TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Somali pirates vs Obama and Hillary
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Somali pirates vs Obama and Hillary

So... what's going on here? Obama refuses to comment on the situation (because, you know, making tough deicsions might affect poll numbers), Biden refuses to comment on the situation, John Kerry is calling for hearings on policy regarding piracy (I'm sure that's going to make the guys with guns quake in the boots), and Hillary.... well, when asked about it she got a little overwhelmed with laughter about the issue:



I guess it's a pretty comical situation. I heard a merchant marine report yesterday (which unfortunatly I can't find a link to at the moment) that Obama made sure to relay the message to the Americans, after they briefly re-took the boat from the pirates, that they better treat the Somali's with respect. WTF!? Those Americans were trying to deliver tons of food and other agricultural materials for the World Food Program to help muslims in poverty, ironically.

Since then Somalis regained control of the Americans. The captain tried to escape and was re-captured. Our boats are out there watching... but not doing anything yet. So, why is there a return to piracy these days? Because of an overwhelming desire for the western world to feel good about itself rather than protect shipping lanes from barbarians... as so wonderfully articulated by Andy McCarthy:

quote:

There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with �dignity and respect,� to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it � to purge the very mention of its name � in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn�t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you�re part of the problem The men who founded our country and crafted our Constitution understood this. They understood that the �rule of law� was not a faux-civilized counterweight to the exhibition of might. Might, instead, is the firm underpinning of law and of our civilization. The Constitution explicitly recognized that the United States would have enemies; it provided Congress with the power to raise military forces that would fight them; it made the chief executive the commander-in-chief, concentrating in the presidency all the power the nation could muster to preserve itself by repelling evil. It did not regard evil as having a point of view, much less a right to counsel. That�s not our position anymore. The scourge of piracy was virtually wiped out in 19th century because its practitioners were regarded as barbarians � enemies of the human race (hostis humani generis, as Bret Stephens recently reminded us in a brilliant Wall Street Journal essay). They derived no comfort from the rule of law, for it was not a mark of civilization to give them comfort. The same is true of unlawful enemy combatants, terrorists who scoffed at the customs of civilized warfare. To regard them as mere criminals, to assume the duty of trying to understand why they would brutalize innocents, to arm them with rights against civilized society, was not civilized. We don�t see it that way anymore. Evil is now just another negotiation. Pirates and terrorists are better known for their human rights than for their inhuman wrongs. On Thursday, America�s commander-in-chief didn�t want to talk about the pirates � �Guys, we�re talking about housing right now,� he chided a reporter who dared to raise the topic as the Somalis held the American ship�s captain hostage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, was dispatched to assure the public that the world would come together to deal with this �criminal activity� � a relief if you were wondering whether the naval destroyer on the scene was equipped with Miranda-warning cards. http://article.nationalreview.com/?...DY0MjdmMWZmZTc= This is the self-destructive straitjacket for which transnational progressives are fitting us. Indeed, the Law of the Sea Treaty � a compact Obama would commit us to � has hopelessly complicated the rules of engagement under which the pirates have thrived, just as Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (a treaty Ronald Reagan was prudent enough to reject) has become an offensive weapon for jihadists everywhere. Having harnessed ourselves, we are once again the weak horse.

Because of our obsession with moral relativism, we aren't allowed to call people what they really are, even when they systematically murder people for being homosexual, christian, or whatever. We are more concerned with giving a pass to uncivilized behavior than protecting the civilized, and it is sadly going to be our un-doing.

Yea, it's all Obama's fault.

Re: Somali pirates vs Obama and Hillary

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and Hillary.... well, when asked about it she got a little overwhelmed with laughter about the issue: ...movie...

what a bitch. They're both cracking up. I wasn't aware Morocco was so hilarious.

The17sss you are being extremely petty. At least most of the criticism about Bush was major things, like violating the constitution, etc... Nervous laughing at a conference is not a big deal, and certainly not worthy of a thread.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 The17sss you are being extremely petty. At least most of the criticism about Bush was major things, like violating the constitution, etc... Nervous laughing at a conference is not a big deal, and certainly not worthy of a thread.

.... still waiting for Bush to be indicted on breaking portions of the constitution.

Anyway, if you read the whole post, the Hillary part is not "what the thread is about." That's just a small piece of the puzzle.

The fact that this thread exists as "actual" outrage makes me pretty comfortable with the general way things are going.

Pretty sure I was reading in the news today that Biden had gotten involved.

This situation is unfortunate but you have to admit that if Obama were to divert his attention from the myriad of other issues you'd be after him on that.

You aren't giving the guy a chance, at all. For all Bush's failures and what not, he still gets applause for what he DID accomplish, and I think he is deserving of that.

I think there needs to be perspective balancing because you're going after Obama with a microscope when to go after Bush the evident failures were constantly in our faces affecting us.

