What bullshit.

Seriously.

Ok, somebody did something bad to them, thus their activities are justified?

Perhaps they should form a government, have a navy, and be something other than corrupt lazy tribal idiots.

The British dealt with Mediterranean pirates the right way, back in the day: warned them, then shelled their cities and made them suffer.

The way to deal with pirates is to kill (most of) them. Make them understand that if they want easy money, it will likely cost them their life. Thus they should do what others do: be corrupt lazy dirt poor dope smoking muslims, instead of STEALING by force.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that this justifies their ongoing depredations, only that it would seem to have been the genesis of them.

How can you be certain it's the genesis of them? Why not their civil war? Why not the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Why not the slave trade?

Please explain how it's the genesis of them, and not their excuse. Or are you so used to accepting these types of excuses from our enemies that you just buy that whole line of thinking without even questioning it, because you've been fed a load of shit by the mass media for so many years that you've just given in. You probably believe bin Laden had a legitimate excuse to attack us too, dont ya?

Y'know, I'm just going to let the argument rest. I just re-read it, and logically speaking, you ain't looking too hot:



I refer you to the precedent set in the case of Chicken v. Egg.

"I refer you to the precedent set in the case of Chicken v. Egg."

Yeah, other countries have NEVER gone from being a tribe to being a nation, have they? POOR SOMALIA, LET'S SEND THEM FREE MONEY, THAT WILL SOLVE ALL THEIR PROBLEMS.

I'm sorry, I missed the part wherein I advocated giving them money. I did imply that perhaps there was more to the story than just "piracy", even though I will readily concede that once they realized how easy it was to get westerners to cough up money, that is what it has now become.

I missed the part where you backed up your circular argument.

Only because you're the one bending it into a circle.

I'm simply pointing out, yet again, that there's really no pressing navigational need to run that close to Somalia. You could take the more easterly route down the right-hand side of Madagascar if you needed to round the Cape, and if you're hitting the Suez, you don't need to go there at all. So why all that traffic?

"there's really no pressing navigational need to run that close to Somalia."

Oh, what a brilliant statement. The pirates aren't the problem, the ships traveling through international waters are the problem, I mean shit, why don't they break thru the ice of the arctic instead and go past the north pole? What, it would cost more money? Well then, there you have it, the ship owners are guilty of trying to save money by following international law. Shame on them.

Boy, it's all just A/B with you, isn't it?

See, here's the thing: if you're a businessman, and sailing close to Somalia is costing you more money on account of the lost cargo, slipped deadlines, and ransoms you're having to pay, wouldn't you just sail a little bit further out? Even 100 nautical miles or so further out would be a world of difference in terms of the capabilities of these pirates, but a drop in the bucket for a major merchant marine operator.

Unless the coast of Somalia was specifically on your list of places to be, that is. And then the question becomes "Why?" because it's not like Somalia is presently a center of civilized commerce.

You keep trying to reframe the argument around the notion that I'm taking the pirates' side to the extent that I'm saying their depredations are totally justified. I am not; the ends do not justify the means, regardless of their initial motivations, as they are now indiscriminately preying on all classes of ship. I am simply pointing out what any kid in America knows: you stir the hornets' nest, you risk being stung.

To put it in terms you'll understand: why should our tax dollars be going to bolster our Naval presence in that particular region, when it's the damned-fool fault of any ship operator that draws close enough to be preyed upon? It's not like we're talking about the Barbary Pirates back in the 1800's, where they were sitting astride an unavoidable shipping lane.

"if you're a businessman, and sailing close to Somalia is costing you more money on account of the lost cargo, slipped deadlines, and ransoms you're having to pay, wouldn't you just sail a little bit further out?"

Oh, so it's that simple? Spend lots of money and time going the long way, even though the pirates are striking farther and farther out thus it probably won't help.

How about this approach: If you're a business man, you complain to the government that you must raise prices, decrease salaries, and spend more on insurance because of f'n pirates. Then the government does their job by killing lots of pirates.

"Even 100 nautical miles or so further out would be a world of difference in terms of the capabilities of these pirates, but a drop in the bucket for a major merchant marine operator."

I disagree. The pirates are striking farther out, are based from 'mother ships', and will go where the money is. Plus the horn of africa must be navigated anyhow.

