(Close Window)
Topic: So whose fault is it anyhow?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 26, 2011 09:42PM)
I am sure the over/under on this thread will be pretty slim but lets see if we can talk like adults.

I have heard people postulate that it is our presidents fault that the Egypt thingie is happening, that he has caused this or that by appearing weak. Also that it spiraled into the unrest in other places. I will be the first to admit that I'm all for pinnng anything on him we can, but isn't it a bit of a reach to try to pin things on him that have been happening since literally the beginning of recorded time? Seriously we should blame him for the solar flares also in my view LOL.

I mean sure he could handle things differently, maybe take a different posture or what not, but seriously is it his FAULT? Ahhh just confused is all sorry. As I said lets blame him for whatever we can. As I understand it he had a hand in that whole killing Lincoln thing. (In my view it makes as much sense.) I just guess politics is getting too "politicy" for me.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 26, 2011 09:59PM)
Heh. Obama can't win. If he does anything about Egypt, he's doing too much. If he does less, he's not doing enough.

I think he played it smart by staying short of outright asking Mubarak to step down. That way, if Mubarak didn't step down, he wouldn't appear weak, but he also wouldn't appear to be the bully by forcing a foreign dictator to resign. That said, I'm also guessing there was quite a bit of maneuvering by our government that we didn't hear about.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 26, 2011 10:08PM)
I've not heard anyone blame Obama but then again I tend not to watch the news networks most point their boney fingers at. I don't think they really gave much thought to what Obama thought or what he says.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 26, 2011 10:12PM)
Who?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 26, 2011 10:19PM)
Obama, you know, the shadow leader of the UK.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 26, 2011 10:30PM)
No I don't think its anything to do with him. I think its all to do with the price of food really.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 26, 2011 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am sure the over/under on this thread will be pretty slim but lets see if we can talk like adults.

I have heard people postulate that it is our presidents fault that the Egypt thingie is happening, that he has caused this or that by appearing weak. ... politics is getting too "politicy" for me.
[/quote]

Some people seem to have taken [url=http://www.mavisbeacon.com/]Mavis Beacon[/url] as their leader and type all sorts of things. Often the same sort who expect their own personal beliefs will seen sensible and best practice for others.

Egypt and Libya are not as of yet parts of our country and the folks that live there can decide on their own what they'd like for a government.
Perhaps their armies want to get paid directly by our foreign aid payments?

I wish them the best.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 26, 2011 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:49, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Often the same sort who expect their own personal beliefs will seen sensible and best practice for others.

[/quote]

That's just about all of us, in varying degrees. I'm glad that my elected officials agree that it's sensible and best practice to use force to incarcerate people who disagree with my personal belief that they shouldn't kill, rape, or rob people.
Message: Posted by: rossmacrae (Feb 26, 2011 10:59PM)
What BLAME would the President earn even if he had gotten this particular ball rolling?

One less dictator in the world is usually a good thing, isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Christopher Rinaldi (Feb 26, 2011 11:17PM)
I have a feeling , being a Mystic and all...that all these world events are meant to happen in the way they are happening.

One thing I can't stand is people blaming people for it...like Obama...who does he blame is what I'd like to know.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 26, 2011 11:19PM)
Some dictators seem to be doing okay and flying beneath the radar. You may be surprised by some countries that are dictatorships.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 26, 2011 11:36PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
... I'm glad that my elected officials agree that it's sensible and best practice to use force to incarcerate people who disagree with my personal belief that they shouldn't kill, rape, or rob people.
[/quote]

They being who? Most in power use armies or at least the police under the auspices of "internal security" to keep their hands clean. And you say they check with you before ordering those robberies etc? Impressive. Or perhaps those are Mavis Beacon's beliefs?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 12:00AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 00:36, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
... I'm glad that my elected officials agree that it's sensible and best practice to use force to incarcerate people who disagree with my personal belief that they shouldn't kill, rape, or rob people.
[/quote]

They being who? Most in power use armies or at least the police under the auspices of "internal security" to keep their hands clean. And you say they check with you before ordering those robberies etc? Impressive. Or perhaps those are Mavis Beacon's beliefs?
[/quote]


"They" being "people who disagree with my personal belief that they shouldn't kill, rape, or rob people." To the extent that not all killing is wrong, I agree that "murder" would be a better word choice.


The part after "And you say" doesn't sound at all like anything I said, but if it helps you make your point, feel free to ascribe various positions to me. I think what I said was, I'm glad that they agree. By agree, I meant the first definition in both Random House and Harper Collins, roughly "to have the same opinion or view." But I bet you really know they didn't consult with me, you sly dog!

Memo to self: Tell JT that Chance has hacked his account.



If my previous post was at all unclear, Jon, it was in response to your suggestion that there was a particular "sort" who "expect their own personal beliefs will seen (sic) sensible and best practice for others." My post was to suggest that for all intents and purposes, there is no such "sort." We ALL expect that.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 27, 2011 12:31AM)
Don't be hating on Mavis! She's a good woman!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 27, 2011 06:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 00:17, Christopher Rinaldi wrote:

One thing I can't stand is people blaming people for it...like Obama...who does he blame is what I'd like to know.
[/quote]
Bush.

(Lol. I couldn't pass up that set-up line.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 27, 2011 08:38AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 07:25, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 00:17, Christopher Rinaldi wrote:

One thing I can't stand is people blaming people for it...like Obama...who does he blame is what I'd like to know.
[/quote]
Bush.

(Lol. I couldn't pass up that set-up line.)
[/quote]

Ok now we have a problem, you beat me to that one! Grrrr. Darn funny dude.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 12:46PM)
"President Obama required stitches when he was elbowed during a basketball game over the holiday. Out of force of habit, he blamed George Bush.". -Jay Leno.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2011 12:52PM)
Where did he get that Irish name from?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 12:58PM)
He was born in Ireland...they changed it from O'bama when they moved here.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 27, 2011 03:31PM)
BIRTHER! BIRTHER!
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Feb 27, 2011 04:07PM)
You're all wrong the fault rests squarely on the sholders of those of us who don't see the evil ways of the police force:p
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 27, 2011 04:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:49, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Often the same sort who expect their own personal beliefs will seen sensible and best practice for others.

