RE: back to Somalia? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

corysub -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 2:36:58 AM)

Somalia, Sierra Leone and other of the African countries in turmoil highlight the failure of the United Nations.  If there was a  to be for the UN, the dire situation in Africa would be the reason for its continued existence.  Instead, we have another bloated bueracracy that is corrupt and useless.  As far as the pirates, tribute should never be paid and they should be hung and buried with a pig.  As someone earlier stated, piracy has been going on forever in the region and will probably continue until some sort of UN Coast Guard is established.  The U.S. has its own problems these days and can't afford to play world policeman any longer.



tweedydaddy -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 2:37:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

LE, I hope we don't get involved there.
Anytime they do this we should cluster bomb any area that we suspect al qeada might be and kill as many as we can.
Another ship taken? Another hundred cluster bombs!



As long as there are guys like you, terrorist organisations will have no problem finding new recruits. What an exceedingly brilliant plan.[8|]



If they're finding recruits apparently we aren't killing them fast enough....

It seems these third world countries cling to the concept of rule by fear so let's scare the shit right out of them

Do you know, deep down in my unreconstructed little heart, I can't help agreeing with this sentiment!



LadyEllen -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 3:29:39 AM)

But SBFY - you provide such good reasons yourself, why not to put firearms on board - and quite separate ones from the captain. To paraphrase "the crews are generally from the 3rd world, theyre not paid that much and the captain fears mutiny".

Its the escalation that's feared if weapons are issued to the crew (assuming the crew would accept the weapons and pass the training in "shooting straight enough to hit a man whilst under fire 101" and part two of the course "being ready and able to kill a man").

As underpaid employees, do we seriously think they are willing to risk their lives in such conflict for the sake of the ship and the cargo? It is one thing to undertake the normal risks of life at sea - very small risks these days as it would appear - it is quite another to risk serious injury and death in a combat situation.

Whatever is issued to crews, the pirates will simply go up to heavier weapons - and then there is the danger of sinking ships and dead crew for the ship's owners to deal with too, alongside possible environmental damage from leaking cargo in many cases (or lost cargo in others).

As things are the ships are seized, the crews treated OK, the ransom is paid and the ship and crew are released. To go from that to the disastrous situation described above would not help, though I agree it would be satisfying to all normal instinct to do so.

There was a security expert on TV last night too; his company provides security guards on board ships. He would not be drawn on exactly what counter measures they use, but he did say that firearms are of limited use in such situations. All agreed that the best way to combat the pirates would be to find their ships (from which smaller vessels are launched to capture merchant shipping) and destroy them. Quite why our combined navies with all the technology at their disposal cannot do this I dont understand, but then I dont know the ins and outs of it all.

Sounds like work for a certain company currently employed in Iraq whose contracts may soon be terminated.

E



xBullx -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:58:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

If they're finding recruits apparently we aren't killing them fast enough....



.......you could drop a nuke and it still wont be fast enough, if the only solution you can see is escalating violence.

Pop quiz.......what stopped the violence in Ulster? An escalation of violence or negotiation? What actually works?


Actually a nuke would be plenty fast, however even my "Warriors" mentality doesn't find that extermination is a logical recourse, though judging by the 2025 intelligence projections some population control might be well advised.

But you're a philosophical fellow, when has a ploy for negotiation ever produced fruit without "your" side holding the upper hand. First you have to pick a side and then you have to determine what it is that gives you superior bargainning power.

So back to your suggestion. Why do you think some folks are so determined to acquire the nuke.

Food for thought: humans strive for conquest, greed has compelled our history "forward"; always have always will. The west prefers the concept of cyber blood with its fights on game boy, while the rest of the world still savors the flavor of reality.

While my thoughts and opinions might seem cold blooded, a good degree of this planet lies frozen.



philosophy -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 9:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


But you're a philosophical fellow, when has a ploy for negotiation ever produced fruit without "your" side holding the upper hand. First you have to pick a side and then you have to determine what it is that gives you superior bargainning power.


...the example i gave you. Ulster. The British didn't have the upper hand. Neither did the IRA. It was stalemate. John Major, in about the only sensible thing he ever did, reckoned that the only way to end the violence was to, well, end the violence. Someone has to blink first and that doesn't always mean they're weak......sometimes that means you take the initiative.

quote:

So back to your suggestion. Why do you think some folks are so determined to acquire the nuke.


...because there's a popular perception in some quarters that the only was to stop first world countries nicking your stuff is to have a nuke to lob at them if they try it.

quote:

Food for thought: humans strive for conquest, greed has compelled our history "forward"; always have always will. The west prefers the concept of cyber blood with its fights on game boy, while the rest of the world still savors the flavor of reality.

While my thoughts and opinions might seem cold blooded, a good degree of this planet lies frozen.


......then whose side are you on? The refrigerators or the space heaters?



xBullx -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 11:02:57 AM)

So how are the seperate religious factions in the country of the red beards doing? All is now jovial with tidings of bliss and harmony?