"I am simply pointing out what any kid in America knows: you stir the hornets' nest, you risk being stung."

Any dumb ass spoiled liberal american, perhaps. But a good true Bush supporting conservative would ask 'why the hell is the hornets nest here in the first place? And why the hell are we tolerating it?" then they'd kill the nest, and thus the hornets, and if they got stung once or twice by doing so, so be it. It would happen on their terms, since the confrontation happened on their terms. They wouldn't be afraid of a few hornets because they're not pussies.

"why should our tax dollars be going to bolster our Naval presence in that particular region"

Because american ships are getting hijacked, duh! Our tax dollars should kick their ass, and make them fear the american flag. We should achieve a situation where other ships fly the american flag because they pirates will avoid them like the plague. We should bomb the homes of the pirates, sink their ships at their docks, and make a good example out of them.

"It's not like we're talking about the Barbary Pirates back in the 1800's"

You obviously failed to learn anything from that lesson of history, which doesn't surprise me. The pirates were paid off by pussy europeans, which encouraged them more, then america went over there and kicked their ass, then no more barbary pirates. What lesson did you take away from that episode of history? That violence doesn't solve problems?

You're an idiot.

OK, so you can read a map well enough to realize they're sailing around Africa the long way anyway; yet you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that, you know, with the planet being a sphere and all, that the route is basically just as long sailing more easterly of Madagascar than straight down the African coast?

As to bombing the hell out of them....maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure American national interests are served in a situation where a token course correction could solve the problem. Once those pirates aren't making a profit by their activities, their activities will cease, yes? (Unless, that is, ships have some ulterior motive for being in those lawless waters, as I've repeatedly noted.)

I'd certainly argue that we've got bigger fish to fry right now, and a couple cruise missiles may or may not have the effect you desire. I also remember what happened the last time we put boots-on-ground there, so hopefully we don't do as Bush did (and Clinton was foolish enough to continue doing) and try to fight it as a bushfire war. Kick the tires, light the fires, drop the ordnance, and go on our merry way....

Now, as to the Barbary Pirates...might want to re-re-read your history. We did indeed pay tribute, for a good decade, before we managed to cobble together enough of a navy to whip their asses. "The shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps hymn refers to that very action. We also lost the frigate Philadelphia, and had to ransom the crew and its officers back. But, again, there's a world of difference between the Barbary Coast situation, where the pirates were basically operating on an oversized lake, and this situation, where there's literally an entire ocean of open water to work with.

Do try again, idiot.

"you know, with the planet being a sphere and all, that the route is basically just as long sailing more easterly of Madagascar than straight down the African coast?"

Well then, PROBLEM SOLVED! The captains of the worlds' merchant marines are all fools, they never realized the god given solution that prophet Ender has been blessed with.

"I'm not sure American national interests are served in a situation where a token course correction could solve the problem"

Did I advocate a 'token' action? No. I advocated a good long drawn out war of attrition where we bleed them dry. I'd like to invest a decade into mopping up this scum.

"before we managed to cobble together enough of a navy to whip their asses"

So our forefathers didn't even have the ability to whoop ass, but decided to do so, whereas people like you have the ability buy decide not. I'm sure they're proud of ya! I'm sure they're against Bush too, eh?

I will cite a post from your article:

" #8 posted by Anonymous, April 15, 2009 11:52 PM

@Takuan; How is it not all their fault? My country could dissolve into anarchy too, but it doesn't because the people don't let it. We elect and empower leaders to create and enforce just laws and maintain order. A culture that lets warlords (gangs) kill and squabble endlessly over the ruins needs to take a hard look at itself before blaming the developed world for why piracy is rampant.
There is simply no honest justification for the violent abduction, murder and extortion of innocents. If the pirates used their rockets and guns to assert real law and order, I suspect the developed world would become far more sympathetic, and would offer incredible aid if the Somalians just made the effort. We should all hope the pirates don't annoy the Americans too much - history teaches us that lawless thuggery combined with boisterous ranting always seems to attract a huge American military overreaction. Also; piracy was the reason they first built their first-rate navy. Stop poking the beehive, you idiots. "

This app isn't perfect, because it is aviation-oriented, but the overall logic holds: [link]

The aerial great-circle route to the east of Madagascar is only a couple hundred overall miles greater than the straight-up-the-coast Great Circle. Add a couple hundred more miles on account of the fact that we're dealing with oceanic travel, and you've got maybe an extra half-day of travel time. Chump change in the greater scheme.