[/quote]

That's just about all of us, in varying degrees. I'm glad that my elected officials agree that it's sensible and best practice to use force to incarcerate people who disagree with my personal belief that they shouldn't kill, rape, or rob people.
[/quote]

Sadly, they don't. Foreign leaders who kill rape and rob people are fine provided they maintain a climate favourable to business. The Saudis do, so they are fine. Saddam Hussein did not, so he became intolerable. Mubarak was fine for business; he was left alone. Mugabe is ignored because his country has no resources.

I wish it were true that our leaders took strong moral stances on these issues.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2011 05:00PM)
Not to mention Canada.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 27, 2011 05:24PM)
Don't follow you, Tommy. How did you read the word "our" in my post?

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2011 05:43PM)
I read "Foreign leaders" as them but not our people.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 27, 2011 06:12PM)
Well it is definitely a new trend not to blame George W. However I do not blame Obama either.

Maybe, just maybe Egypt should shoulder some of the blame. Now there is a novel concept.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2011 06:43PM)
I was reading something about how Wall Street changed the rules so that they can now gamble in an unlimited way with food prices. That and the printing of money is what has caused the food prices to rocket and is the cause of all these “let them eat cake” revolts. It could happen anywhere when you think about it. The £ goes down the food price rockets and there you go. But it will obviously happen in places where the people are on low incomes first. As soon as they can't afford food they have nothing to lose and they lose it. It could happen in Mexico perhaps before the USA if you see what I mean. I think its all a bigger problem than people think. If Obama could do anything he ought to change that Wall Street rule back to what it was before.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 27, 2011 07:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 18:43, tommy wrote:
I read "Foreign leaders" as them but not our people.
[/quote]

Oh I see. Local and international support for local d-bags is another issue altogether. But an important one, I agree.

John
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 27, 2011 07:04PM)
What specifically is the basis or utility of this "blame" some wish to assign and weigh?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 27, 2011 09:51PM)
A utility requirement is really going to dry up the action in the ol' "Not Very Magical, Still" section.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 27, 2011 10:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-27 19:12, acesover wrote:
Well it is definitely a new trend not to blame George W. However I do not blame Obama either.

Maybe, just maybe Egypt should shoulder some of the blame. Now there is a novel concept.
[/quote]
Wait. What do we want them to shoulder the blame for again? Removing a dictator, enacting constitutional reforms, proposing more open elections, and creating a fairer trial system? Honestly, I am confused here. I thought all of these things were good. I mean, it's not perfect, but it's a good start.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703933404576170663436844834.html

CAIRO—Egypt's military rulers, hoping to set the stage for transparent democratic elections in six months, have unveiled a raft of proposed constitutional changes that include adopting a U.S.-style term limits of two four-year presidential terms.

The proposed changes would overturn a Mubarak-era law that effectively allowed his ruling National Democratic Party to oversee elections, restoring full supervision of the vote to the country's independent judiciary.

The changes also seek to loosen restrictions on the eligibility of presidential candidates, creating a more open field, and to forbid trials of civilians in military courts.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 28, 2011 07:43PM)
You listen to all the deouble talk. Egypt does not have much oil so they are not oil rich like other mid east countries. But they have a crisis there and because of this country that has hardly any oil imiports it drives the price of oil up. It is all done with smoke and mirrors and you guys think you are magicians.


We can feel sorry for them. I just wonder how sorry all of the other nations are going to feel for USA when gas prices hit the $5.50 to $6.00 mark here in the USA (I am not interested what they are in other countries) and peopole here are out of work and many had two people working in the family to pay for the house and cars that they are used too. They are going to have one working at less than the small wage earner was making in the past. I am sure all the other countries will come to our aid. Just don't hold your breath.

We are still probably richest nation in the world when it comes to producing food. That should set off some singals for you. Lets raise prices on flour etc or let then eat their oil. See how nutrious it is. I know this has all been discussed before and is flawed but it seems that the oil rich countires can do as they please and have the other nations held captive. Gee I wonder how and why wars start.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Feb 28, 2011 07:47PM)
[quote]
Gee I wonder how and why wars start.
[/quote]

Religion?
Message: Posted by: edh (Feb 28, 2011 10:14PM)
BTW, the price of food is due to go up also.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 28, 2011 10:25PM)
Edh- yeah, that was really brilliant of us. We use corn in one form or another in probably close to 90% of our food products, and it's one of our major exports. Then someone gets the bright idea- "Hey, let's burn this stuff as a fuel that's even less efficient than gasoline!" Boom- there goes the price. Now the mega-aggro corps like Monsanto are happy, the speculators on Wall Street are elated, and just about the only ones complaining are the people everywhere who are suddenly paying 50% to 100% more than they used to just to eat lunch.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2011 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-28 20:43, acesover wrote:

You listen to all the deouble talk. Egypt does not have much oil so they are not oil rich like other mid east countries. But they have a crisis there and because of this country that has hardly any oil imiports it drives the price of oil up. It is all done with smoke and mirrors and you guys think you are magicians.
[/quote]
Oil prices are up for a number of reasons. Much more because of what is happening in Libya (which IS a major producer) than because of what is happening in Egypt. Oil production in Libya right now is off by 50% (some even say as much as 75%), because international energy companies have evacuated their staff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110228/bs_nm/us_libya_oil

[quote]
On 2011-02-28 20:43, acesover wrote:

We can feel sorry for them. I just wonder how sorry all of the other nations are going to feel for USA when gas prices hit the $5.50 to $6.00 mark here in the USA (I am not interested what they are in other countries) and peopole here are out of work and many had two people working in the family to pay for the house and cars that they are used too. They are going to have one working at less than the small wage earner was making in the past. I am sure all the other countries will come to our aid.
[/quote]
I could answer this for you but since you don't want to know about what gas prices are elsewhere in the world, you wouldn't be interested.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 28, 2011 10:53PM)
You are absoutely right I am not interested in what gas prices are in other countries. I am sure I can google it if I desire which I don't.

