Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: shield

The Navy is now saying that they acted because “the Captain’s life was in imminent danger”. That to me sounds like they are dotting the “i” if you will with regard to restrictive rules of engagement, i.e. You may only engage the pirates if the Captain is in imminent danger.


7 posted on 04/12/2009 1:40:24 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SampleMan

That says it all. Their hands were tied. The captian forced their hand against the absurd restrictions put in place by the Forever *sshole.


13 posted on 04/12/2009 1:44:05 PM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: SampleMan

AP reported that 0 “approved the rescue”. Then they updated the article just now to say he approved the use of force “twice” - once on Fri. and on Sat.

So... did he ‘un’approve the use of military force in between?

Confusing enough?


20 posted on 04/12/2009 1:50:50 PM PDT by drierice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: SampleMan

sure, you jump overboard, they shoot at the fleeing captain, his life is in danger from the Mogs...The Navy took them out

About damn time, I swear I have no clue how this could have gone on so long


22 posted on 04/12/2009 1:51:16 PM PDT by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson