LATEST PIRATE NEWS

[mausgras]

Originally Posted by Bruce626

goboatingnow wrote
We should wind down all of our current wars and avoid starting new ones - to this end we should drop all of our 'entangling alliances' starting with NATO and including all of the other '*TO' organizations that call for a USA response to a local attack.

Can you give an example of where an "entangling alliance" has been invoked and the US has been forced against its will or national interest to respond to a local attack?

I think you will be unable.

In fact every conflict the US has been involved in in the last hundred years it entered willingly because it felt it was in its national interest to do so.

Starting with WWI the US entered late and refused many calls from the Europeans. But it did sell lots of armaments. Only when it seemed like the germans would win and the US would not only lose the European market it would be faced with an extremely tough competitor in a german dominated Europe did it send troops.

Similar story in WWII - helped of course by the Japanese attack on PH.

In the Korean War it was the US which invoked the UN security Council to drag in other countries in its anti communist crusade against the north and the Chinese.

It was the US that led the anti communist wars in SE Asia (Laos and Vietnam) invoking bilateral treaties with many countries in Europe and Asia to send supporting troops. (e.g. the ANZUS treaty between Aust, NZ and the US) So obsessed were they with anything communist they failed see these wars began as wars of independence from the French. I note the US failed to send anyone to help the Brits in Malaysia or the Dutch in Indonesia who were also fighting communist/independence in their former colonies. Good job too. Although the Brits and Dutch lost they at least left behind sort of decent govts that have gone on to develop stable and prosperous countries.

Having lost in Vietnam the US had no heart or political mandate to go in to Cambodia when Pol Pot went on his genocidal mayhem. Instead the international community encouraged it's former foe, the Vietnamese to invade and stabilise things. It did so quickly and efficiently and then promptly handed the country over to the UN and withdrew.

The US for more than a century has considered south america its "sphere of influence and repeated entered conflicts both overtly and covertly.

The jury is still out as to exactly why Bush went into IRAQ. Whether it was weapons of mass destruction or oil or what is still unknown. But what is known is that he led the charge against a lot international opposition and had to bully cajol, and invoke all the "entangling treaties" he could muster to get even token support from I think it was something like thirty other countries. He was so desperate for international credibility

Of course Afghanistan as a failed state threatened to become a safe home for all sorts a radical groups. Not in US interest to give Al Queda a home.

I still haven't found one instance where the US was dragged into something it didn't want to do.

Maybe it was Rwanda half a million people killed... nope there was no advantage there, that was Frances backyard. US stayed well away.

Ok Libya then, again the French and Brits did most of the work there. The US had some warships shooting from a long way away and did a lot bombing raids. Of course Lockerbie had nothing to do with US involvement or a desire to curry favour with a post Gaddafi regime.

Syria ... nope again ... no clear winner there, don't want to be seen backing the wrong team.

I really cannot think of a single case in the last hundred years of the US getting involved in something it didn't already want to.

Where did you ever get this fantasy that the US is some white knight rushing into save countries in distress?

[goboatingnow]

A very good summary Mausgras. I would say the US entered WW2 when it become obvious that if it didn't there would be a soviet occupied Europe. The Germans defeat was already definite , the Russians would have won all on the own. the postwar treatment of Europe shows where the US concerns lie.

Like all countries the US has always acted only in their own self interest, except for IRAQ, which just seemed crazy.

And my US friends this isn't America bashing. It's just the reality of how ALl countries carry on, the US being no better or worse, just that the US has the resources to prosecute more wars then most.

Dave

[Lagoon4us]

Well said

[sparau]

Originally Posted by Jon Hacking

I don't think anyone is talking about "mass destruction of hillside villages". I've heard folks talking about targeted attacks against the Warlords (who I see as the real problem) & possibly other military centers or those directly involved. I've also read that anyone close to these sources of piracy money is also complicit (which I also agree with) so collateral damage of a targeted strike would be minimal.

I dont think you would find a nice separation of warlord buildings and villages, the warlords know that they are not liked and that there exists technology to wipe them out en-mass from afar, like all modern wars where 1 side is poor they hide in the populace.

