I beg to differ.
fyi
Jefferson had a solution..
Not with FUBO in charge ...
Fewer pirates on land mean fewer pirates at sea ... destroy their bases, sink their boats and kill them onshore.
The navy can do a lot to prevent future pirate attacks.
They just need the order, and a commander with some grit.
“The president called for an international effort, but he offered no specifics on how to address the problem.”
Translation: 0bama admits he is completely over his head on this problem.
The solution is simple, let US Flagged ships arm themselves.
That alone will make attempts at piracy drop to 0 against US Ships.
Obama got past this one with the help of the Navy. He needed that in order to ramp up his approval as he sells Obammunism to the people.
Look out people. His design is to destroy America and gain more world power.
So you are saying that you don't want to end the piracy but just want to maintain it at it's current level?
Defense officials say it's a crime perpetuated over a vast area that even the 16 navies patrolling at the time of Phillips' capture couldn't stop; his ship was 300 miles offshore.
I suppose this is where the headline came from? What they mean is that the Navy WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to stop future attacks.
Hire mercenaries.
Solution offered by a 20-something college student I was talking to at a bar a couple days ago. What can you say to that?
Is that what the Navy says or is that what the Navy was told to say?
Because, out here in fly over country where we are bled white with taxes,we think we ought to get a little more bang for our buck than to have the ‘Navy’ (a recipient of our hard earned taxes) tell us they can't defend themselves on the high seas!!!! What???!!! The most sophisticated MOFO Navy on earth can't defend itself? Am I supposed to believe that?????
If the Navy can't defend itself with all the high tech gadgetry we have, then I have to suspect that they were TOLD not to defend themselves!!!!!
White House aides spoke Monday of an interagency group to continue looking at the issue of pirates and of a desire for international cooperation . . .
In other words, they won't do anything but talk and build up the bureaucracy.
Actually, putting an end to piracy would involve going into the pirate centers in Somalia and killing them. That doesn't seem advisable right now, especially since the nations who are the chief victims of piracy refuse to do anything to help. But we could put an end to MOST of it simply by sinking all their ships and boats, which shouldn't take more than a week or so. Then, I suppose, we could do it again next month after they buy more boats--which no doubt the victim countries will happily sell them.
But they won't: a) because they don't want to; b) because they don't want to offend their leftist supporters; and c) because they don't want to offend the "international community," whatever that is. Finally, of course, Obama likes Black African Muslims a lot better than he likes white Europeans or East Asians.
Jimmy Carter’s Navy said there was little that could be done to keep the Gulf of Sidra open to U.S. Naval maneuvers and safe for international shipping when Qaddafi extended Libyan waters against our protest.
Ronald Reagan’s Navy felt a little different.
Regan made it clear that American maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra would proceed as they always had before. Anticipating trouble, Reagan was asked by the Joint Chiefs what American Navy pilots do if attacked? Would Reagan’s orders allow for “hot pursuit”? Reagan’s answer – “All the way into the hanger.” You know the rest of the story.
I beg to differ.
How hard is it to install twin .50s on these ships?
Back to the age of the whining, panty-waisted, liberal
government telling us we are all too helpless to help ourselves.
The ultimate solution is Somali nation building.
Every time you shoot a pirate in the head, an angel gets his wings. Way to go, Clarence.
And every time you shoot a pirate in the head, there’s once less POS making trouble in the world.
Why is blasting the motherships outta the water a non-starter....?