Just to be fair:
He authorized military to use deadly force to free a American being held by pirates of the coast of Somalia. This was a good call.
Printable View
Just to be fair:
He authorized military to use deadly force to free a American being held by pirates of the coast of Somalia. This was a good call.
From Instapundit:Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
"Four pirates can overwhelm a ship crewed by 20+, grab a hostage, and keep the US Navy and two thousand Marines tied up for days? How many such victories can we expect in the future?”
I'd still like to hear the details of this operation but I'm willing to give Big O props on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
From what I understood he gave a standing call to use lethal force only if they feared the captains life was in danger.
They said the soldiers on the Bainbridge saw the pirates holding an AK to the guys back. I'm guessing much like they had been doing for days now, so the snipers unloaded.
not a valiant call by O in my opinion.He should have unleashed the snipers and or the Seals days ago.
Not Jackson-esque but at least he didn't do what I expected which was sit back and do nothing.
CANCEL THIS WHOLE THREAD.
The On-Scene Commander made the decision to snipe based on Standard Rules of Engagement. THE POTUS DIDN'T DO SHIT.
he did auth force though......I cant stand him still but I do feel somewhat better..........at least for now~! One thing I would have done diffrent is 4 dead, now the one pirate is going to live like a king, and about 4 days earlier.
Exactly what they want you to do. :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Camelwalk
"He did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement"
That's like authorizing a soldier to duck when being shot at. Soldiers don't need permission from the POTUS to defend the life of a American civilian. Obama really showed some cojones grande for issuing a common sense and irrelevant order.
Or perhaps just a lack of knowledge of the rules of engagement. I'm not sure they teach you those things at Harvard or in his community groups. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
My eyes bugged out of my head and I spit coffee all over my desk when I read the title to this thread. I couldnt believe such a thing to ever be posted in the AK forums... I checked out the windows to make sure there were no giant meteors falling to earth, tidal waves of lava rolling across the continent, as I braced myself for the mother of all earth quakes.
I scanned through its contents quickly and with a smirk I quickly sighed relief knowing all was well in the world.
The POTUS could have said the pirates should not be harmed and they would be alive today correct. So I found the 1% of good from our Prez on this issue........HOPE AND CHANGE BABY!
Also I saw a report there going to attack land bases going after the pirates, IMO I think that is the wrong move. Just kill them when they take over boats, no ransoms just kill them.......they are pirates, they want to live to spend the money. If they want to live they will leave our boats alone and go after French ships!
[QUOTE='[AK]Camelwalk;92028']The POTUS could have said the pirates should not be harmed and they would be alive today correct. QUOTE]
Wrong. When the soldiers saw the captains life in danger they made the call to fire. Much like if you were in fear of your life and used force to deal with it even though Mr. O had called you and told you not too.
The solution is simple. Pay the ransom, shoot them as they try to boat home. then send in sailors to recover the cash.
If recovering the cash is an issue, use fake bills.
The other countries can work out their own solutions.
As the details fill in, my impression of the President has wained a bit again. Basically the rules of engagement for this were to not harm anyone to end the scenario. The only option to using force was if the life of the hostage was in imminent danger.
Reading between the lines, it looks to me like the field commander made a tactical decision to end this damn thing. He made the call that the life of the hostage was in imminent danger because they were pointing a gun at him. My guess is they were pointing a gun at him pretty much daily already, and the commander got sick of it. Pretty sure the pirates knew damned well the only thing keeping them alive was the life of their hostage. The commander took real balls here, because if anything had gone wrong, you can bet your ass he would have been hung out to dry.
I'm not impressed with Obama afterall. The man continues to be an empty suit.
I'm dissappointed. But our armed forces did GREAT, despite the empty suit.
Everyone acts like this guy was/is the only hostage. If that was the case I am sure the call would have been easy to make to send in the SEALS or take out the pirates with snipers as was done.
To make the call to save 1 person while endangering the lives of hundereds of other hostages, which although may not be US citizens, I am sure are apart of some allied country's.
How do you think it would have / will pan out if the pirates said alright you killed 3 of our men we will take 3 to how ever many of the hundreds we have and kill them. We will only kill those that belong to a country that is currently allied with the US.
It easy to sit here and be as macho as possible and talk about strong arming anyone who gets in our way and talk about a president who doesnt have the "balls" to make the call. But I think about this war in Iraq started by the good ol southern boy who if nothing else had balls, yet I didnt see us as a nation going in saying screw it and taking everyone out. As a matter of fact the only reason why we suffered "ANY" casualties is because we were / are being diplomatic about it.
If by "good ol southern boy" you mean a UN Resolution and an act of Congress authorizing the use of force, then ya.
then ya?
Not sure what your referring to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bojan
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts what a wonderful Christmas that'd be.
I'd refuse to be paralyzed by criminal acts. After I got done sniping the batch of terrorists I was monitoring, I'd go kill the assholes who sympathetically killed innocents on your hypothetical "other boat".
Then I'd go looking for other chicken-shit "pirates" floating around in their crap-junkets. Then once I found some, I'd fill with them lead and sink the dingy.
It's time to raise the cost of their "doing business."
If their risk:reward ratio goes higher on the risk side, they're bound to stop the pirating. If they don't then Natural Selection is taking place... I think that's a win/win for us.
Unfortunately, I think human lives are worth so little in Somalia that it's just part of the cost of doing business, and a few pirates being shot is not going to halt the piracy. If we want to stop it, we're going to have to nuke the whole anthill. I can't say "bomb them back to the stone age," because they're already there.
The problem your going to run into in both this theory and Squids is the fact that we assume the Pirates are a military force.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Abaddon
Going to run into the same problems we run into in iraq. Once we show up your going to see the enemy running back into civilian areas and holding up there. Cant fight an army that isnt there to fight and you cant just storm into civilian areas trying to guess who the baddies and who isnt.
Everyone acts like its as easy as sending in a squad of trained troops and taking em all out. If that was the case it would have been done long ago.
Its just funny to see these issues trivalized to a point of something my 11 year old would suggest after watching a war flick on the boob tube.
I'm not proposing surgical strikes or attacks by precision teams. Too much risk to our soldiers, and no benefits to us.
I say drop a few nigh-nuclear conventional bombs and completely obliterate the home-base villages that survive on income from piracy. Repeat until the problem (and the pirates) go away.
The pirates ARE civilians; there's no question of whether they are an army or not. But why should that matter?
I would consider a pirate no more, no less than a terroist. The problem is still, as I see it if you take out one of these home bases, exactly how many non pirate civilians and hostages are you willing to kill
The world would be a different place if we lived by the same moral code and ethics as our enemies. Sometimes, I wish we did.
EXACTLY:uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi:Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
I don't recall saying anything about going on-shore to fight them.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bojan
And we won in Iraq. Just a reminder, as you seem to have forgotten.
Easy to do with the non-stop propaganda by the liberal media.
We don't need to go onshore. In fact, it's preferred to take them out on the water.
1) No unnecessary political entanglements when in international waters.
2) Easy to identify the enemy
3) No collateral damages or human shields.
4) Enemy is much more vulnerable in an old fishing boat than in some hospital or school.
It's a win-win-win-win.
More pirate activity: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa...tes/index.html