s only one hostage, the captain. I don’t know how many pirates there are in the lifeboat, but if they present an opportunity by seperating themselves far enough away from the captain, there might be a chance, although a few things just occured to me:
One is that being on the ocean is going to affect a sniper’s ability to shoot accurately due to the movement of the ship they’re on.
Another is that we don’t know how far away from the lifeboat the American warships (about to be three now) are.
Lastly, if you try it and miss, the captain’s likely dead as any surviving pirate(s) would probably kill him.
It was just a thought. What a strange situation. The captain’s ship is continuing on it’s voyage to Mombassa without him, meanwhile he’s being held captive on a small lifeboat 350 miles from land surrounded by warships that are trying to negotiate with the pirates. And I just read that the American warships are monitoring communication lines and are reporting that other pirates are using vessels to try to locate the lifeboat.
I wonder what will happen when/if other fellow pirates show up on the scene in seperate boats. I think it’s unlikely that the warships will fire on them, because the pirates in the lifeboat are probably going to use the captain’s life as a means of escaping on another boat.
Somalian pirates hold dozens of other hostages, on several ships, besides this one captain. If the word gets out that 4 pirates were killed, I’d not want to be one of those hostages.
I suppose there’s that, too, but at the end of the day, you can only really deal with one situation at a time, no?
And look at what the French just did…stormed a pirated yacht, killed the pirates and rescued three of the four hostages. Unfortunately one of the hostages also was killed.
Very touchy situation, this.
What changes if pirates are killed?
Possible retaliation against the other hostages, or even this captain in the event of a failed rescue?
My understanding is that the lifeboat the pirates & captain are in is covered. So I doubt there’s a clean line of sight for one pirate, much less four.
Ah, didn’t think of that. I suppose that eliminates that option.
Still, I think I would be in favor of catching or killing hijackers if it can be done without direct and immediate threat to any hostages.
The captain being held managed to jump in the water and tried to get away. If the military could have taken out the boat with the hijackers at that point I would have gone for it. Unfortunately the grabbed the captain and pulled him aboard. (I have no idea what he thought he was doing. I can’t believe he seriously thought he could swim away. Maybe he thought that would be the opportunity for the naval ship to take out the kidnappers.)
I do not think the other hijackers who are holding a bunch of ships and people would have any interest in turning this into a shooting war because they know they cannot come out on top so I think killing one group would not lead to the others becoming violent. They would want to complete their deals just as before I would think.