I disagree with the idea that we aren’t doing anything right now. The Navy is trying to control the area to prevent other pirates from joining the fray, the FBI is on sight with a hostage negotiation team and I would imagine that a number of rescue senarios are being assembled. It’s not like we don’t have an arsenal of toys to play with and trained people to use them.
You would be amazed. I know I am. I have a small sailboat and any time a jerk in a small speedboat speeds by it makes waves that rock my boat like crazy. And the huge container ships can go by me and they barely make a wave. Those hull shapes have been optimized like you would not believe it. I believe bulbous bows make a huge difference. When you see those huge ships up close you understand the enormity of the masses involved and the energy and time needed to change anything.
Speak for yourself. Who said we don’t care? If we judge by the amount of huffing and puffing in this thread I do not believe that assertion stands. Saying we should probably be careful and tread lightly is not the same as not caring. Going in with guns blazing does not mean you care more, it probably means you care less about damage and consequences. Fools rush into places where angels fear to tread and all that.
As has already been said, this problem has existed for ages and many ships and crews from many countries have been hijacked in the past but Americans did not care in the least until it involved American interests.
That figures. Why read anything which probably does not support your position?
Your reading comprehension needs a tuneup. Everybody else has been able to understand that is exactly what I did not say.
Yes you are. You are denying my claims that America and Americans are more prone to use violence or suggest using violence to resolve problems than people of other countries. And the evidence is overwhelming that Americans and America will generally resort to violence much sooner than other advanced nations. And when evidence is presented you ignore it and play victim pretending we are “attacking America” rather than talking about something very objective and specific which may be true or not true but you cannot prove it is not true so you act offended saying we hate America and then say you refuse to continue the exchange. Of course you refuse to continue, because you have no way of showing the assertion is not true and you do not want to admit the evidence.
That’s just rich on so many levels because in this thread it is the cowboys who want to just go in shooting and kill everybody who are immune to reason and nuance. So, what do you think are the nuances we are missing? Why don’t you explain them? Or is this like Bush saying “just trust me, I know what I am doing”?
You obviously don’t. You are not even trying to defend any particular viewpoint except that nothing bad can be said about America, that those who say anything negative are America haters who should go away and that we should not talk about these things because you do not like to face them because they make you uncomfortable.
If being called a dog killer makes a person uncomfortable then the best way to get people to stop calling him dog killer is to stop killing dogs. But continuing to kill dogs and acting offended and changing the subject does not change the underlying truth of things.
I know its Easter but just get off the cross. Nope. Many Americans have openly condemned the bad things done by the American government and they seem to be able to defend their positions quite well. And they don’t hate America. I would say they love America the way it should be loved: wanting to make America the best place it can be.
You are in an indefensible position because you are defending indefensible actions, that’s why. Since you can’t defend them you act offended and say you don’t want to talk about it any more. Well, if you don’t want to defend your arguments then maybe you should have let things go by without comment.
There has been an international task force operation for quite some time now.
Just yesterday the Spanish frigate Numancia prevented pirates from boarding the ‘MSC Lucía’ by firing their guns, then pursuing them and capturing them. Link in Spanish
Just some days ago pirates picked on the wrong ship:
So, there has been a lot more going on than most Americans are aware of. Only now its an American ship.
You misunderstood what I said. I was referring to this specific event. American vessels are trying to stop pirates from joining up with those holding the Captain in question.
No, I was not contradicting you but complementing the information.
I understand that the logistics of “kicking ass” might not be so easy. Still, an attack on Americans anywhere is an attack on Americans everywhere, in my opinion. In the sense that any steps which can be read as capitulation will fund and incentivize further attacks.
The American navy is so strong, there must be something we can do. We were a lot weaker back in the days of the Barbary pirate problem.
I’m not an expert, but the idea of deploying Q Ships sounds pretty good to me.
**Sailor’**s link above references a pirate attack on a German warship that resulted in a chasedown where the pirates were eventually caught and boarded by a Greek ship, at which point they took their weapons.
What happened after that? Did they just let them go?
I think they should arrest these guys and sink their boats.
And if they do arrest pirates, how and where are they tried for their crimes?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/ap_on_re_af/piracy;_ylt=AueISHuFAhwhgSGeAsjHn68DW7oF
Just kill them all already. This is not cute like in the movies. There should be no happy 10+ million dollar ending for these guys. Just a warm then cold watery grave.
Hey, you wouldn’t happen to be American by any chance would you? 
Killing people who are your prisoners is a crime. Just saying.
Another one? Jesus these guys seem to be everywhere!
Heh… from your article:
But the New York Times reports that…
I’m happy that the Pirate Rescue Convoy decided to go home instead but chuckled at the pirate version of “Wee… umm… couldn’t find them.”
I’m not clever enough to be the first to think of this but what are the obvious issues I’m missing with trying to put a hole or two in the bottom of the lifeboat and scooping everyone out from the water? I mean, I realize that this wouldn’t make the pirates very happy but, at that point, shooting the captain and getting taken with blood on your hands by an angry US Navy wouldn’t seem very productive.
I was just wondering something similar. I was thinking that perhaps they could capsize the boat with a team of SEALS or a small submarine and catch them unawares? Grab the captain out of the water and capture the pirates?
I was also wondering about just shooting a hole in the lifeboat, but FoieGrasIsEvil’s suggestion sounds better.
I think this is a waiting game where the hijackers will finally have to give in. They will start to get tired, hungry and thirsty and at that point sooner or later they will just give in. That is one thing in favor of treating people who surrender fairly: it makes surrender an attractive alternative. If they know their fate is torture or death then they would rather go down fighting and taking with them as many as they can.
At any rate it seems the Bainbridge lost a precious opportunity to intervene when the captain jumped in the water. What a boo boo.
Seems like they got another American crewed ship now.
Sorry, the news item seems to have change since I saw it earlier. The crew seems to be 10 Italian, and 6 apparently not important enough to be mentioned. It is US owned and Italian flagged it seems. This naval business seems complicated.
I don’t think that the Bainbridge had any time to do anything since they are apparently maintaining a few hundred yard distance from the lifeboat (one of the articles mentions that this distance is being kept to keep Bainbridge safe from small arms fire, but I doubt the pirates are going to go that route) and at that distance, there wasn’t much they could do.
It sounded like the Maersk captain jumped in the water and was almost immediately recaptured when the pirates started shooting their AK’s at him as he tried to swim away. He probably just stopped swimming and went back to the boat as he saw that the pirates would shoot him before he could get far enough away.
Aside from being a completely asinine suggestion, how would you prevent one entity from paying another?
I’m not sure, but you may find this article interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/world/italian-ban-on-paying-kidnappers-stirs-anger.html