I have to say that I would have thought that article complete bull too, except for an article I read a couple days ago in the May Scientific American. The main point of the article was about the possibility of famine overtaking much of the world and its effect even on the west. The problems were things like overfishing, soil depletion, global warming, conversion of food into fuel, you name it. In the process, there was a discussion of failed states and Somalia was the #1 example. Although the article was written long before the most recent hijacking, he knew about earlier ones and essentially described the hijackers as starving desparados. Affluent readers may and will disagree, but if I and my family were starving, I would do anything, just anything, to save us.
I don’t know about nuclear dumping, but I believe the part about overfishing.
Hatred for slavery, probably not; hatred for slavers, or at least those particular slavers almost certainly. I don’t see a bunch of ex-slave pirates as being the sort who are above personal revenge for being kidnapped and/or enslaved.
Well, yeah, but the slaves don’t get to become pirates until after the slave ship has been taken over and the slavers killed. So there’s nobody left for the ex-slave pirates to take their revenge on.
If the toxic/chemical/nuclear dumping were as widespread as indicated in the article, why would anyone want to eat the fish from those polluted waters?
So? I would do anything to save my family if we were starving, too. Does this mean that everyone else would have to hand over their food without a fight?
This is the point the writer of the article is missing. Even if everything he is saying is 100% correct, it doesn’t change the fact that the pirates are the “enemies of mankind” as goes the Latin saying that is now everywhere.
IOW, it is “OK” for starving people to do whatever they need to do to get some food and it is also “OK” for people being stolen from and kidnapped to go kill the starving people. Whoever is strongest wins.
What has become readily apparent to me in this modern era of warfare, is that more often than not, we are almost fighting ourselves. Think about it.
We still have a military that’s at least in part geared towards Cold War thinking, which means the ideal of mutually assured destruction assures massive armies/armor/artillery/airforce fighting conventionally (until one is too much backed into a corner, presumably).
But now, now, we have a completely different landscape to conflict. And our failures to adapt to it fast enough. I think that finally we are grasping what we are up against, which is more a war on religion or idealogy than it is on an army.
We are now fighting “terrorists” of every stripe, religion and idealogy, members of whom often wear no uniform, blend into the civilian populace and don’t share a nationalistic worldview of their host country (ies).
I am not certain what the solution is anymore, but it’s becoming more and more realistic that NOT trying to occupy/bomb/intimidate is an outcome that deserves some attention. I don’t know if diplomatically engaging groups/countries/whatever will work. But shouldn’t we try? So far our “shock and awe” campaign isn’t really going over swimmingly with the natives, and abjectly refusing to engage certain countries or entities in negotiations (like Iran) seems pretty silly.
I hope that we can start to change in a manner reflecting the honor, strength and courage the USA was built upon. And that doesn’t mean we’re a bunch of anti-gun pussies cowering in the corner, either. It means we innovate, try new things, don’t always resort to use of force, etcetera.
That’s assuming the slave/pirates are opposed to slavers in general, and not just the slavers who captured them, and too often in history we’ve seen people who were being oppressed object to their own specific oppression rather than oppression in general. A good case in point is that of the Maroons of Jamaica. The Maroons were a bunch of escaped slaves who fled to the interior of Jamaica and set up a society there. They held off British troops trying to capture them, and ultimately signed a peace treaty with the British that involved them capturing and returning escaped slaves to their masters. The Maroons also helped fight on the side of the British during the Baptist War (a slave uprising incited by abolitionist Baptist ministers) and the Morant Bay rebellion (a rebellion by the newly freed slaves protesting the discrimination against them)
Right. Obviously solving the problem of piracy shouldn’t involve thinking about pirates or taking the reasons for piracy into account. Just like terrorism - asking whether America might have committed certain acts in the past that fostered terrorism and might be committing certain acts now that foster terrorism in the future won’t help solve the problem; it’s just coddling the terrorists! Who cares why they do what they do? The important thing isn’t to prevent it, it’s to punish them! If preventing terrorism or piracy means we don’t get to punish existing terrorists and pirates, then it’s the wrong thing to do. We have to maintain our moral principles! Some things are wrong, and they deserve to be punished no matter the cost!
Good Lord, save us from THIS nonsense. The only way to deal with pirates, is to kill them, until there are no more pirates. Thomas Jefferson figured this out in 1804, not sure what your dilemma is.
It’s not really war at all, is it? I think the line is becomming blurred between fighting lawlessness, which is typically a law enforcement task, and defending our national interests, which is typically a diplomatic/military task. Do we need to evolve some hybrid kind of protection force? Is the U.S. capable of doing that if needed?
What part of my post do you disagree with? Like you said: kill, kill, kill. No point in thinking about why, just keep killing. Anything else would be weakness. It’s the only way!
Obviously solving the problem of abortion clinic bombers should involve thinking about the bombers and taking the reasons for blowing up abortion clinics into account. Just like terrorism - we should ask whether America might have committed certain acts in the past that fostered terrorism and abortion clinic bombing, and if we might be committing certain acts now that foster terrorism in the future, and more abortion clinic bombings. We have to figure out what the root causes are of abortion clinic bombings, and if need be, alter our policy in order to give in to their demands. The important thing is to prevent it, not to punish, or interdict them.
Obviously, much like we should reexamine our global policy because of terrorism, we should reexamine if we really need Roe V Wade in light of abortion clinic bombings.
If stopping and/or punishing abortion clinic bombers means we don’t get to understand them and compromise with them, then it’s the wrong thing to do. We have to sacrifice our moral principles in the face of threats of violence. Some things are wrong, and they deserve to be given in to if they’re supported with threats of physical violence.