Oh, and another ship was jumped the other day: [link]

(I used the itinerary of the Nele Maersk to make that comparison; I'm assuming the Maersk Alabama was following a similar course.)

Once again, you've missed the part where we paid them tribute for a decade or so before we were powerful enough to say "No." And, yet again, that was a trading route that we literally couldn't afford to not be a part of, encompassing as it did nearly the whole of continental Europe. This is much different.

More facts with some more rough math: Container ships, fully laden, do about 25 knots, which is about 28mph. The aforementioned "perfect" aerial great circle from Port Elizabeth, South Africa, to Masqat, Oman is 3951 miles, the aerial great circle routing around Madagascar was 4099. So, spotting 400 nautical miles for the difference between aerial and sea travel, we're looking at 14 additional hours' travel time.

Obviously, this math is not perfect. But I do think it close enough to prove the point: millions of dollars in potential losses from pirates, or thousands of dollars in extra fuel to run the extra distance. Hell, most of that fuel savings is probably already answered for by those ships going to maximum speed near the Somali coast. (Ships, like cars, don't get best fuel economy at their top rated speeds.)

That's so impressive. I'm truly wowed! But I seemed to have overlooked somwhere.

Please point out in your math where it shows that being cowardly and repeating the mistakes of history is the best path to follow?

You know? If we just stayed inside our homes and didn't go out at all, except a roundabout way to work and back, then we'd be so much safer! spending lots of money on courts and prisons etc just isn't the right answer.

I'm not seeing where effectively ignoring some insignificant gnats represents a failure to learn the lessons of history. These pirates ain't exactly Adolf Hitler; they're not going to invade Czechoslovakia if we don't bomb them into the Stone Age right now.

I guess I'd just rather save the millions/billions of dollars, and American servicemens' lives, in the short term at the very least. Longer term, another option might be required, but again, I think this problem solves itself if you deny the pirates the easy money that comes from hijacking these ships. (And while we're at it, if we also removed their grievances, that might help as well, or at least leave them without a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion.)

In short, I just don't see where this is worth that kind of investment, just because. We're not talking about all of OUR society falling apart; we're talking about one isolated part of the world that's been lawless pretty much throughout recorded history.

"we're talking about one isolated part of the world that's been lawless pretty much throughout recorded history."

Which is probably why you don't care much about afghanistan either.

Human nature is what it is. No amount of happy thoughts will change that. Reputation is important. Deterrence is a valid foreign policy. If we harm them badly now, it will deter them in the future. If they want to poke at the beehive, we should sting them. Not one sting, but many. Not small pain but much. An overreaction would be ideal.

They were harboring the terrorists that attacked our country. Our immediate interest, then, was to destroy that government and the movement it enabled. After that, in keeping with our tradition and how we've handled the reconstruction of every other country we've defeated, we should also take the opportunity to build a permanent and stable liberal democracy (little l, not big L) that offers opportunity and the rule of law to its citizens.

But I regard our first interest as being the necessary precondition for the other, and there is indeed a point past which it is simply not worth --to us-- the cost in blood and treasure that it may require to fulfill the second part. Bush should have realized this, and taken the war in Afghanistan more seriously from the outset. We should not still be debating whether our first, vital interest --victory over the Taliban-- is even possible eight years later.

As for Somalia and its pirates, you're talking about playing by the 19th century colonial rules. That'd be understandable enough; everybody but the first world, after all, still plays by those rules. But even the British only halfheartedly attempted to rule over that country; they didn't even put the effort into "Somaliland" that they put into their own failed Afghani adventure. And if you're playing by the 19th century rules, even then people considered whether abstract ideas like "prestige" and "honor" were worth the investment in a land that offers little in the way of resources.

Again: you deny the pirates the oxygen of easy money, and they'll burn themselves out soon enough. Bonus points, again, if we made good on their legitimate grievances while simultaneously redirecting shipping traffic away from their bases. You don't even need to launch a single cruise missile. A calculated overreaction that might in any other circumstance be a considered act of statecraft would simply be a wasted and futile tantrum in this context.