I am tired about worrying about the problems of other countries when we have enough of our own.

Also if I am not mistaken Libya is not a major exporter of oil. They are not much in the scheme of things. Just another excuse to drive up oil prices. Also it is not as if they stopped completely. Something like 70% reduction of a small oil import is a very small amount of oil. There was probably more spilled in the oil accidents than they put out in a month.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 28, 2011 11:42PM)
The United States imports zero, zilch, nada oil from Libya. I'm sure the Euros are sucking it up though.... the problem is it effects the world supply and the Chinese and India are now guzzling oil, but that is okay cuz they are poor developing countries right lefties?

Oh, I also do not care about the cost of gas in other countries. There usually is a reason for it such as over taxing or a country that has no gas industry etc.. Do they sit around France and say "Oh la la, ze 'Mericans, zay haf' to pay ze high prize for' ze Evian...we drink for free!"?. Do you think in Uraguay they care that a leather jacket cost three times as much here? How about in Napa Valley, should they sweat it that in Uraguay a bottle of Almaden Vineyards wine cost $127 dollars while a bottle of Jack black is 180? Wanna know why? Cuz their import taxes are different and it cost more for them to get it there cuz of delivery systems etc.. Here, I'll fix the problem "Hey you socialist ex Nazi wanna be countries! Stop sticking it to your people! Cut back on the health care and sex change operations and supporting the little new North African countries within your border and give people a break on gas prices!". There, if they don't listen it isn't my fault, it is theirs.

Geez, people think we should have world wide prices...dang.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2011 11:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-28 23:53, acesover wrote:

You are absoutely right I am not interested in what gas prices are in other countries. I am sure I can google it if I desire which I don't.
[/quote]
That's not what I was talking about but never mind, it don't matter.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2011 11:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 00:42, MagicSanta wrote:

The United States imports zero, zilch, nada oil from Libya.
[/quote]
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says otherwise.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=LY

"With the lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, the United States has increased its imports of Libyan oil. According to EIA January through November estimates, the United States imported an average of 71,000bbl/d from Libya in 2010 (of which, 44,000 bbl/d was crude), up from 56,000 bbl/d in 2005 but a decline from 2007 highs of 117,000 bbl/d."

(Which isn't much, admittedly. But it does export a fair bit of oil to Europe and, as you noted, it is a world wide oil market and what happens over there affects us here.)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2011 12:00AM)
Other sources say zero gas from libya....I told you oil companies are evil scumbags. Why does Europe need oil? They have donkeys don't they?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 1, 2011 12:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 01:00, MagicSanta wrote:
Other sources say zero gas from libya....
[/quote]
Like what sources?

I would tend to trust the DOE / EIA, as it seems to me that they would be the ones with accurate data.

Of course, you might have heard that it was zero gas (either gasoline or natural gas) and that might even be correct ... but we were talking oil.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 00:44, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-28 23:53, acesover wrote:

You are absoutely right I am not interested in what gas prices are in other countries. I am sure I can google it if I desire which I don't.
[/quote]
That's not what I was talking about but never mind, it don't matter.
[/quote]


I know what you were talking about. I just did not go for the bait.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 1, 2011 09:56AM)
With this current bunch, the less we attempt to do internationally the better. Let's not forget who our current Secretary of State is. Everybody run for cover, they're firing at us!!!
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 10:22AM)
Better duck and cover than nuke 'em all.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 11:56AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 11:22, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Better duck and cover than nuke 'em all.
[/quote]

Something like a confrontation with a bad guy with a knife and you have a gun. It is supposed to go like this. Put down that knife or I will shoot. However to my way of thinking I believe this to be the better solution. Bang, put down that knife.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 12:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 12:56, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 11:22, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Better duck and cover than nuke 'em all.
[/quote]

Something like a confrontation with a bad guy with a knife and you have a gun. It is supposed to go like this. Put down that knife or I will shoot. However to my way of thinking I believe this to be the better solution. Bang, put down that knife.
[/quote]Versus a nuke? A more apt analogy is-
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM
"I wouldn't have machine-gunned everyone in the bar if he'd put that knife down."
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 01:23PM)
At this point in time I feel that the US is the only true Super Power in the world today. However there are a few challangers coming into the game. Once there you will see that their ideals differ greatly than ours and they do not necessairly play by the same rules we do. That is where the real trouble lies. If other countries seem threatened who have become Super Powers they will deal with the threat until it is no longer a threat. We however do not do this.

Time and time again our hands are tied. If the same conditions existed today I wonder if we would drop the bomb on Japan.

Look at these pirates. While off topic it is cognizant to the point I am making. They killed 4 Americans and continue to roam the sea. Oh yea we captured them and I believe we are going to have a trial. You haave to be kidding. They just captured another ship with I believe 3 children on this one.

Is it our duty to patrol and police the seas? You may not like the answer, but the answer is yes. With awesome power comes awesome responsibility and we are shirking it. You cannot let these pirates run however they wish. Like said in the other thread. Make the punishment to horrible so the crime is unattractive to the criminal (take no prisoners).

As I said in another thread I am sure we know where all of these pirate ships are with todays technology and should capture all ships and "try" and limit hostage casualties the key word being "try". There is not one pirate ship capable of withstanding an attack.

