Ron Paul vs PIRATES, Thinking outside the box

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.

Yeah, these were the biggest issues in his campaign. :roll:

His stance on abortion is that the Federal government has no jurisdiction, and as someone who wants to give education back to the states, his religious beliefs become irrelevant at the federal level (and I say this having never heard Paul talk about "creationism").
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Deeko
ahhhahahahahahah

This is a joke, right?

No, but you are :)

Invoking the "I know you are but what am I" defense I see. I will counter with "I'm rubber you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you."
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.

Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:

huh?

Your inference is that because he believes those things that he will implement or back government intervention along those lines. Simply not true.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,068
55,589
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.

Yeah, these were the biggest issues in his campaign. :roll:

His stance on abortion is that the Federal government has no jurisdiction, and as someone who wants to give education back to the states, his religious beliefs become irrelevant at the federal level (and I say this having never heard Paul talk about "creationism").

I didn't say that they were the biggest issues in the campaign, I was directly responding to some misinformation someone else posted. You should have noticed that while you were removing the other quotes.

I never mentioned the implications of his stances on abortion either, as it doesn't matter to me. No matter what DR RON PAUL wants to do about abortion, it will always be legal in the US. As far as him being a creationist, I'm not afraid he's going to turn our public schools into jesusland or anything, I was simply stating it because it shows that he's a fucking moron.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,068
55,589
136
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.

Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:

huh?

Your inference is that because he believes those things that he will implement or back government intervention along those lines. Simply not true.

Wrong, my inference was that when JSFLY thought Ron Paul lost the Republican primary it was due to his stances on certain social conservative issues that Ron Paul bucked Republican orthodoxy on. I was correcting his mistake on abortion, and mentioning how Ron Paul goes even further than that one some issues, like creationism.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I generally agree with Paul, but I disagree with him here completely. I don't think we want to get into the habit of hiring mercenaries as a country. Hiring security is one thing, paying people to go out and kill is another.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I generally agree with Paul, but I disagree with him here completely. I don't think we want to get into the habit of hiring mercenaries as a country. Hiring security is one thing, paying people to go out and kill is another.

Have to agree.

We already have UN authorization to do whatever we need to do - I'm much more in favor of using the tools we already have.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: her209
Blackwater USA 2.0

This,
because the land version worked so well in Iraq.

Also I love how this thread is a Paulnut circlejerk already, complete with youtube reducation videos.
 

JSFLY

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2006
1,068
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.

Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:

huh?

Your inference is that because he believes those things that he will implement or back government intervention along those lines. Simply not true.

Wrong, my inference was that when JSFLY thought Ron Paul lost the Republican primary it was due to his stances on certain social conservative issues that Ron Paul bucked Republican orthodoxy on. I was correcting his mistake on abortion, and mentioning how Ron Paul goes even further than that one some issues, like creationism.


To clarify my previous post:
Ron Paul does not believe in Legalization of Marijuana, Gay marriage, or Abortion. What he does believe is that the Fed should not intervene with the right of States to decide on these issues. The christian right wanted these issues to be dealt with on a federal level, national policy governing how the states handle these issues. This is the reason why they didn't support Ron Paul. I didn't think to expand on this earlier because I assumed everyone knew Dr Paul was a Libertarian.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,981
1,701
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.

did you mean vessels, not vessel???? the multi-national task force out there now cannot even cover the areas being targeted now...

it took the USS Bainbridge several hours to reach the US ship that was just attacked...
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
How could you trust that the bounty hunters would only go after real pirates? They could just trump up some somalis and claim they were pirates. Also, it's not in a bounty hunters own interest to get rid of all pirates since that would put them out of a job. They would only want to keep a few pirates around to keep the issue alive.
I think the same. It might start as pirates and then just be some black fisherman who had a fishing pole that looked like a rifle. I suppose it could require video footage, though, as a rule.
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
Same vein as what i said in the other thread. The key requirement here is the ability to take these pirates out and given the huge area covered, it can only meaningfully be done with airborne vehicles. It's not feasible to have enough fighters in the area at all times or carriers, so UAVs are the ticket.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,911
5,010
136
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.

Are you aware that Somalia's coastline is more than 2000 miles long?

Multiply that by the 200+ miles offshore target area.

I think you get the drift?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.

Are you aware that Somalia's coastline is more than 2000 miles long?

Multiply that by the 200+ miles offshore target area.

I think you get the drift?
How much area can a Predator scan?

Quick wikipedia read indicates that a half dozen UAVs could survey much of the coastline, including going out quite a distance.

 

JSFLY

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2006
1,068
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.

Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.

Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.

Are you aware that Somalia's coastline is more than 2000 miles long?

Multiply that by the 200+ miles offshore target area.

I think you get the drift?
How much area can a Predator scan?

Quick wikipedia read indicates that a half dozen UAVs could survey much of the coastline, including going out quite a distance.

That wouldn't matter if the pirates covered themselves in mud. :p
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
That wouldn't matter if the pirates covered themselves in mud.

I see what you did there :p

I would think a Boxer class ship could be retrofitted for this purpose, or a similar sized ship constructed. It wouldn't take many of them to cover an area even as large as we're talking.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: bamacre
This man should be our President.

I cannot believe that I think that I am slowly becoming a Ron Paul bot.

Resistance is futile.

Yup... I gotta say, I like everything that I hear him say... Its too bad the republican party craps all over him and treats him like he is some kind of imbecile. HE would have been a great nominee.

I really hated in the debates, he said some really great stuff, and McCain and Romney just rolled their eyes at him like he is insignificant.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: Thump553

Somalia pirates frequently disguise themselves as ordinary fishermen. Does Paul contemplate authorizing attacks on all Somalia boats and ships, regardless of what they are doing? Does he want the US to essentially declare war on Somalia?

Implement no fishing zones.... kind of like no fly zones.


Anyway I like my solution better. Just airlift 4 mercs onto the deck as the ship approaches pirate infested waters. Each merc is armed with a gyro stabilized .50 cal sniper rifle. You come within range of the rifle you die. After the threat is gone, you airlift them out. That way the ship can dock and still be unarmed.
 

FlashG

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 1999
2,709
2
0
I see nothing wrong with issuing letters of marque now to help control the immediate problem. We can always rescind them if they are abused or become unnecessary. Maybe then the people of Somilia might be ready for some form of government.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
This is brilliant. Using private citizens to take care of the pirate problem is an excellent, and cost effective strategy. It also keeps the media out of the picture, which will allow the pirates to be slaughtered like dogs. Even though the US military is heavily armed, the pirates don't fear them like they should. The pirates *will* fear private citizens, who are heavily armed and, most importantly, they will be effectively accountable to no one. No media = tortured and slaughtered pirates. If this plan is enacted, the fish stocks in the waters off Somalia will be well fed. Well fed indeed.