From what i understand you would find these warlords (war gangs? really) are rather well armed and ruthless against the civilian population they exist with, you could draw a parallel that the civilians are somewhat 'hostages' themselves. If you cause 95% civilian casualties with drone strikes you wont be popular with that country's people...

I am curious as to when the cleaner becomes complicit, is it when they accept their wage? I am curious at what age that occurs, if you are 12 but working on a farm owned by a warlord are you then complicit? What about 6?

It was suggested earlier that the general populace were complicit because no one helped the hostages to escape. Surely if the poor and starving could take the money from the brutal warlords and gangs they would. So in other words the population was complicit because there weren't enough martyrs ?

Are you expecting this as a thought process?
Somalian - "Oh dear, these thugs have totured and killed many in my villiage / family, but now it's serious, there's a wealthy cruiser hostage ! Time for action, time for me and what's left of my family to die, sons, take up your sticks and attack."

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jon Hacking
I don't think anyone is talking about "mass destruction of hillside villages". I've heard folks talking about targeted attacks against the Warlords (who I see as the real problem) & possibly other military centers or those directly involved. I've also read that anyone close to these sources of piracy money is also complicit (which I also agree with) so collateral damage of a targeted strike would be minimal.


Sounds like pure pentagon speak To me. I am always entirely skeptical of phrases like " collateral damage should be minimal" why not say " we will try to not bomb too many schools and hospitals "


Agh the issues of asymmetric warfare
Dave

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by mausgras

Can you give an example of where an "entangling alliance" has been invoked and the US has been forced against its will or national interest to respond to a local attack?

I think you will be unable.

In fact every conflict the US has been involved in in the last hundred years it entered willingly because it felt it was in its national interest to do so.

Starting with WWI the US entered late and refused many calls from the Europeans. But it did sell lots of armaments. Only when it seemed like the germans would win and the US would not only lose the European market it would be faced with an extremely tough competitor in a german dominated Europe did it send troops.

Similar story in WWII - helped of course by the Japanese attack on PH.

In the Korean War it was the US which invoked the UN security Council to drag in other countries in its anti communist crusade against the north and the Chinese.

It was the US that led the anti communist wars in SE Asia (Laos and Vietnam) invoking bilateral treaties with many countries in Europe and Asia to send supporting troops. (e.g. the ANZUS treaty between Aust, NZ and the US) So obsessed were they with anything communist they failed see these wars began as wars of independence from the French. I note the US failed to send anyone to help the Brits in Malaysia or the Dutch in Indonesia who were also fighting communist/independence in their former colonies. Good job too. Although the Brits and Dutch lost they at least left behind sort of decent govts that have gone on to develop stable and prosperous countries.

Having lost in Vietnam the US had no heart or political mandate to go in to Cambodia when Pol Pot went on his genocidal mayhem. Instead the international community encouraged it's former foe, the Vietnamese to invade and stabilise things. It did so quickly and efficiently and then promptly handed the country over to the UN and withdrew.

The US for more than a century has considered south america its "sphere of influence and repeated entered conflicts both overtly and covertly.

The jury is still out as to exactly why Bush went into IRAQ. Whether it was weapons of mass destruction or oil or what is still unknown. But what is known is that he led the charge against a lot international opposition and had to bully cajol, and invoke all the "entangling treaties" he could muster to get even token support from I think it was something like thirty other countries. He was so desperate for international credibility

Of course Afghanistan as a failed state threatened to become a safe home for all sorts a radical groups. Not in US interest to give Al Queda a home.

I still haven't found one instance where the US was dragged into something it didn't want to do.

Maybe it was Rwanda half a million people killed... nope there was no advantage there, that was Frances backyard. US stayed well away.

Ok Libya then, again the French and Brits did most of the work there. The US had some warships shooting from a long way away and did a lot bombing raids. Of course Lockerbie had nothing to do with US involvement or a desire to curry favour with a post Gaddafi regime.

Syria ... nope again ... no clear winner there, don't want to be seen backing the wrong team.

I really cannot think of a single case in the last hundred years of the US getting involved in something it didn't already want to.

Where did you ever get this fantasy that the US is some white knight rushing into save countries in distress?