I myself favor the concept of peace through superior firepower. It doesn't mean you have to resort to it's use, but having it know you will seems reasonable to me.

We can debate what constitutes strength of man and character until the cows come home, but if there is a scorched foundation in place of the barn and you no longer maintain the deed of the residence I'd say a new master pulls the udder.

I believe in compromise between mutually abiding "free" men and it is certain that "free" men will seek such things. But there are those that seek to enslave everything before them and amazingly enough they become more plentiful with power acquired.

Now we're stuck pondering the moralities of mankind, to apply that of the masters or that of the slaves.

-shrugs a bit-

What did that old dude with the funny beard say?......................To be or not to be.................blah, blah, blah, something, something, blah, blah, blah.

Remember I think like a Gorean, hence my philosophical concepts will be no nonsense and rather unforgiving, for both myself as well as my advisary.




philosophy -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 11:49:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Remember I think like a Gorean, hence my philosophical concepts will be no nonsense and rather unforgiving, for both myself as well as my advisary.




...no-one apprehends reality directly. No-one can. We filter it through the imperfect mechanisms of our senses and the constructs of our mind sets. We can argue until the cows come home whose set of filters are less biased, but even that debate is conducted through the very same filters.
Those who see the world in a binary way see ample evidence of that. Whether the two values of that binary are left/right, free/slave or west/east.  Those who perceive reality as analogue also see ample evidence of that, gradated scales between arbitrary binary points.
All we can both agree on is seen with hindsight. i've given you an example from history, Ulster. The indisputable facts are that both sides backed away from violence in favour of negotiation. No-one forced the other side to the table. What did force them to the table was a general sickness with the violence. To use your idea of hot/cold from an earlier post, they got fed up with being fridges and decided to be space heaters.......and perhaps this is the point. Freewill. Choices. Decisions.  While people like yourself are enslaved by an attachment to violence as a constant it will be just that......a constant. Free your mind and let history show you the exception to the rule of violence.



meatcleaver -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 12:08:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

Somalia, Sierra Leone and other of the African countries in turmoil highlight the failure of the United Nations.  If there was a  to be for the UN, the dire situation in Africa would be the reason for its continued existence.  Instead, we have another bloated bueracracy that is corrupt and useless.  As far as the pirates, tribute should never be paid and they should be hung and buried with a pig.  As someone earlier stated, piracy has been going on forever in the region and will probably continue until some sort of UN Coast Guard is established.  The U.S. has its own problems these days and can't afford to play world policeman any longer.


Do us all a favour and quit about the UN. The UN is the sum of its members and the US hates the UN and tries to undermine it at every turn so it is all a self dfullfilling prophecy.

I don't think anyone has asked for the US navy to patrol the area, in fact most countries in the area want the US out of the region so don't lose any sleepless nights about being asked.



LadyEllen -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 1:17:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
No-one forced the other side to the table. What did force them to the table was a general sickness with the violence.


I rather suspect the British government were sick of it and the Republicans learned about demographics.

E



xBullx -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 1:27:22 PM)

Ring around the rosey, a pocket full of posey...

Ashes, ashes, we all fall down....

Until we were able to combat this killer no one was safe. We are products of the same nature that creates all we are able to invision.

An enemy is an enemy is an enemy...it is a man's charge to stand ready and able to combat the foe or surrender to his mercy or lack thereof.

Compromise isn't free and conditions will reign supreme, to the victor the spoils.

You speak like you're example produced compromise out of stalemate. I would see it from an alternate perspective. I would bet if the Third Reich was writing it's version of history, it might have viewed the events concluding WWI much the same.

Where a pot remains on a stove it waits to be boiled, that is afterall, it's purpose.

I'm not an advocate of violence; but as is the case with our little Sons of Blackbeard, conquest and conflict is all they respect and understand. I assure you that if you wish to parley, twill be you that compromises, not they.

Shiver me timbers; hoist the main sail, batten down the hatches, the seas of freedom are littered with the bodies of those blasted do-gooders...



philosophy -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 3:33:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Ring around the rosey, a pocket full of posey...

Ashes, ashes, we all fall down....

Until we were able to combat this killer no one was safe. We are products of the same nature that creates all we are able to invision.


...yup, bubonic plague was quite a killer......but not usually known as a terrorist or pirate.....

quote:

An enemy is an enemy is an enemy...it is a man's charge to stand ready and able to combat the foe or surrender to his mercy or lack thereof.


....and when does an enemy become an ally? What conditions have to be met to produce that result?

quote:

Compromise isn't free and conditions will reign supreme, to the victor the spoils.


..is that a bumper sticker?

quote:

You speak like you're example produced compromise out of stalemate. I would see it from an alternate perspective.


...go on then, be explicit........what perspective is that?

quote:

 I would bet if the Third Reich was writing it's version of history, it might have viewed the events concluding WWI much the same.