If you want to argue that you're applying the same standard to Obama was we all did for Bush, fine, but know this, we were basing our criticisms on 8 years of policy, not 3 months.

As Lebez pointed out, the more you bust out the microscope to go after Obama, the more it seems like you cant really find anything of true substance to bash the guy with. Lets face it, there is nothing of substance yet because he's 3 months into his presidency.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The fact that this thread exists as "actual" outrage makes me pretty comfortable with the general way things are going.

Indeed, but I think it says something that Obama can so freely make up a decision on music piracy and the dire consequences Americans face should they participate as such, and yet have little to say about *actual* piracy.

/harp, harp

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss .... still waiting for Bush to be indicted on breaking portions of the constitution. Anyway, if you read the whole post, the Hillary part is not "what the thread is about." That's just a small piece of the puzzle.

the president has immunity for acts conducted in his official capacity as president. You'll never see an indictment because he is insulated from liability for his actions, nevertheless, that doesn't mean he didn't violate the constitution.

the problem with many of your posts is that you post too much information with tenuous connections, at best. perhaps in your mind the information goes together well, but the way you present information leaves searching for a main point.

I think we can all agree the last thing we want is the captain to end up dead, so they (the entire government) are taking this very cautiously. Obama is letting people who knows how to handle this situation do their job.

This issue isn't an Obama issue, it's the United States issue. Just because Obama is leading the country doesn't mean the other side takes a step back and becomes a back seat driver, so to speak. It is the responsbility of all sides to think of a solution out of this mess. If that captain is harmed, it is the failure of the nation, not the administration.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottaculous I think we can all agree the last thing we want is the captain to end up dead, so they (the entire government) are taking this very cautiously. Obama is letting people who knows how to handle this situation do their job. This issue isn't an Obama issue, it's the United States issue. Just because Obama is leading the country doesn't mean the other side takes a step back and becomes a back seat driver, so to speak. It is the responsbility of all sides to think of a solution out of this mess. If that captain is harmed, it is the failure of the nation, not the administration.

i have to disagree with you that this is a US issue. It is not the primary responsibility of the US to free hostages of pirates. I wouldn't even want the US to pay ransom to free hostages of the pirates. Unfortunately, this is a much larger issue for Maersk and this guy's family, especially considering the guy was taken hostage thousands of miles from US territory.

Providing security for the ships and crewmembers of ships in the shipping lanes is NOT a responsibility of the US; it's a task the US and other nations are doing for the good of the world. With that said, I would hope the US does as much as it can to ensure the safety of a fellow american. I just don't think it is our government's responsiblity to ensure that safety when the man was taken hostage thousands of miles from the US. If this man doesn't survive, his death would not be a result of a failure by Obama or this country, it would simply be a result of a killing by pirates.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i have to disagree with you that this is a US issue. It is not the primary responsibility of the US to free hostages of pirates. I wouldn't even want the US to pay ransom to free hostages of the pirates. Unfortunately, this is a much larger issue for Maersk and this guy's family, especially considering the guy was taken hostage thousands of miles from US territory. Providing security for the ships and crewmembers of ships in the shipping lanes is NOT a responsibility of the US; it's a task the US and other nations are doing for the good of the world. With that said, I would hope the US does as much as it can to ensure the safety of a fellow american. I just don't think it is our government's responsiblity to ensure that safety when the man was taken hostage thousands of miles from the US. If this man doesn't survive, his death would not be a result of a failure by Obama or this country, it would simply be a result of a killing by pirates.

You'd be right if the USA wasn't already involved. The fact is the USA have sent warships to the area and are now involved just by being there. Ultimately I do still agree with you that if the US Navy cant rescue him or safely secure his release it wont be a failure on the part of Obama or the USA.

To be honest if I was a pirate holding an American hostage, and I had enormous warships training their sights on me, the last thing I'd worry about were strong words from the President of the USA.

I agree with Scottaculous, let the Navy and FBI negotiator do their jobs, and keep bull shit politics out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex You'd be right if the USA wasn't already involved. The fact is the USA have sent warships to the area and are now involved just by being there.

So is this particular hostage situation a chinese issue, french issue, iranian issue, or british issue? Each of those countries is also involved by way of sending navy ships to protect shipping lanes.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 So is this particular hostage situation a chinese issue, french issue, iranian issue, or british issue? Each of those countries is also involved by way of sending navy ships to protect shipping lanes.

Oops, I meant the response to the incident not the actual general protection of shipping lanes.

As far as I know US warships were sent to this SCENE were they not? I could be wrong but I thought they responded directly to this incident.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Oops, I meant the response to the incident not the actual general protection of shipping lanes. As far as I know US warships were sent to this SCENE were they not? I could be wrong but I thought they responded directly to this incident.

