Ought we do anything in retaliation for killing four Americans after seizing illegally their vessel?

If you think we should, who would we go after?

If you think we should not, why? Do we simply stand by as our citizens are slaughtered?

Whether we go after anyone or not, what do we do about this piracy?

possibly Somalia? :shrug:
:sarcasm:
Maybe piracy like this might not be so bad if the Republicans hadn't pressured Clinton to "cut and run" from Somalia back in 1993?

It was at least a UN sanctioned operation, unlike Junior's wars.

It's strange to be nostalgic for the days when even most Republicans believed in the desirability of working with other countries through the UN. I'm glad that we have President Obama reversing course on that from the previous eight years but all most Republican leaders want to do nowadays is slam President Obama for "apologizing" to the rest of the world and continue to push for "go-it-alone" solutions to international problems, as well as push to defund (or pull us out of) the UN.
:banghead:

Occupy Fallujah.

is to kill them again to teach them a lesson. :shrug:

Why are you asking it of me? I was asking it of you.

to avoid the problem.

You're surely not contemplating a collective punishment of other people in Somalia for this, are you?

subdued then no. I am no fan of the death penalty, but in the case of piracy I believe the gloves come off.

There should be no quarter expected or given.

This isn't the first time you're replied to one of my posts that way.

How do you know what I'm "contemplating". In case it isn't any longer obvious, this is supposed to be a discussion board. Read the OP. It is an invitation to discussion.

:eyes:

Why do you always take a question as a projection?

"You're surely not contemplating a collective punishment of other people in Somalia for this, are you?"

Possible answers:
1. No, I'm not. I was wondering about a broader strategy to discourage such things in the future. (simply answer, then clarify)
2. How do you know what I'm "contemplating". (the best defense is a good offense)

Which to chose? Which to chose?

Yes, your OP did imply intent. That phrase is how I know what you were contemplating. As leading questions go, we may as well give it a gold medal.

this time in slow motion....

Bomb Somalia....

Also make sure to be mad enough not to vote.

I think that should "fix" everything! :applause:

"Also make sure to be mad enough not to vote." <----what does *that* mean??

:rofl:

awesome frenchie!

The policy should be to kill all pirates on sight. I am not saying that we should go hunting them, but if they cross our path or attack our countrymen, we should not take any prisoners.

prisoner and then kill them?

We have captured all of the remaining pirates and trying them in the United States Court System is the justice they deserve.

Anything else is just mere bloviation.

by hyping their storylines & infusing them with the "all-caring" state department and foreign service people who do anything and everything to help americans abroad.

Watch Midnight Express.. That's more like the reality

it's the wild, wild west out there on the high seas. bigtime. no 911 out there.

whether that's Libya or Italy.

to finance the baby-sitting of people who are galumphing around the world saying to other people, "Here, your religion is no good, take our book and adopt OUR religion!"

I can't see that it's in the interest of American taxpayers to smooth the way for religious proselytizers and guarantee them safe passage in all waters.

Do you think Americans abroad deserve any protection from the US government? The answer to that question should not depend on what religion the Americans in question are, or why they are abroad - unless they are engaged in ILLEGAL activity.

Absolutely disgusting that you imply that these people deserve what they got because they were missionaries.

They were the ones who made their religion relevant.

They were distributing BIBLES, I believe?
They were not distributing rain ponchos or peanut-butter sandwiches.

Official diplomats deserve protection at taxpayer expense, yes (without regard to the religion of the diplomat) -- religious proselytizers do not. Separation of church and state and all that.


I believe that U.S. taxpayer monies should not be used to protect and extend the furtherance of religious proselytizing into countries that have their own religions, which the residents there apparently consider perfectly adequate for their needs.

If you leave the US, you also leave its protections. Other places are NOT necessarily like the US.

When we lived outside the US, I was always told that if I got in trouble "off base", I might just be S.O.L.

you might slow this down for a bit. Pirates always have to get from the open sea to their home ports after collecting a ransom, that might make for a good surgical strike opportunity. It would take AWACS and cruise missle technology to do this, and it would be like using a cannon to kill a fly.

Decoy ships might slow things down, if pirates approached what they thought was a helpless ship, and were suddenly set upon by hidden attackers, it might slow down this sort of activity. Also, we have about fifteen prisoners from the latest attack, releasing video of a few of them boiled alive in pig fat might provide a deterrent to a pirate who took the Islamic faith seriously.

Short of all of the above, it really comes down to two things: Accept the losses, or stay out of the freaking area altogether. The latter might not be practical for commercial shipping, but is damned good advice for pleasure boaters.

encourage people to stay out of the dangerous areas

travel at your own risk

make them aware of the risks

why should some African countries get all this money. There's money out there from privateering. As long as we are going to run a gilded age economy, we might as well go all the way. :)