.....well, until you let us know what perspective it is you're alluding to we'll never know, eh?

quote:

Where a pot remains on a stove it waits to be boiled, that is afterall, it's purpose.


...one purpose certainly, it may be empty and there's no room in the cupboard cos you have lots of pots......

quote:

I'm not an advocate of violence; but as is the case with our little Sons of Blackbeard, conquest and conflict is all they respect and understand. I assure you that if you wish to parley, twill be you that compromises, not they.


...possibly, however by taking the first step to compromise i may be able to finesse a larger compromise from them. Chess tactics, sacrifice one thing for a greater reward.

quote:

Shiver me timbers; hoist the main sail, batten down the hatches, the seas of freedom are littered with the bodies of those blasted do-gooders...


.....arrrgh me hearty.....and the decks are just as full of those who can't compromise. Compromise is change, what doesn't change doesn't grow, what doesn't grow doesn't live.........



RealityLicks -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 3:46:55 PM)

General reply -

Reading around the subject, I was fascinated to find out that these "pirates" - as well as stealing cargo - also regard themselves as a sort of vigilante coastguard.  It seems that Somali waters are plundered of fish by trawlers from as far afield as Taiwan, France and Spain.  The $30m the pirates have raked in this year is rather put into perspective when you find hear that about $300m in fish stocks is taken from their shores - annually.  The pirates serve the dual purpose of protecting local fishermen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/piracy-somalia





LadyEllen -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:20:40 PM)

Similar rationalisations used to support Bush foreign policies in recent years have meanwhile been seen to be poor justifications for criminal activities.

Might maketh Right the world over it would seem.

E



RealityLicks -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:36:28 PM)

So you agree it's wrong for Asian and European trawlers to steal fish from Somali waters?



LadyEllen -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:40:11 PM)

Of course its wrong - but that doesnt mean for one second that piracy is thereby justified.

One might have imagined that said pirates might prefer to seize the foreign trawlers though, and not return them for ransom but pass them on to the locals, were this their cause?

The piracy can no more be justified by foreign trawling operations than the invasion of Iraq could ever be justified by "regime change"

E



RealityLicks -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:46:30 PM)

Please show me where I said it "justified" or "rationalised" piracy.  It supplies what we in the UK lack when we see a story like this: context.  It aids understanding, it explains things to us - those of us who are curious and not so bloody reactionary about everything.

And one reason they might not use the trawlers is that to do so and really benefit would actually mean entering the world trade system on a fair and equitable basis - something most developing countries are prevented from doing.  What do you think Mandy has been doing for the EU all this time?



LadyEllen -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 4:52:49 PM)

Where did I say you were rationalising or justifying it?

E



RealityLicks -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 5:06:52 PM)

 Ever-decreasing circles, gotta go.  I need some sleep, its my neighbour's tortoise's birthday tomorrow. 



xBullx -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 8:55:47 PM)

I must admit my aspirations for intriguing discourse have fallen short in this medley of ours. I often find the itemization of another person’s reply to be quaint on one hand, yet pretentious in other regards. However if you find it hard to volley your replies without constructing them in this format I’ll acquiesce to a compromise of sorts.

I find it interesting that you wouldn’t correlate the virus that incited the bubonic plague as a terror to humanity. Simply because your enemy does apply your speach patterns does illiminate his validity. It(the plague) was/is a living organism and if you wanted me to free my mind to things beyond the obvious perhaps you might find yourself available to a similar approach.

I would suspect that the plague though an enemy to a rulers subjects could also be an ally as it wiped out his enemy’s minions. Hence my enemy’s enemy is thusly my ally. Do bear in mind that it is simply the arrogance of man that has placed him(humanity), in his opinion at the top of the food chain.

When you began this verbal joust with me, was it your intent to reason with me as you suggested would improve our global atmosphere or were you out to best me in a combat of expressions. It would be quite easy to mistake you patronizing undertone as an outward act of aggression, yet it seems to me that your initial point was to ultimately illustrate that hostility was fruitless or barbaric.

So while I am not in the bumper “snicker” business; I can draw the picture a bit more comprehensible for the less than studious audience members.

I suspect the Protestants might have discovered the Catholics would wage this bloody conflict until the sunset of days. In that, the upper hand was established in the willingness to fight for ones ideology. The blood feast grew distasteful and unpopular on the southern home front. I suspect they could have systematically eradicated the Pope’s children, but that would have been unpopular and considering these were subjects of the same crown, almost impractical to consider. So compromise was reached, but it wasn’t due to an equivalent stance or position.

I would also hope to articulate that I was never stating that compromise wasn’t a favorable concept; it simply must be struck from a position of strength if you wish to find an acceptable outcome.
As for the pirates, your argument implies their having no knowledge of chess. You do realize the game was not born of a western mind?

Looking off the ships deck my question for you is: How long can you tread water?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: back to Somalia? (11/19/2008 9:18:43 PM)

Never negotiate from a point of weakness, it is called capitualtion.

Forgot to add that I agree with my verbose friend.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875