Onboard the Quest. .Were they simply rich, nuts, or both?

[lemur]

I can't fault your convictions since you seem quite religious, and thats your business. But you see, vermin such as this cannot in any fashion be defined as soldiers. That's why I suggested when we catch them, we snuff them. People who stoop to such a low level of depravity and humanity deserves nothing more than what they give out.

People unquestionably deserve exactly what they give out, and some people are religious enough to believe that they are perpetually in line to experience the effects of their own actions as their own victims, but that depends on your personal point of view. I don't know why you would use the status of being a soldier to absolve people of their actions. The Roman soldiers that persecuted Jesus seem to have reveled in the sadism of degrading a spiritual leader. They had no basis for torturing and killing him except his holiness, which they spat on out of irritation at the very thought that someone would raise their high high enough to truly believe in God and truth. All they knew was domination and submission through violence, which is all any pirate knows, no? Someone bullies them into joining their gang and then they learn to bully and steal from others without regard for morality or ethics - or probably their morality/ethics is one of taking care of yourself and your own in a dog-eat-dog world where someone has to be victimized for someone else to prosper. I wouldn't be so sure many of these pirates don't have the exact same mentality as many soldiers of the developed world; only in the developed world the exploitation and violence have been better institutionalized and sterilized to promote a sense of superiority over the 'primitives' of the developing world. In reality, the world consists mostly of savages, both 'modern' and 'primitive.' Decency emerges sporadically amid the depravity.

Edited February 26, 2011 by lemur

[JohnB]

Lemur, I get what you're saying to a point. The thing is that there is a point where playing nice simply doesn't work and violence is required. You can get much further with a kind word and a 2 x 4 than with just a kind word.

 

The problem is rather simple. The Somali government is a joke and the country is a basket case. The other African nations have repeatedly asked the West to "Do something" about Somalia and it's reached the point where only one solution is left.

 

Give the Somali government 90 days to stop the rot or face invasion.

 

At the very least a withdrawal of International recognition for Somali Territorial Waters and the introduction of "Q" ships. If there is going to be a "War on Piracy" then make it a bloody war, not some half arsed "Intervention Program". In a war you sink the ships of the enemy and ignore the territorial waters of belligerents. By providing safe haven and succour to the pirate Somalia has placed itself in the position of belligerent. Somalia is not neutral, but actively supporting the enemy. They should be dealt with as such.

 

Note that under the current arrangement if the pirates make Somali waters they are safe from attack. By ignoring Somali borders no place is safe for them. Having bugger all in the way of Navy or Air Force the Somali government couldn't do anything anyway and if they did they are only defending the pirates which places them in the "Hostile" category.

 

Where your earlier post fell down was "Democratic discourse". How do have such discourse if the other side isn't a democracy? Like it or not, violence has solved more problems in human history than anything else. (Personally I don't like it, but I can't ignore historical facts.)

[lemur]

Lemur, I get what you're saying to a point. The thing is that there is a point where playing nice simply doesn't work and violence is required. You can get much further with a kind word and a 2 x 4 than with just a kind word.

 

The problem is rather simple. The Somali government is a joke and the country is a basket case. The other African nations have repeatedly asked the West to "Do something" about Somalia and it's reached the point where only one solution is left.

 

Give the Somali government 90 days to stop the rot or face invasion.

 

At the very least a withdrawal of International recognition for Somali Territorial Waters and the introduction of "Q" ships. If there is going to be a "War on Piracy" then make it a bloody war, not some half arsed "Intervention Program". In a war you sink the ships of the enemy and ignore the territorial waters of belligerents. By providing safe haven and succour to the pirate Somalia has placed itself in the position of belligerent. Somalia is not neutral, but actively supporting the enemy. They should be dealt with as such.

 

Note that under the current arrangement if the pirates make Somali waters they are safe from attack. By ignoring Somali borders no place is safe for them. Having bugger all in the way of Navy or Air Force the Somali government couldn't do anything anyway and if they did they are only defending the pirates which places them in the "Hostile" category.

 

Where your earlier post fell down was "Democratic discourse". How do have such discourse if the other side isn't a democracy? Like it or not, violence has solved more problems in human history than anything else. (Personally I don't like it, but I can't ignore historical facts.)

Violence is the most effective solution where control by force is desired. The problem with this approach is that it always prolongs bad relations and slows the already arduous path to democratic relations. You can intimidate people into cooperating by force, but the question is whether the facade of superficial cooperation doesn't hide the unspoken resentment and resistance that is building up while you think you're working together.

 

You may think "intervention" sounds like a soft word, but that's a connotation you're inferring. "Intervention" is a general word that can refer to anything from assault with WMD to diplomatic negotiations. Both actions "intervene" in people's affairs. The problem with the kind of approach you're describing, imo, is that it would require violence in excess of what is needed to apprehend suspects in a legitimate police-action type approach.

 

Surely there is some method of policing acts of pirating that doesn't involve sinking ships? On the other hand, if you would try to apprehend individual suspects individually during attempted boardings or something like that, the people you apprehend might have been sent out under threat of death if they come back alive but unsuccessful. In that case, it may be difficult to deter future pirating even by implementing a successful system of apprehension and arrest. Nevertheless, how would it be legitimate to exercise excessive force as a deterrent to supporting further piracy? Wouldn't that be terrorist-type tactics?

 

I'm guess all you would really need to do to reduce the "feeding grounds" for piracy recruits would be to either create economic reforms that increased the relative opportunity cost of losing people to pirating. The problem is that it is my understanding that this pirating is much more lucrative than anything you could use these people for as employees.

 

Anyway, I think that the stakes are so high for both sides, the shipping companies and the pirating companies, that there's going to be a lot of manipulation to achieve policies that favor either side. Someone who wants to provoke a repressive assault against pirating like you describe could attempt to instigate/provoke a reaction by doing the kind of high profile attack that shocks people the way the Quest story does. If you react to this story and the emotions it stirs up by launching an indiscriminate assault on everyone in the region, don't you end up in a war of attrition where the collateral casualties are the attrition?

 

i.e. you can't just go around profiling innocent people as potential pirates and killing them until the pirating stops, can you?

 

 

Edited March 2, 2011 by lemur

[JohnB]

I really don't follow your use of the term "Democratic relations". If the other party isn't a democracy, how do you have democratic relations? If you mean "Diplomatic", then I can only recount Clauzwitz.

 

Nor does violence "always" prolong bad relations. I doubt the Carthaginians harboured any resentment at all towards the Romans. Nor could one reasonably argue that there is any bad blood between Germany, Japan, Italy and the Allied nations.

 

You can theorize all you want to excuse the actions of the pirates but it frankly doesn't wash. Profitability for piracy is a risk/benefit game. Since, as you say there are no jobs that will pay as much the only option left is to increase the risk to unacceptable levels. Occasional incarcerations in western prisons in exchange for even a share in one multi million dollar ransom will not do this will it? The danger level must be raised.

 

The other very real part of the equation is that the interim Somali government simply doesn't have the manpower to retake control of the ports and shore towns. (and that is assuming that corrupt government officials aren't part of the problem.) Unless the pirates are denied safe harbour they can continue to act with impunity.

 

I understand that you are unwilling to sacrifice the lives of pirates, but I am unwilling to sacrifice the lives of innocent people travelling in internation waters on their lawful business.

 

But I have to ask, how long and how many innocent lives need to end before you agree that more forceful measures are acceptable? Give me either a timeframe or a number of lives, either one will do.