big time psycho ron paul is supported by all the supremacists at stormfront
Ron Paul's Plan to Handle Piracy
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
I want to eradicate the pirates as much as the next guy, but ron paul is a moron for suggesting this (and you are a moron for thinking it makes sense).
First - armed sailors aren't exactly going to be welcomed with open arms in any foreign port. There are explicit maritime laws pertaining to the status of sailors and weapons.
Second - what happens if one of the "privateers" accidently fire on a non-somali-pirate ship? Now we got a full blown international incidence - far more than if a us naval vessel misfired
Third - what happens if one of the privateers are damaged; do we assist with our naval assets? if so, why not just send in the naval assets in the first place rather than using privateers.
If these are the policies that ron paul advocates, god thing he didn't get anywhere.
First - armed sailors aren't exactly going to be welcomed with open arms in any foreign port. There are explicit maritime laws pertaining to the status of sailors and weapons.
Second - what happens if one of the "privateers" accidently fire on a non-somali-pirate ship? Now we got a full blown international incidence - far more than if a us naval vessel misfired
Third - what happens if one of the privateers are damaged; do we assist with our naval assets? if so, why not just send in the naval assets in the first place rather than using privateers.
If these are the policies that ron paul advocates, god thing he didn't get anywhere.
First - Being welcomed with open arms is irrelevant. I don't give a fuck what they think.
Second - Non Somali pirate vessels won't be in shipping lanes. It's not like they have a navy. Any innocents will learn right quick where they can and can't go on the high seas.
Third - Our Navy and the privateers should work in unison killing as many pirates as possible.
All that said, I agree it wouldn't work well, but it's better than nothing. Personally I like the idea of shelling the port in Mogadishu until there is no port, followed up with napalm runs up and down the entire coast of Somalia until these savages understand what's what.
Yeah... because most civilian ships can go across the atlantic and operate in the indian ocean/gulf without refueling and resupplying.
Second - there are plenty of yachts and other non-container ships in shipping lanes. Shipping lanes are not exclusively for shipping. They are called that because they are well known routes that container ships take, also very suitable for other vessels. The point stands - if some idiot fire on a foreign ship (and espeically complicated if it's attached to a foreign navy) - the matter will be very complicated to say the least. Why go through all the trouble. Use the US navy. This ain't the 18th century. We have plenty of bluewater warships now.
I prefer the pirates dead personally. And I prefer as little government involvement possible in as much of my life as possible. But privateers? That's just stupidity.
Second - there are plenty of yachts and other non-container ships in shipping lanes. Shipping lanes are not exclusively for shipping. They are called that because they are well known routes that container ships take, also very suitable for other vessels. The point stands - if some idiot fire on a foreign ship (and espeically complicated if it's attached to a foreign navy) - the matter will be very complicated to say the least. Why go through all the trouble. Use the US navy. This ain't the 18th century. We have plenty of bluewater warships now.
I prefer the pirates dead personally. And I prefer as little government involvement possible in as much of my life as possible. But privateers? That's just stupidity.