I know this post went off topic but I am just disgusted with what we (The United States) have to put up with today. The most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

Sorry to rant.
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 1, 2011 01:34PM)
Everything we did in Egypt "may have had to" be done quietly, because we "may have been" still outsourcing much of our interrogation to the Egyptian government when the riots started.
"If" that is the case then it is above my head and I don't want to know any more about it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2011 02:00PM)
My source was the AP...dang liars.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 02:00PM)
Yeah, acesover, that quaint, old Geneva Convention.

I do think we should take more aggressive action on the issue of the Somali pirates; they are terrorists, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. However, that stance doesn't necessarily carry over to my opinion on the rest of our foreign affairs.

I'm almost certain you'll call me a foolish liberal or worse for this, but there's a difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys- namely that the Good Guys don't compromise their values, even when the Bad Guys don't play fair. America was founded on certain principles, and whenever we violate them, we lessen ourselves. If we re-examined our foreign policy and re-aligned it to those principles, I think quite a few of our foreign relations problems would resolve themselves quietly and peacefully.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Mar 1, 2011 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-26 23:49, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

Some people seem to have taken [url=http://www.mavisbeacon.com/]Mavis Beacon[/url] as their leader and type all sorts of things.

[/quote]

That was funny! :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 02:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 15:00, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yeah, acesover, that quaint, old Geneva Convention.

I do think we should take more aggressive action on the issue of the Somali pirates; they are terrorists, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. However, that stance doesn't necessarily carry over to my opinion on the rest of our foreign affairs.

I'm almost certain you'll call me a foolish liberal or worse for this, but there's a difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys- namely that the Good Guys don't compromise their values, even when the Bad Guys don't play fair. America was founded on certain principles, and whenever we violate them, we lessen ourselves. If we re-examined our foreign policy and re-aligned it to those principles, I think quite a few of our foreign relations problems would resolve themselves quietly and peacefully.
[/quote]


I know this may sound cynical but what is the punishment of breaking the Geneva Convention? Lets say Saudi Arabia
breaks it. Does everyone stop purchasing oil from them? Who will enforce it? The U.N.?

Reminds me of a simple analogy of two fueding famlies.

The heads of the famlies get together and sign a pact that no matter how bad things are no one will ever stab anyone from the other family. We can shoot each other strangle each other whatever. But never ever use a knife on the other family. It is just to gorey.

Now one day Mike from family "A" jumps Joe from family "B" and is strangling him to death and Joe is close to death from being strangled. However he can reach his knife. How much do you think that paper is worth that the heads of the famlies signed at this point? I am just saying...
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 1, 2011 02:43PM)
Did Saudi Arabia sign it?
If you didn't sign it, you ain't covered...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 02:53PM)
EsnRedshirt,

Sometimes it is not so much the bad guys just not playing fair it is us having to play by their rules. They do not have missles that can sink a ship but we do. Can we use them? We can blow them out of the water with the weapons and firepower we have but dare we? No to both questions we have to use the same sort of weapons that they have and put our men at risk to make it a fair fight.

Is it fair when 30 or 40 armed pirates capture 4 American seniors citizens and then kill them. Did the pirates send in their senior citizen pirates unarmed? I don't think so.

They just captured this last ship I believe it was yesterday I think there were 3 or 4 adults and 3 children all unarmed. Did the pirates send over 3 or 4 unarmed pirates and 3 children in order to capture them? I don't think so. I guess it is only fair wheh it works in their favor.

If that works for you ok, but it does not work for me.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 02:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 15:43, critter wrote:
Did Saudi Arabia sign it?
If you didn't sign it, you ain't covered...
[/quote]

Yes I am almost positive they did. So did China. They are big on Human rights.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 03:05PM)
Aces, I'm sure you're not interested in technicalities, such as non-signatory nations being granted the same protections afforded to member nations provided they follow the conventions, or the fact that the Geneva Convention is now considered customary international law which all nations must follow...
(Edit: critter, see above.)

However, violating the Geneva Convention can be considered committing a war crime, enabling individual prosecution of the people who committed such violations, along with superior officers who ordered them to commit those violations. People- including Americans, such as Sgt. Horace T West (see Biscari massacre)- have been found guilty of such crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment or death. There are currently some former heads-of-state and politicians who are restricted in places to which they can travel, lest they be arrested and brought to trial for such crimes.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 03:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 16:05, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Aces, I'm sure you're not interested in technicalities, such as non-signatory nations being granted the same protections afforded to member nations provided they follow the conventions, or the fact that the Geneva Convention is now considered customary international law which all nations must follow...
(Edit: critter, see above.)

However, violating the Geneva Convention can be considered committing a war crime, enabling individual prosecution of the people who committed such violations, along with superior officers who ordered them to commit those violations. People- including Americans, such as Sgt. Horace T West (see Biscari massacre)- have been found guilty of such crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment or death. There are currently some former heads-of-state and politicians who are restricted in places to which they can travel, lest they be arrested and brought to trial for such crimes.
[/quote]

Your last sentence sums it up. If the country does not want to surrender the offender you are SOL.

Obviously you were not in armed combat where a sniper or a squad of the enemy systematicaly killed a number of your men. Shooting them mostly in the head. Then when they were out of ammunition and were sure of capture decide to surrender. It is very difficult to accept said surrender. Need I say more?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 03:30PM)
Aces- I've already said how we should act towards those pirates.

However, if a country violates the Geneva Convention- also recognized as customary international law- that does not mean that we can also violate it. Anyone who did would still be subject to war crimes prosecution.

There are also specific international laws on what weapons can be used. It's silly to restrict us from using a missile to destroy a dinghy full of pirates. There are, however, weapons which are considered prohibited, due to their persistant, indescriminant, and/or injurious nature. For example- flechette rounds which explode within the body as shrapnel (especially of a material that's undetectable and difficult to remove), lasers which permanently blind targets, incendiary weapons including white phosphorous and flame throwers, and, yes- biological and chemical agents. I believe use of them may be considered a war crime, or possibly a crime against humanity.