And as it should be...DVC

[Bruce626]

mausgras wrote 1) “Can you give an example of where an "entangling alliance" has been invoked and the US has been forced against its will or national interest to respond to a local attack?” ==> Nope, and I don’t want some future situation to trigger such a treaty response. Why take the risk? And based on your view if history, we don’t need them anyway – so why do you want us to retain these treaty obligations, not sure of your point.

The USA should have never entered WWI – we were mostly stampeded into it by pro British newspaper coverage of a few ships being sunk by submarines. In August 1914 all he Europeans were anxiously falling all over themselves to fight each other – the last gasp of a group of failing monarchies. It was not our fight. Had we stayed neutral, the Europeans would have cobbled together a negotiated settlement which may have prevented ‘Act (WW) II.

If one listens to the FDR ‘day of infamy’ speech closely, one will notice that FDR says that because of this attack the USA is now at war with the Empire of Japan – nothing about Germany. Hitler provoked a war declaration by declaring war on the USA in support of his treaty ally Japan (unasked – and hoping to pressure the Japanese to declare war on the Soviet Union. Had Hitler not taken that step, it is possible that the USA would have stayed out of the European conflict and concentrated its resources on the earlier defeat of Japan.

All the other conflicts you mention would seem better off without US participation – yet it seems that you are whining about our non-participation in many of them. Again I am not sure of your point (if any).

2) “Where did you ever get this fantasy that the US is some white knight rushing into save countries in distress?” ==> I don’t see where I ever advocated that view. It would seem like that we should be in agreement that the USA should not be engaging in armed intervention in other countries. This is not my fantasy – I would like nothing better than to shut down all such intervention.

[Lagoon4us]

Wow what thread drift this is?

Lots of hindsight being applied here.

What is the latest on pirates? lol

[Bruce626]

Lagoon4us asked "What is the latest on pirates?" ==> Some posts back before the drift, there was a question of using fireworks to discourage pursuit by putative pirates. It occurs to me that while fireworks will probably not work and might be somewhat dangerous to store, there is a cheap and plentiful alternative which is safe to store. One could collect a bucket or two of fist sized rocks - free to obtain, legal to have, and safe to store with no problems with expiration dates.

If the boarders are wielding knives and machetes - as they get close but still in their small open boat, likely maneuvering to try to get close enough to jump from their boat to yours - hurling a rock at anyone in the small boat, especially if they are standing, would likely be a significant means of discouragement. If they actually leap onto your boat, you are even closer and a fist sized rock in the face or chest while they are trying to (re)gain their footing could easily knock them into the water. Those who are incapable of wielding a boat hook might find hurling a rock a more acceptable means of discouraging boarders. Many from western cultures have learned to throw (baseballs, cricket balls, and etc.) and can throw a rock at destructive velocities and with accuracy up to twenty meters or so (YMMV).

If more range and greater destructive velocities are desired a very simple weapon called a sling can be easily and cheaply made (note this is NOT a slingshot powered by elastic bands or tubing). All that is needed is a leather (or some other strudy material) patch - typically rectangular (about 1"X3") for a beginner and diamond shaped for advanced users; some sturdy 1/4" parachute cord - two lengths around 28"; and some eyelets with an appropriate setting tool. Make a hole in each corner of the leather patch and install an eyelet. Tie a bowlen (sp?) through the two corners of the long ends and whip or sew the extra to the line - twice. This will give you a three inch leather patch attached to two cords. Tie a stopper knot in one of the cords and a bowlen large enough to go around your finger that is next to your pinkie. When held in the hand with the loop around your finger, the stopper knot will be held between your thumb and forefinger and the patch will bend in the center. That is all there is to it - the rectangular patch will help grasp a stone (called a bullet) placed in the patch and will hang down evenly from your hand. Collect a bunch of heavy round stones about an inch in diameter and place them in a pouch for easy carry - the sling can be wrapped up and put into the pouch as well, or wrapped around the waist and tied.

