Ron Paul vs PIRATES, Thinking outside the box

[rchiu]

Heh, I would love to see who is gonna pay for lawsuits brought by innocent people (hostages, or someone on the street if the fight is on the ground) hurt/killed during these fights between mercenaries and pirates. Or people killed being mistaken for pirates. Or innocent people killed just so those mercenaries can claim credits.

I am sure all these mercenaries would follow international laws and rules of engagement. And I am sure all these mercenaries are all law biding citizens.....

Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: FlashG
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.

Seriously. Bring back Q-ships...

Which turned out to be pretty useless.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

 

[JSFLY]

FYI guys, its the entire world vs the pirates right now.

Why not convince the international community to:
a. Pay for these bounties
b. Source mercs from around the globe
c. Help come up with and enforce ethical guidelines and rules of conduct

Remember, this isn't the US vs the pirates. This is the entire world vs the pirates.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

It's amusing how easily you are willing to let innocent people die to satisfy your desire to be "right". Should we all be so cavalier in this attitude? Perhaps if your family was one who was a "broken egg" you wouldn't be so cavalier.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

It's amusing how easily you are willing to let innocent people die to satisfy your desire to be "right". Should we all be so cavalier in this attitude? Perhaps if your family was one who was a "broken egg" you wouldn't be so cavalier.

Once again, LegendKiller puts his ignorance on display for the whole world to see.

If you bothered to read, you'd see I'm against this idea. But being the ignorant fool you are, you assume that I'm a "Paulbot" and a "libertopian" and you attempt to put me into your neat little categories, because that's all your mind can comprehend. Black and white.

My response to rchiu was because he seems to feel that costs should be shouldered only by those who support a particular plan of action. If that's the case then I, being opposed to almost all government spending should pay almost nothing in taxes. Let those who support big government pay for it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, I would love to see who is gonna pay for lawsuits brought by innocent people (hostages, or someone on the street if the fight is on the ground) hurt/killed during these fights between mercenaries and pirates. Or people killed being mistaken for pirates. Or innocent people killed just so those mercenaries can claim credits.

I am sure all these mercenaries would follow international laws and rules of engagement. And I am sure all these mercenaries are all law biding citizens.....

Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Its not his "idea"

It is written in the Constitution...and if you don't like it you are free to leave for a different country.

But wait...the Constitution also gives Freedom of Speech. Bought and paid for by the deaths of soldiers and patriots...so I guess you can stay

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

It's amusing how easily you are willing to let innocent people die to satisfy your desire to be "right". Should we all be so cavalier in this attitude? Perhaps if your family was one who was a "broken egg" you wouldn't be so cavalier.

Once again, LegendKiller puts his ignorance on display for the whole world to see.

If you bothered to read, you'd see I'm against this idea. But being the ignorant fool you are, you assume that I'm a "Paulbot" and a "libertopian" and you attempt to put me into your neat little categories, because that's all your mind can comprehend. Black and white.

My response to rchiu was because he seems to feel that costs should be shouldered only by those who support a particular plan of action. If that's the case then I, being opposed to almost all government spending should pay almost nothing in taxes. Let those who support big government pay for it.

I show no ignorance but you certainly show your blase attitude towards getting people killed compared to monetary value. You essentially said that you think that the cost of the bailout (which you're against) would be worse than the cost of a people murdered and settling with their families (which you're also against, but see the cost as lesser in monetary damages). But you, yourself, showed that you place less value on life than on the cost of the bailout.

I merely put it in real terms. If it was the lives of your family, or yourself, would you be so willing to pay for one over another?

Your logic is at question, not your support of one situation compared to another.

 

[Lemon law]

The Ron Paul idea stinks, maybe a short term idea that will backfire, just what we need, equip blackwater with its own Navy. Pardon me, that stinks.

Actually there is a tried and true solution used in all major conflicts for centuries. Have merchant ships travel in big convoys, then it only takes one warship to protect the whole convoy against the puny pirates that don't even have the modern threat of submarines that decimated convoys in ww1, and ww2.