Yes- IEDs are considered prohibited weapons. It wouldn't be feasible for an organized military to use them, anyway, due to their indescriminant nature. Their use against US troops is illegal, and terrorists using them can be procecuted (in addition to other charges they may face.) I don't believe they would be tried as war criminals, though, as they're not considered part of a nation. I think they're tried as private citizens. One of the lawyers here would have to elaborate or correct me, though.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 03:38PM)
Aces, if that happened to you or a relative, then I am sorry. And you are right- snipers are subject to mistreatment upon surrender. This includes US snipers as well. I have a cousin who was a sniper, with military service in the Gulf War. He was certainly advised not to advertise that fact, for that very reason.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 1, 2011 03:47PM)
I am a little confused. Are you bringing IEDs into the pirate equation?

I hope all is well with your cousin.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 1, 2011 03:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 16:47, acesover wrote:
I am a little confused. Are you bringing IEDs into the pirate equation?

I hope all is well with your cousin.
[/quote]No, just mentioning it to pre-emptively defuse arguments concerning assymetrical warfare, as well as bring up an example of a violation of a treaty in modern warfare. If the IEDs were being used by a nation's military, the officers and soldiers could be subject to war crimes prosecution. (Regardless of which country "won" the conflict.) I believe the charges can be brought by any member nation, not just ones involved in the conflict.

Thanks, my cousin's fine; he completed his tour and went back to school to get a degree in psychology.
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 1, 2011 06:18PM)
I know people (very close friends) who taught interrogation techniques. The way they taught it is that the Geneva Convention does not cover everyone. Terrorists, for example, are not considered members of any recognized government sanctioned military entity. So it's okay to torture them.
So that's how it has been taught in the military.
Not gonna' say whether it's right or wrong, but it's tradition.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2011 06:28PM)
Here's an idea...we take the Phalanx weapons that were removed from ships and put them on bouys. We watch for the pirates if when they are in range hit the button and zzzzzzzzzzip it is resolved!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 1, 2011 06:44PM)
Gold reached a new all-time high today and Silver is on a 31 high anyway and whosoevers fault it is I would just like to say thank you to him.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2011 07:12PM)
You are welcome....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 1, 2011 08:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 15:00, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yeah, acesover, that quaint, old Geneva Convention.

I do think we should take more aggressive action on the issue of the Somali pirates; they are terrorists, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. However, that stance doesn't necessarily carry over to my opinion on the rest of our foreign affairs.

I'm almost certain you'll call me a foolish liberal or worse for this, but there's a difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys- namely that the Good Guys don't compromise their values, even when the Bad Guys don't play fair. America was founded on certain principles, and whenever we violate them, we lessen ourselves. If we re-examined our foreign policy and re-aligned it to those principles, I think quite a few of our foreign relations problems would resolve themselves quietly and peacefully.
[/quote]

What principals are you talking about here and how do we need to "re-allign" them exactly?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 1, 2011 09:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 19:18, critter wrote:
I know people (very close friends) who taught interrogation techniques. The way they taught it is that the Geneva Convention does not cover everyone. Terrorists, for example, are not considered members of any recognized government sanctioned military entity. So it's okay to torture them.
So that's how it has been taught in the military.
Not gonna' say whether it's right or wrong, but it's tradition.
[/quote]
And who are we to argue with Tradition!
Tradition! Tradition!
Cue the Fiddler and Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi, get those Guantanamo guards to start shaking their tucheses and singing with gusto!
The Torture Tradition! L'Chaim!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2011 09:51PM)
Tokhes! I looked at that and wondered for a moment.... make sure to add the hught sound..
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 01:08AM)
That guttural sound is usually transliterated as ch in English, hence L'Chaim.

For critter's army buddies: the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by Ronald Reagan and approved by Congress, and thus the law of the land, states:

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties "to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. [b]"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts,[/b] violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials." The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.

and Article 10 states: "Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, [b]interrogation[/b] or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment."


http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 14:23, acesover wrote:

As I said in another thread I am sure we know where all of these pirate ships are with todays technology and should capture all ships and "try" and limit hostage casualties the key word being "try". There is not one pirate ship capable of withstanding an attack.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2011-03-01 15:53, acesover wrote:

Sometimes it is not so much the bad guys just not playing fair it is us having to play by their rules. They do not have missles that can sink a ship but we do. Can we use them? We can blow them out of the water with the weapons and firepower we have but dare we? No to both questions we have to use the same sort of weapons that they have and put our men at risk to make it a fair fight.

Is it fair when 30 or 40 armed pirates capture 4 American seniors citizens and then kill them. Did the pirates send in their senior citizen pirates unarmed? I don't think so.

They just captured this last ship I believe it was yesterday I think there were 3 or 4 adults and 3 children all unarmed. Did the pirates send over 3 or 4 unarmed pirates and 3 children in order to capture them? I don't think so. I guess it is only fair wheh it works in their favor.
[/quote]

I wonder how many U.S. ships this would take? Last weekend, they found one pirate ship 2,500 miles away from Somalia, near Madagascar. So it is a HUGE territory that would have to be protected, to remove the threat of pirates.

I suppose the, say, billion dollar cost of doing the above (in order to protect seniors manning, and children on, pleasure boats) would be far more than what is currently being paid in ransom. Not that any government would ever allow financial cost to enter into this. Of course not.

BTW, what about the (approximately) 700 hostages currently held by the pirates on land, probably in a hundred different locations? I wonder how they would fare if the pirate ships were taken out.