To function the weapon takes some skill - go off by yourself away from anything that might be damaged by a stone traveling at velocity. The stone will leave the circular arc described by the sling roughly at a tangent to when you release the stopper knot - and due to reaction time, inertia, and friction you will have to learn to release a tad early. Place a stone in the sling and stand facing your intended direction of flight; your arm accelerates the stone up and across your body with the inside of your elbow going by your ear with your hand a bit above your head; continue to accelerate, whipping your hand around behind your head; apply a smart wrist snap as you reach the release point; release the stopper knot and the stone will depart the sling and your general vicinity at a substantial velocity. With practice you develop increasing speed - and with more practice you can develop accuracy. You will easily be able to throw a stone 100 yards/meters and more - I have thrown a stone through a 1/4" plywood garage door (although somewhat closer - probably 20 yards).

In the ancient world people used slings in combat - called peltasts - and could concuss an enemy wearing a light bronze helmet. Striking bare skull could result in death - as most know from the David vs Goliath story in Jewish mythology. Note that to use on a sailboat, one should be cognizant of the location of the rigging. Just playing and practicing with with a sling around water is a lot of fun - and has potentially practical use as well in self defense under the right conditions.

[tropicalescape]

Throw rocks at someone trying to do me harm ? This is the exact moment I want a gun to shot the sonofabitch..throw rocks,my mothers people threw rocks,sticks,arrows and in the end the work of shamen and witch doctors as a last resort. We still ended up with the bible and the one with the gun ended up with the land!I think history shows that throwing rocks does not work very well...Give me a gun and all things become equal...with pirates..DVC

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by sparau

I dont think you would find a nice separation of warlord buildings and villages, the warlords know that they are not liked and that there exists technology to wipe them out en-mass from afar, like all modern wars where 1 side is poor they hide in the populace.

From what i understand you would find these warlords (war gangs? really) are rather well armed and ruthless against the civilian population they exist with, you could draw a parallel that the civilians are somewhat 'hostages' themselves. If you cause 95% civilian casualties with drone strikes you wont be popular with that country's people...

I am curious as to when the cleaner becomes complicit, is it when they accept their wage? I am curious at what age that occurs, if you are 12 but working on a farm owned by a warlord are you then complicit? What about 6?

It was suggested earlier that the general populace were complicit because no one helped the hostages to escape. Surely if the poor and starving could take the money from the brutal warlords and gangs they would. So in other words the population was complicit because there weren't enough martyrs ?

Are you expecting this as a thought process?
Somalian - "Oh dear, these thugs have totured and killed many in my villiage / family, but now it's serious, there's a wealthy cruiser hostage ! Time for action, time for me and what's left of my family to die, sons, take up your sticks and attack."

What you are describing is "feudalism", it ended in the western world when the peasants rose up and attacked the rulers responsible, with no worse an arms disparity than what exists today.

It takes a major cultural shift to make this happen, and a few brave leaders,...and a few martyrs. It took over 500 years in Europe to take out the marauders, and warlords, and establish the rule of law. It just hasn't happened there yet.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

It takes a major cultural shift to make this happen, and a few brave leaders,...and a few martyrs. It took over 500 years in Europe to take out the marauders, and warlords, and establish the rule of law. It just hasn't happened there yet.

Cool!
So we just vacate the area for 500 years and come back then...........

To find out.......

They are still..........

500 years behind?

Good plan.

[micah719]

It took over 500 years in Europe to take out the marauders, and warlords, and establish the rule of law

Er, I don't know if you've been to Europe, or heard of just how peachy it has been here in the last 100 years, let alone the last 500.....but may I suggest the warlords and marauders have been here all the time, they just got a whole lot more sophisticated and deadly; and that the "rule of law" may be an apt description of this delightful place as long as you don't confuse it with righteous laws consistently and reasonably applied, and justice done. I don't speak of the Marxist kind of "justice", or the feudal-capitalist kind either.

If we're going to discuss why Somalia is a dog's breakfast, we shouldn't ignore the mess the whole of Africa is in, and how it took a leap out of the colonial frypan into the post-colonial fire. Some actually think it was a good thing. We should take notice that nowadays in Kenya for example, villages are razed so that trees can be planted to sequester carbon so some vile scoundrels can make big bucks in the "rule of law" west. The carbon based villager's bodies are also "sequestered", but this doesn't get mentioned much. you have to look. Someone mentioned Rwanda and the French. Look at exactly who is getting Rwanda's resources right now. Ignore any strange anomalies you may find in that little investigation that may have a connection to Libya as well, just a coincidence, not worth worrying about.