The US did specifically respond to this incident by sending navy ships to the scene, and escorting the attacked ship to Kenya.

i see what you're getting at, but i still tend to disagree. If the FBI was involved in a hostage investigation and the hostage taker killed the hostage, I wouldn't blame the FBI.

how long before these pirates turn up in newark, los angeles, and new orleans? if no-brain apes from a fourth world country can jack millions upon millions of shit with a few ak-47s and a raft, what could some of that inner city scum pull off here? if the cubans started now i bet they would have a monopoly on this actually

I'd say they should resort to the 19th century model of dealing with pirates. It's not pretty, but its a deterrent, and it worked in the past.

But, more effectively, instead of patrolling the very wide area of the ocean affected - not very successful, they outta put a man or two armed with decent/reasonable weapons on each passing merchant ship in the area and that outta be enough.

quote:

Originally posted by sean5 how long before these pirates turn up in newark, los angeles, and new orleans? if no-brain apes from a fourth world country can jack millions upon millions of shit with a few ak-47s and a raft, what could some of that inner city scum pull off here? if the cubans started now i bet they would have a monopoly on this actually

one HUGE difference: law enforcement. The US has about 1 million sworn and civilian police officers. On the other hand, Somolia is a lawless land. If Somolia some civil stability piracy likely would not be an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium But, more effectively, instead of patrolling the very wide area of the ocean affected - not very successful, they outta put a man or two armed with decent/reasonable weapons on each passing merchant ship in the area and that outta be enough.

exactly. im not sure why the companys arent shelling out some cash for a few 50 cal's onboard. Small investments for the amount of headache's, money & most importantly... lives that can be saved.

Maybe if the Islamic Courts Union was allowed to rightfully take power, there would be civil order, but of course we have our hand on Somalia and won't allow them to form their own government.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun exactly. im not sure why the companys arent shelling out some cash for a few 50 cal's onboard. Small investments for the amount of headache's, money & most importantly... lives that can be saved.

holding those weapons may violate the laws of the countries on the ships itenerary.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Maybe if the Islamic Courts Union was allowed to rightfully take power, there would be civil order, but of course we have our hand on Somalia and won't allow them to form their own government.

In the 90s. Every problem is not a consequence of some US action.

Slowly, I'm really starting to think you do despise the US (as accused by others on this board).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 In the 90s. Every problem is not a consequence of some US action. Slowly, I'm really starting to think you do despise the US (as accused by others on this board).

I'm not talking about the 90's. I'm talking about when the ICC took over Mogadishu and instituted some semblance of order, and got rid of pirates in their territory. Only to have a US-backed Ethiopian invasion and occupation of the country.

I know opposition to our country participating in numerous invasions, coups, and occupations is anti-American or anti-patriotic to you people, but I couldn't give a flying fuck how others perceive my views. Or about patriotism. Patriotism is a farce.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm not talking about the 90's. I'm talking about when the ICC took over Mogadishu and instituted some semblance of order, and got rid of pirates in their territory. Only to have a US-backed Ethiopian invasion and occupation of the country.

So, your implication is that Ethiopia went to war with Somolia because the US didn't want the Islamist to rule the country. Is that correct?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I know opposition to our country participating in numerous invasions, coups, and occupations is anti-American or anti-patriotic to you people, but I couldn't give a flying fuck how others perceive my views. Or about patriotism. Patriotism is a farce.

Your dissent is not the problem. It's the fact that it appears to everyone on this board that you think everything wrong with the world is somehow connected to something done by the US. In short, that's a really easy way to avoid understanding the fundamental issue.

I couldn't care less whether you are patriotic. That's not important to me.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 So, your implication is that Ethiopia went to war with Somolia because the US didn't want the Islamist to rule the country. Is that correct?

When a country invades and occupies another country, that is a war of aggression. Not only did we support warlords in opposition to the ICU, but took part in the invasion of Somalia by dropping bombs. Why the hell are we even involved over there in the first place. Did Somalia attack us at any time? No. We are not the god damn policeman of the world. I'm not calling for isolationism, but FFS, we need to let some of these countries handle their own problems.

quote:

Your dissent is not the problem. It's the fact that it appears to everyone on this board that you think everything wrong with the world is somehow connected to something done by the US. In short, that's a really easy way to avoid understanding the fundamental issue.

Everything wrong in this world is somehow connected to something done by the US? Straw man argument for the lose. I'll grant you this. A lot of shit that is going down in the world, we do have our hands in. Case #1, the propagation of Islamic fundamentalism. It didn't spring up for fun or because they hate our freedom. My focus on these issues is not because I'm anti-American or any of that nonsense. It's because the root causes of these very serious international issues, many times, starts with us and our actions. You can't invade and occupy a country without a resistance forming in that country and public opinion being strongly against you, and that motivating angry young men to become terrorists, etc etc. Oddly, most of you ignore the consequences of our actions. And I never ever have said America is inherently bad. But I don't stand for bullshit especially when my country, in my name, kills thousands of people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.