I don't have the answers to these questions. But I think I would have the common sense not to float a yacht anywhere near pirate infested waters.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/children-among-seven-danes-seized-by-pirates-20110301-1bd5b.html

"Governments have pleaded with shipowners and seafaring holidaymakers to stick to designated shipping lanes when passing through the Arabian Sea. The US Navy sometimes provides escorts for convoys and the ships travel in numbers for safety."
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 2, 2011 09:01AM)
Balducci, fair enough, it wasn't smart to go there. But it's a major shipping lane. Don't shift blame to the victims. And these pirates have [i]investors[/i]- they've turned it into a business model. How is that acceptible? (Maybe if the pirates called themselves bankers instead?) They absolutely expect to get away with kidnapping for ransom- and it's happened frequently enough that they've got investors- it's a lucrative business.

It'd be nice if we could say, "Surrender- if you release the hostages unharmed, we'll only arrest you." But we all know that would turn out poorly for everyone involved.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 2, 2011 09:05AM)
Obviously the bankers are using the price of food as a weapon of war to attack countries all over the world. Food riots in 2008, revolutions in 2011 – Since nothing can stop the bankers the only question that remains is what, where, who is next? Well just like a poker comp it looks like the bankers are picking off the weak stacks first. There are 80 countries around the world that fit the bill having a big mob on low incomes with food they can hardly afford already. The bankers simply raise the food price and they cause the mob to revolts all over the world. In step the bankers and buy when there is blood in the streets. From Haiti to Bangladesh, to Mexico, Uzbekistan and Eritrea to Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal and Zimbabwe, and on and on its happening everywhere you look. From a business point of view this is a great opportunity! If you can't beat them join them as they say; Buy when there is blood in the streets. Every cloud has a silver lining. Think of all the bargains you can pick up in these places. Eeasy peasy Japanesey! Who cares who's fault it is? :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 2, 2011 11:10PM)
Balducci,

To quote you: I wonder how many U.S. ships this would take? Last weekend, they found one pirate ship 2,500 miles away from Somalia, near Madagascar. So it is a HUGE territory that would have to be protected, to remove the threat of pirates. end quote

What did they do with the ship they found? I am curious. Also who is they? Was it the US Navy? Again just curious. Was this pirate ship on a pleasure cruise or what?

Just my opinion of course yours seems different. But I do not think the pirates have the right to tell anyone what part of the sea to sail on. Seems you feel differently.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 11:22PM)
It is a huge area. How many ships is an interesting question, the answer is one well armed one the whole issue is how to keep the weeping to a minimum in certain countries who will claim every boat taken out is a fishing vessel in route to return a baby hippo to its mother. A small crowded boat isn't going to operate in heavy seas, not safe and the pirates can't be that nuts. Let's just say that when I was off Beirut we knew what was in the water for a good bit of space around us. We couldn't do anything to them but we knew they were there, we also knew everything in the air no matter how close to the surface they flew (Syria...you punks). With satellites they can track everything in the area, except you don't know intention and all that good stuff. If you did get a target you push a lil' button and a short while later the target is gone. Like a shrimp boat off the Florida coast....just...gone. Doesn't matter though, the pirates will continue and companies will keep paying them off and when they happen to get killed there will be gnashing of teeth about how horrible the US is, unless it is a vessel from another country like India or China, then they will be only trying to protect their trade.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 2, 2011 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 00:10, acesover wrote:

To quote you: I wonder how many U.S. ships this would take? Last weekend, they found one pirate ship 2,500 miles away from Somalia, near Madagascar. So it is a HUGE territory that would have to be protected, to remove the threat of pirates. end quote

What did they do with the ship they found? I am curious. Also who is they? Was it the US Navy? Again just curious. Was this pirate ship on a pleasure cruise or what?
[/quote]
Well, I'm sure you can open any decent newspaper and find the details. Briefly, two of the pirates took a small boat into shore to ask for help and drop off an ill female passenger. Following that, Madagascar (Madagascan?) authorities did a search and found the 'mother' pirate ship after a couple of days of searching (and keep in mind that it may not have even been hiding, considering the circumstances ... it still took 2 days of searching, and presumably the U.S. Navy gave them satellite assistance or whatever). Now (as of last weekend anyway) they don't know what to do with it, because this is an unprecedented case ... "While the prosecutor rifles through national and international maritime agreements to figure out whether the unknown foreigners can be charged with piracy laws last used in the 19th century, justice ministers from Comoros and Madagascar are also questioning who should try them, where they should be tried, and for what."

So, what about my question? Any thoughts about how many U.S. ships it would take to patrol and secure this more or less 2,500 square mile area?

[quote]
On 2011-03-03 00:10, acesover wrote:

Just my opinion of course yours seems different. But I do not think the pirates have the right to tell anyone what part of the sea to sail on. Seems you feel differently.
[/quote]
Where do you get that from? Geez Louis. I hope you are kidding, because otherwise you are being ridiculous and silly. Of course the pirates do not have the authority (which I think is a more accurate word to use than 'right') to tell anyone what part of the sea to sail on.

Neither does anyone have the authority to tell me not to jump off of a cliff or commit any other moronic act. If I did something stupid like that, I really have to take some share of the blame (at least, assuming I was not mentally incapacitated I guess). I think that would apply to sailing a pleasure craft in well known dangerous pirate infested waters. Hey, that's just me. Seems you feel differently.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 11:53PM)
If they can't really pin anything specific on the pirates in Madagascar (hey, Madagascar, stop with the chopping down the forrest and letting all that silt run into the ocean, I know the lefties don't mind but we real conservation types do care) they just let 'em go. They can't just say "hey, we are going to charge you with all the crimes others may have commited", it isn't as if they are a motorcycle club (ha! Take that San Diego County!).
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 11:55PM)
Say....what do the pirates have to do with Obama leading rebels in Egypt?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 3, 2011 09:42AM)
Well, it's his fault, isn't it?

I was just on another board where someone was praising the patriotic Somalian privateers who were only defending their coastline from the oppressive foreigners, levying fines so they can clean up their waters and rebuild their fishing industry. Seriously.