South America? Chavez is busy construction a worker's paradise there. Even nationalised some nice little islands as a holiday retreat for them. Hooray, dachas for all, long live the revolution.....but I've heard this song before, and while the folks that get the dachas get to live nice, and long, it's the fools that join mobs that get the gruel and/or the gulag. I won't go on about S. America....and won't even start on N. America.....

We talk about Somalia because it is hot news...because it affects us, or might. There are other things that affect us that we choose to ignore, such as who made the Made in China shoes or shirt we wear, or solar panel we use....if we swapped places with them for a day, we might not be so keen to buy such things any more. Or maybe anyway; "bugger you Chang, as long as I'm alright". I write this on a computer made in a "free trade zone" in an asian "cruiser's paradise"....but if you cooped me up there in a sweatshop for pittance even I might be tempted to punch your lights out and take your money if you came to look at me like an animal in a zoo. We westerners have worn out our welcome....things are changing. The farang is not so welcome any more.

The Eu is steadily stripping what's left of national sovereignty in it's area of power. Oh yes, we have the warlords and marauders, and they use their laws very effectively, the stick to counterpoint the carrot of phoney affluence and prosperous ease. Even the counterreaction to it, the OWS-type howls of sanctimonious outrage, is played like a marionette. Our warlords are very slick indeed., and more dangerous than a bunch of wild beasts in a skiff with rpg's.....and even the petty warlords on the Somali coast. The skiff boys will brutalise you and steal your boat, perhaps murder you, probably rape you, but they won't enslave you and convince you to enjoy it, even demand it.

Ok, I enjoyed this little sidetrip down thread derail junction...let's get back to the smoke and mirror show, and pass remark on the curious trees, and forget the forest.

[Lagoon4us]

Well put together

[Bruce626]

tropicalescape wrote "I think history shows that throwing rocks does not work very well...Give me a gun and all things become equal...with pirates." ==> Fine, I agree - but I am actually in a third world tropical country where these incidents sometimes happen, and I am NOT ALLOWED to have a gun here (likely true of all the tripical places you would like to escape to).

The response was for people desperate enough for some kind of a missile response that they were thinking of using fireworks/flares for this purpose.

If you don't want to throw rocks or use a boat-hook, you could use a spear gun or archery (crossbow?) - but the missiles are relatively expensive. If you want to throw something with more destructive power, this may appeal to you although it is illegal:

In many tropical countries the fishermen use dynamite to collect fish while destroying the environment. If you obtain a few sticks (60% is better), you need to cut it to fit in a small can where you have used the contents but left the lid attached. Arm the charge with an appropriate blasting cap which takes a waterproof length of fuse - practice with some rocks first to establish how long the fuse should burn, ideally you want the charge to go off in the air. Trim the fuse to the appropriate length (test the burn rate first) and crimp it into the charge. Some slit the end and insert the business end of a lifeboat match - and perhaps a quick dip in some liquid wax to seal against moisture intrusion. Wrap the charge in a small plastic bag and extend the twist wrap up the fuse to just below the end; place the charge in the can and fill with a variety of small dense (usually metal) objects like nuts, screws, or ball bearings/'00' buckshot; as an option you might want to fill the voids with molten wax; fold the lid back down and seal - leaving the fuse sticking out. You now have an improved throwing rock which will seriously discourage wannabe pirates. When you want to use one of your grenades, you will need to light the fuse and execute a mighty throw - noting that they are NOT good for close combat. To light the fuse you could use a bit of fine sandpaper or the side off a box of matches to briskly rub across the top of the match head; or in true pirate style, get a length of slow match and light both ends - this is held in the teeth keeping your hands free. You can keep a supply of these improvized grenades in a waterproof (metal) box - they can be made just prior to anticipated need and they aren't so expensive that they can't simply be dropped over the side if the authorities get curious. Yes, there are many risks - both physical and legal. The look of incredulity on the faces of the pirates as you stand on the transom with the slow fuse held in your teeth, smoke trailing from both ends and agrenade in each hand is likely to be priceless.