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.
Apr-10-2009 19:43
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Yea, it's all Obama's fault.
Apr-10-2009 20:08
D-res
Hangin from Sagan's uvula
Registered: May 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
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.
Apr-10-2009 20:29
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
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.
Apr-10-2009 21:36
The17sss
C.R.E.A.M.
Registered: May 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
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.
Apr-10-2009 22:58
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
The fact that this thread exists as "actual" outrage makes me pretty comfortable with the general way things are going.
___________________
Apr-11-2009 04:32
Alex
Suck a cheetah's dick
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
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.
___________________
Apr-11-2009 05:41
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast
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
___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Apr-11-2009 05:54
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
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.
Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-11-2009 at 14:33
Apr-11-2009 14:19
Scottaculous
habitual line crosser
Registered: Mar 2001
Location: On a plane
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.
Last edited by Scottaculous on Apr-11-2009 at 17:48
Apr-11-2009 17:39
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
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.
Apr-11-2009 18:22
Alex
Suck a cheetah's dick
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
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.
what a bitch. They're both cracking up. I wasn't aware Morocco was so hilarious.