With radar, no surface ship can come within 30 miles of the convoy undetected, much less dispatch the small chase boats needed to come along side merchant ships. Its those pirate mother ships that are most at risk, and they would be damn fools to mess with a destroyer with five inch guns and missiles that can sink them from incredible distances. And since a destroyer class vessel can deploy helicopter gunships able to fly far faster than the destroyer, and then any pirate deployed chase boat are a dead meat target at the mercy of the helicopter that is flying far above RPG range.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

It's amusing how easily you are willing to let innocent people die to satisfy your desire to be "right". Should we all be so cavalier in this attitude? Perhaps if your family was one who was a "broken egg" you wouldn't be so cavalier.

Once again, LegendKiller puts his ignorance on display for the whole world to see.

If you bothered to read, you'd see I'm against this idea. But being the ignorant fool you are, you assume that I'm a "Paulbot" and a "libertopian" and you attempt to put me into your neat little categories, because that's all your mind can comprehend. Black and white.

My response to rchiu was because he seems to feel that costs should be shouldered only by those who support a particular plan of action. If that's the case then I, being opposed to almost all government spending should pay almost nothing in taxes. Let those who support big government pay for it.

I show no ignorance but you certainly show your blase attitude towards getting people killed compared to monetary value. You essentially said that you think that the cost of the bailout (which you're against) would be worse than the cost of a people murdered and settling with their families (which you're also against, but see the cost as lesser in monetary damages). But you, yourself, showed that you place less value on life than on the cost of the bailout.

I merely put it in real terms. If it was the lives of your family, or yourself, would you be so willing to pay for one over another?

Your logic is at question, not your support of one situation compared to another.

And still you persist in stupidity.

I'll repeat it again. I am against the use of mercenaries. Do I need to say it one more time? I probably do since you clearly don't understand. I'll say it loudly, maybe you're just hard of hearing. I AM AGAINST THE USE OF MERCENARIES.

rchiu made the issue financial so I simply maintained his line of reasoning.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Maybe Ron Pual and his supporters ought to shoulder the cost since they are so high on the idea.

Sounds fair. Let Ron Paul supporters pay for this scheme and let Obama supporters pay for the bailout and stimulus. I know which bill I'd rather get.

It's amusing how easily you are willing to let innocent people die to satisfy your desire to be "right". Should we all be so cavalier in this attitude? Perhaps if your family was one who was a "broken egg" you wouldn't be so cavalier.

Once again, LegendKiller puts his ignorance on display for the whole world to see.

If you bothered to read, you'd see I'm against this idea. But being the ignorant fool you are, you assume that I'm a "Paulbot" and a "libertopian" and you attempt to put me into your neat little categories, because that's all your mind can comprehend. Black and white.

My response to rchiu was because he seems to feel that costs should be shouldered only by those who support a particular plan of action. If that's the case then I, being opposed to almost all government spending should pay almost nothing in taxes. Let those who support big government pay for it.

I show no ignorance but you certainly show your blase attitude towards getting people killed compared to monetary value. You essentially said that you think that the cost of the bailout (which you're against) would be worse than the cost of a people murdered and settling with their families (which you're also against, but see the cost as lesser in monetary damages). But you, yourself, showed that you place less value on life than on the cost of the bailout.

I merely put it in real terms. If it was the lives of your family, or yourself, would you be so willing to pay for one over another?

Your logic is at question, not your support of one situation compared to another.

And still you persist in stupidity.

I'll repeat it again. I am against the use of mercenaries. Do I need to say it one more time? I probably do since you clearly don't understand. I'll say it loudly, maybe you're just hard of hearing. I AM AGAINST THE USE OF MERCENARIES.

rchiu made the issue financial so I simply maintained his line of reasoning.

Do you fucking speak english? Do you want me to buy you some Hooked On Phonics software?

I specifically called into question your monetary comparison. Re-read.

 

[bamacre]

Ron Paul's actual remarks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrCqVYVxEoA

What he is saying is these ships should be able to protect themselves.

 

[Robor]

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.