Now, I know that private companies have abused the situation, dumping toxic waste into Somalian waters and devastating the already impoverished country, and our government's intervention in the last few decades certainly didn't help matters there, but get real- these are pirates, not the general population of Somalia. And the pirates themselves are being exploited by their investors- organized crime. They've turned kidnapping into a lucrative business model. I may feel for the plight of the Somalis, but that doesn't justify the piracy. People are nuts.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 3, 2011 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 00:55, MagicSanta wrote:
Say....what do the pirates have to do with Obama leading rebels in Egypt?
[/quote]

Didn't you know that he is an African-born Muslim pirate?
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 3, 2011 09:54AM)
So the animals [i]did[/i] make it back to Madagascar. Good, now I don't have to watch the movie.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 3, 2011 01:18PM)
You wonder where I get the idea that you feel the pirates have the right to tell you where to sail. Lets read your post and see. Here it is:

"I don't have the answers to these questions. But I think I would have the common sense not to float a yacht anywhere near pirate infested waters." end quote

Well it sure seems like the pirates sure told you where you can float your boat and you sure as heck agree. If wherever they go you cannot. If that is the case they are definitely telling you where you are limited to go because of their actions. You can say that you are being sensible because by avoiding it you are avoiding the pirates. Well if you avoid driving a car you will never be an an automobile accident either, same theory. Stay home its safer. By the way by your own admission yo said they found pirates 2,500 miles away from Somalia. Seems their sea borders are expanding. I guess you should not go there either.

Do you really believe that there are any ships floating around that 2,500 square mile area that we do not know about right now? Please don't tell me about patroling it with other vessels. Not that we would use it but probably one air craft carrier could control the whole thing. Remember we have planes and helicopters that are much faster than any ship afloat. Of course that move is rqadical but it answers your question. Also the answer in part to your question is. What do you want done when a pirate vessel is found and what can be done? That I cannot answer. I do know what can be done. But how it will look and affect the US diplomatically is another.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 3, 2011 01:26PM)
I agree and think you should sail over there and tell the pirates.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 3, 2011 01:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 14:26, tommy wrote:

I agree and think you should sail over there and tell the pirates.
[/quote]
Seconded.

No, wait.

Actually, I insist that acesover stay far away from the pirates.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 3, 2011 02:09PM)
As usual two of the brighest light bulbs do not get it.

The pirates have to be eliminated, not tolerated. They are the scum of the earth and have no reason to go on living. They, in my opinion have no rights. They lost them when they decided to become pirates. So they are fair game and to be disposed of any way possible as long as it is permenant and the quicker the better. Make the punishment so severe the crime is not worth considering.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 3, 2011 02:36PM)
Couple of things about torture. First off randomly torturing someone on the off chance that they may have information (like they do in so many of the ultra lefts favorite countries.) does not work. Torturing someone who you are pretty certain has the information you want actually works quite well.

I am 100% against torture as far as our American government goes. As far as any section of the government local or federal or international goes I am dead set against it. We should be above it. We just should. I am not saying don't do it on the basis that it won't work, I am saying don't do it on a basis of who we should be, and who we would be when we do.

Now define torture. There are "enhanced interogation techniques" which come VERY close to the line. I am not smart enough to know which is which. Is sleep deprivation torture? Like I said terms have to be agreed upon before it can be settled I think.

Interestingly enough pirates themselves have always had a special status as far as most international law goes. Seriously look it up.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 3, 2011 02:36PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 21:56, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 15:00, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yeah, acesover, that quaint, old Geneva Convention.

I do think we should take more aggressive action on the issue of the Somali pirates; they are terrorists, and we should never negotiate with terrorists. However, that stance doesn't necessarily carry over to my opinion on the rest of our foreign affairs.

I'm almost certain you'll call me a foolish liberal or worse for this, but there's a difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys- namely that the Good Guys don't compromise their values, even when the Bad Guys don't play fair. America was founded on certain principles, and whenever we violate them, we lessen ourselves. If we re-examined our foreign policy and re-aligned it to those principles, I think quite a few of our foreign relations problems would resolve themselves quietly and peacefully.
[/quote]

What principals are you talking about here and how do we need to "re-allign" them exactly?
[/quote]

I was really hoping you would answer this one.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 3, 2011 02:49PM)
Well we are not stopping you. Bon Voyage!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 3, 2011 03:14PM)
DannyDoyle,

If your above post is in refrence to my post I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating torture. Just elimination of this scum. If on a pirate ship and not a hostage, you are guilty of being a pirate and as I mentioned and should be eliminated quickly. We already know what they are made of, and it is not good. Unfortunately this may sound like we are not much better than the pirates in our style because of the way I am suggesting adminstering punishment and those thoughts may be correct. In this instance however I believe the ends definitely justify the means.

If someone brutally kills a loved one I do not believe you would be satisfied if they went to prison for 10 years and were said to be rehabilited and then released. However if they were never able to harm anyone again or see another sunrise I believe this would give you "some" closure. I am not saying you are at peace with the resolution because nothing will replace your loved one for they are gone forever. However I would hope that it gives you some solance that the person responsbile for this paid the ultimate price just as did your loved one and is no longer able to inflict this sort of thing on another person or family ever again.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 3, 2011 03:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 15:49, tommy wrote:
Well we are not stopping you. Bon Voyage!
[/quote]

If I could I would. However I already served and am at the age where I can only give opinions and not contribute on a one to one basis. But I repeat I would be the first in line if young enough to serve if they needed men. I am sure I cannot say the same for you. Not everyone thinks alike. In fact by some of your posts it shows that some do not think at all at times.

