Authorized to use EXCESSIVE force.

 

What does excessive force constitute, out of curiousity? Because you do mean that excessive means more than needed, right?

"The use of Unnecessary Force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers has been approved."

 

 

:thumb::lol:

"The use of Unnecessary Force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers has been approved."

 

:thumb: :clap:

What does excessive force constitute, out of curiousity? Because you do mean that excessive means more than needed, right?

 

Yep.

 

 

I mean if a pirate ship comes within gun range blow it out the water.

Send in a carrier strike group. Put a couple of Hawkeyes in the air. You spot a pirate ship, send in a few Hornets. You spot a mother ship, send a Harpoon its way.

Send in a carrier strike group. Put a couple of Hawkeyes in the air. You spot a pirate ship, send in a few Hornets. You spot a mother ship, send a Harpoon its way.

I like it.:thumb:

Send in a carrier strike group. Put a couple of Hawkeyes in the air. You spot a pirate ship, send in a few Hornets. You spot a mother ship, send a Harpoon its way.

 

 

Finally someone agrees! :banana:

The freight companies need to be hiring private security (like Black Water) to be on the ships from harbor to harbor. You would need more then 4-5 guys on each ship. Also any US Naval ship operating in the area that sees a pirate ship of any kind should destroy it if it has the means to do so. No questions asked. It wouldn't take very many for the pirates to get the point.

The freight companies need to be hiring private security (like Black Water) to be on the ships from harbor to harbor. You would need more then 4-5 guys on each ship. Also any US Naval ship operating in the area that sees a pirate ship of any kind should destroy it if it has the means to do so. No questions asked. It wouldn't take very many for the pirates to get the point.

 

Sounds good but what would that do to the cost of items they are shipping?

Sounds good but what would that do to the cost of items they are shipping?

 

Depends on what the cost difference of paying out ransoms is when compared to the cost of adding the necessary protection.

 

I'm sure these companies pass the ransom costs on. I heard a guy on the radio discussing it, and he said many of the companies concider it a cost of doing business in that part of the world.

Would not all of your plans stand in direct contrast to the way Obama has indicated that the US is going to act to situations in this world under his Presidency?

Would not all of your plans stand in direct contrast to the way Obama has indicated that the US is going to act to situations in this world under his Presidency?

 

 

Please elaborate.

Yep.

 

 

I mean if a pirate ship comes within gun range blow it out the water.

 

My thoughts exactly. :thumb:

Please elaborate.

 

Obama indicated that we needed to get together with other countries and come up with solutions instead of the US running in there and solving a problem.

 

Notwithstanding a situation where an American is being held hostage. Obama seemed to have handled the situation with Phillips perfectly and should be commended for it.

 

But how to handle the piracy issue that doesn't relate directly to Americans does not lend itself to USA going in and taking care of it when Obama has said that is not what we are going to do.

 

Look how the North Korea situation is being handled. We went to the UN, the pretty much done nothing and where GW at least got a symbolic NK to be at the talks about something with China, O's actions of diplomacy and UN smacking them on the hand have metted them leaving those talks.

 

It would seem to me that US Navy blowing pirate ships out of the water would be the American arrogance to barge in and take care of the issue that Obama said we had been guilty of and implied we would not be guilty of in the future.

Obama indicated that we needed to get together with other countries and come up with solutions instead of the US running in there and solving a problem.

 

Notwithstanding a situation where an American is being held hostage. Obama seemed to have handled the situation with Phillips perfectly and should be commended for it.

 

But how to handle the piracy issue that doesn't relate directly to Americans does not lend itself to USA going in and taking care of it when Obama has said that is not what we are going to do.

 

Look how the North Korea situation is being handled. We went to the UN, the pretty much done nothing and where GW at least got a symbolic NK to be at the talks about something with China, O's actions of diplomacy and UN smacking them on the hand have metted them leaving those talks.

 

It would seem to me that US Navy blowing pirate ships out of the water would be the American arrogance to barge in and take care of the issue that Obama said we had been guilty of and implied we would not be guilty of in the future.

 

I have been an advocate of an international force to handle the problem.

 

Besides as attacks on ALL nations ships in the region intensify this give Obama the perfect opportunity to build his own legacy by going before the U.N. and pushing for a U.N. Resolution authorizing an international force to patrol the area, led by the U.S. of course, to end this pirate menace.

 

In doing so he goes after people that many in the Western World want to stop, asks for international support, indicates America's strength AND "shows" how he is nothing like the previous administration.

 

It is a win-win for him at this point.