No, he'll just let the states do it. I wonder how a non-christian would feel being raised in the bible belt?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Do you fucking speak english? Do you want me to buy you some Hooked On Phonics software?

I specifically called into question your monetary comparison. Re-read.

I could say the same to you buffoon.

rchiu made it a monetary issue.

What is wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a child?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The pirates of the 1th century used decent size ships to attack merchant ships. The merchant ships were armed with small cannons. The pirates were better armed, small warships for the times.

Privateers could capture and sell those ships for $$. That was the incentive - monetary profit.

For the current situation there are numerous obstacles for all options presented.

1) The value of the speedboats are minuscule. They have a hard time coming from the coast - as noted, they need a mother ship - those should be the target for stopping the pirates at sea.
2) The merchant ships are not armed at all compared to the weaponry the pirates can bring to the conflicts.
3) The amount of Somalia coastline that the pirates can operate from is 2000 miles. Equivalent to the complete west coast from Seattle to San Diego. Looking at the maps, the pirates are operating south of Somalia also; that would add another 500-1000 miles of coastline to be covered. - That brings you down to close to Panama in reference
4) Conveys can stretch out for 20 miles or more depending on the number of ships.
Any convey would need need a min of 6 destroyers to allow a response time of 30 minutes or less. Destroyers can move up to 30+ kts but have to stay slower for the convoy.
5) Helos are going to be able to travel at about 100 kts. They can not be launched from a fast moving ship (under 10-15 kts).
8) The pirates have advanced radar to be able to detect ships & naval vessels. They will be lying low when a warship passes.

One can go after the pirates at sea - they may be easier to identify. The vessels will not be normal fishing vessels. To go after the pirates on land is a dicey options. Civilians exists in the area. There are too many harbors/inlets to try and do a naval blockade.

Convoys are great for vessels of the same speed and are wiling to be herded. Tankers, etc.
Mixed bags take longer to form up, and travel. Time costs money; schedules are impacted along with logistics.

Look at the problems convoys had during WWII getting across the North Atlantic. The logistics and planning and then the UBoat. For reference, think of the UBoat as the pirate mothership and the torpedo's as the attack boats. Torpedos were launched when the UBoat felt is was afe from the escorts. Those conveys were controlled by the US Government and the ships knew that to break the rules could be their death.

For the Indian Ocean conveys, the penalties are not so severe for the merchantmen and the cost & schedule disruptions are much greater when the are in convey

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: bamacre
This man should be our President.

This.

Ron Paul TTT!!

 

[TheSlamma]

Privateers baby.. it has worked well in the past.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Privateers baby.. it has worked well in the past.

Privateers before had an economic incentative based on the prize value.

These would be essentially bounty or scalp hunters.
To work effectively, the privateers must be able to have higher firepower than the pirates and be sure to go only after the pirates themselves.



There would have to be the Q ship principle that was used in WWII.

Against raider ships, it works (there was only one/two warships in the area and few merchants); against what currently exists with a couple of hundred ships to choose from and many more raiders.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: nixium
Hiring goons to take out goons? I don't think that'll end well.

Well if thats the way you see it wouldnt that be an ideal situation, they kill each other, win-win.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Here is a simple solution.

Convoys.

As ships come off the Red Sea (or another staging point at the other end somewhere in the Indian Ocean) we assemble them into convoys. Then we assign say three of four small, fast, but well armed warships to protect the convoy. This could be a UN measure, a NATO measure, or just a whoever wants to help measure. Using smaller ships will reduce costs, and lets face it, do we really need a destroyer to chase speedboats.

I have a feeling that this would quickly reduce the amount of piracy in the area. Anyone who prefers to operate outside of the safety zone can just assume their own risk. This way you do not have to cover huge areas and you can get much better results. Worked in WWI and II as well as other wars throughout history.

Oh, and when they see pirates, shoot to kill, this is not a police action.

While I prefer the idea of private citizens and corporations taking up arms to defend themselves, laws really need to be changed to allow it, I would also support an idea like yours.

IMO having the shipping companies paying various governments (or private armed contractors) a fee for an armed escort through certain waters would be preferable to them paying pirates a ransom.