To use a pun Tommy...Whatever floats your boat. probably human waste laden water. Take a dip it suits you.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 3, 2011 04:05PM)
Never mind what you would do with them, how are you going to catch them in the first place. I don't think these pirates are wearing pirate outfits and sailing around flying the skull and bones, by the time you know they are pirates, not just innocent people out fishing or whatever, they have pirated a vessel and have hostages. So how are you going to id them and catch them exactly?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 3, 2011 11:15PM)
The simple answer to these questions is that these pirates are not a big enough problem to warrant measures to be taken in order to stop them. If they were attacking oil tankers that were owned by Exxon or some other such oil company you would see action taken and the problem solved quickly.

Believe me this is not an insurmountable task to check the ships or should I say dingys coming from these rinky dink ports. A few lives here and there are not important enough. If it involves important people or big money things change. I believe that over the years we are only looking at around 258 million dollars. Not a lot in the scheme of things. Probably the equivelant of two CEO's salary for a year.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 3, 2011 11:19PM)
Okay....why not be honest and say that quietly the number of pirates should be reduced. Let us just assume they are becoming farmers and leave it at that.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 3, 2011 11:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-04 00:15, acesover wrote:

If they were attacking oil tankers that were owned by Exxon or some other such oil company you would see action taken and the problem solved quickly.
[/quote]
I have to ask, do you really have ANY idea what you have been talking about?

Because the pirates have been attacking oil tankers owned by Exxon and other such oil companies for several years now:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-oman-supertanker-idUSTRE7182Q220110209

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7733482.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-nigeria-attack-idUSL0454354820071204

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90855/6943019.html
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 4, 2011 12:03AM)
Balducci, I think you owe Mr. Acesover an apology. You presented information on a Saudi, Italian, and S. Korean oil ship which is different than taking an Exxon owned vessel. The other article was about Nigeria, which is on the other side of Africa from Somalia, which is a different matter as the subject is Somalian pirates not Nigerian. Note that Nigerians would be very upset with you for confusing the two people. While I see your attempted point I, the voice of reason, shall straighten this all out.

Mr. Acesover, if I may, was making the point that US interest has not really been effected, which is true. The reason is simply that very few, if any, oilers, are registered in the United States. It is kind of like trucks, they tend to go where it is cheaper to register the ship (that is why you see trucks from Oklahoma and Missouri all over the place, companies register them there if they run intrastate). There is an obligation to keep the shipping lanes open but since the US can't win for losing no matter what it would likely take a Somalian pirate dropping nukes on Dallas then a couple years of pondering what we did to deserve it before they get serious. There are wonderful ships that can launch little boats capable of chasing down and....uh....resolving any pirate. There is no call to bring them to the US for trial, we do not owe them anything and they do not, and I know this will shock you, have civil rights in the US. I don't personally think the US should do anything, the Koreans, Arabs, and Indians should be out there as they have done before. No one cares if they kill pirates it is only when WE kill pirates that it is a horrible loss of life and all that horse crap.

Any questions?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2011 07:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 16:14, acesover wrote:
DannyDoyle,

If your above post is in refrence to my post I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating torture. Just elimination of this scum. If on a pirate ship and not a hostage, you are guilty of being a pirate and as I mentioned and should be eliminated quickly. We already know what they are made of, and it is not good. Unfortunately this may sound like we are not much better than the pirates in our style because of the way I am suggesting adminstering punishment and those thoughts may be correct. In this instance however I believe the ends definitely justify the means.

If someone brutally kills a loved one I do not believe you would be satisfied if they went to prison for 10 years and were said to be rehabilited and then released. However if they were never able to harm anyone again or see another sunrise I believe this would give you "some" closure. I am not saying you are at peace with the resolution because nothing will replace your loved one for they are gone forever. However I would hope that it gives you some solance that the person responsbile for this paid the ultimate price just as did your loved one and is no longer able to inflict this sort of thing on another person or family ever again.
[/quote]

No sir it did not reference anyone spacific, simply torture in general.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 4, 2011 07:43AM)
Dannydoyle wrote:

[quote]I am 100% against torture as far as our American government goes. As far as any section of the government local or federal or international goes I am dead set against it. We should be above it. We just should. I am not saying don't do it on the basis that it won't work, I am saying don't do it on a basis of who we should be, and who we would be when we do. [/quote]
Bravo Danny! :applause:
I hate to even have to bring up the "torture doesn't work" argument. It's just a sign of the degraded times that people have to actually be reminded about what Danny posted above.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 4, 2011 08:17AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-04 01:03, MagicSanta wrote:

Balducci, I think you owe Mr. Acesover an apology. You presented information on a Saudi, Italian, and S. Korean oil ship which is different than taking an Exxon owned vessel. The other article was about Nigeria, which is on the other side of Africa from Somalia, which is a different matter as the subject is Somalian pirates not Nigerian. Note that Nigerians would be very upset with you for confusing the two people. While I see your attempted point I, the voice of reason, shall straighten this all out.
[/quote]
Santa, always the voice of reason. You're right about the Exxon ship, I did confuse Nigerian and Somalian pirates. Sorry about that.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 4, 2011 01:04PM)
I actually think the big boys in shipping are prepaying the pirates for safe passage.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 4, 2011 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-03 15:36, Dannydoyle wrote:...

I am 100% against torture as far as our American government goes. As far as any section of the government local or federal or international goes I am dead set against it. ...
[/quote]

So it's okay for private contractors and vigilantes but not formal governments?
There is a segment of human demographics which responds very well to both the giving and getting of torture - though the threat of imminent torture to loved ones might be a more effective lever than mere isolated torture itself. Something about the notions of "agency" and "righteous" appear to make the practice of such acts far closer to acceptable than one might expect.

Human behavior is what it is. Whining about how everyone would look good in white robes and stuff ... well you can't always get what you want by merely telling someone you are going to pray for them.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 4, 2011 04:41PM)
I agree with Jon, some formal govts should be allowed to torture as an expression of their special and diverse culture.