TexasCHLforum.com

From:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6367295.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Putting guns on merchant ships is a complicated issue", said Joe Angelo, deputy managing director for the London-based International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, known as INTERTANKO.

“Do we really want private industry taking law and order into their own hands on the high seas?” asked Angelo, who works at INTERTANKO’s North American headquarters in Arlington, Va. Policing international waters should be left to governmental navies, he said. Otherwise, private shipping companies could find themselves in an escalating arms race with pirates.

“What if the pirates say, ‘OK, you want to play that game?’ ” Angelo said. “And they up the ante. They get bigger guns.”

When are people going to learn that defending yourself, your loved ones and your property is not "Taking the law into your own hands"?
Self defense is a basic human right. So basic it was never enumerated as such because no-one ever thought it would be necessary to do so until recent history.

And as for an arms race with pirates, the cowardice leaves me speechless.

You and me both.

I heard that on FOX last night and I'm foundered by that line of non-reasoning. I guess the merchantmen and tankers are supposed to heave to and play dead?

Why do I carry a gun? Because a Cop is too heavy.


Why should Merchant Seamen carry guns? Because U.S. warships are too heavy.

papabear wrote:Why do I carry a gun? Because a Cop is too heavy.


Why should Merchant Seamen carry guns? Because U.S. warships are too heavy.

Issues of of non resistance aside the problem isn't all that simple either. The biggest obstcle seems to be that most countrys don't like it when you bring guns into their ports. Even in this country There are states and citys that would love to toss people in Jail for having a handgun. Our Secretary of state surely won 't come around to support armed men.

Liberty wrote:

papabear wrote:Why do I carry a gun? Because a Cop is too heavy.


Why should Merchant Seamen carry guns? Because U.S. warships are too heavy.

Issues of of non resistance aside the problem isn't all that simple either. The biggest obstcle seems to be that most countrys don't like it when you bring guns into their ports. Even in this country There are states and citys that would love to toss people in Jail for having a handgun. Our Secretary of state surely won 't come around to support armed men.

Quid Pro Quo. IOW, if you can't protect my ship or allow me to protect my ship, my ship won't come to see you anymore. It works both ways - someone is selling and someone is buying. This is not brain surgery. Why aren't I the POTUS?

Oldgringo wrote:

Liberty wrote:

papabear wrote:Why do I carry a gun? Because a Cop is too heavy.


Why should Merchant Seamen carry guns? Because U.S. warships are too heavy.

Issues of of non resistance aside the problem isn't all that simple either. The biggest obstcle seems to be that most countrys don't like it when you bring guns into their ports. Even in this country There are states and citys that would love to toss people in Jail for having a handgun. Our Secretary of state surely won 't come around to support armed men.

Quid Pro Quo. IOW, if you can't protect my ship or allow me to protect my ship, my ship won't come to see you anymore. It works both ways - someone is selling and someone is buying. This is not brain surgery. Why aren't I the POTUS?

Its not as though our ships are all that welcomed, it is a business, and we only have 200 comercial ships flying the American flag to international ports. Most ports couldn't care a wit what flags the ship fly. Our countrys ports are pretty much as unfriendly about foreigners bringing in guns as any other nation is about Americans bringing guns into foreign ports. Fishing boats are different. They don't often enter foreign ports. Many of those boats have arms aboard.

You heard that the pirates are able to repel the US Navy:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm still confused???? Since when did the US start negotiating with terrorists. How many more lives have to be lost at sea to these pirates before someone decides to make a statement that this will stop? Men and women die for this country everyday and I hate to say it but the captain currently being held hostage may involuntarily join those ranks. While I have a tremendous amount of sympathy that goes out to the family and friends of the captain, it may take one life to make a statement. Multiple terrorists (pirates), one hostage, and an international audience seems to be a good time to make a statement. Do the best to preserve the life but end the situation without further negotiation regardless of the fate of the hostage! We do not negotiate or we become weak.

Looks like Obama may prove to be as weak as he appears.

Again I ask: Does the name Nevill Chamberlain ring any bells?

Oldgringo wrote:Again I ask: Does the name Nevill Chamberlain ring any bells?

Unfortunately, too few remember his folly.

Chas.

Charles,

Your answer is correct and brought to mind the other quote. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

While its pretty obvious that we haven't done much , to prevent this happening, up until now we've pretty much ignored the problem. I I don't see where we have been appeasing the Somalis. I don't believe we have any business protecting Danishh crews on libarian tankers, carrying Arabic oil When our help doesn't seem welcome. This time is different an American flagged ship with an American Crew and and We have responded. While this is playing out I am amazed how it has become a spectator sport. I for one have problem with "Negotiation" if it serves to buy some time and wear out the enemy. I don't have a problem with agreeing to any of the demands, as long as we don't actually give them anything and we get our captain back.

Unfortunatly they are only 40 miles off the coast and they may be running out of time. Hopefully soon we will be able to brag about how our Navy and leaders masterfully carried this off,

Liberty wrote:

...I don't see where we have been appeasing the Somalis...

BINGO! (sorta')

Appeasement is part of the answer to the history question above. The greater fear is appeasement to everybody everywhere to show that we (the USA) are really nice guys and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

As Steve said, 'if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it'.

Oldgringo wrote:

Liberty wrote:

...I don't see where we have been appeasing the Somalis...

BINGO! (sorta')

Appeasement is part of the answer to the history question above. The greater fear is appeasement to everybody everywhere to show that we (the USA) are really nice guys and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

As Steve said, 'if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it'.

As I see it we are criticizing the Navy folks for talking with the Somolis.. I don't see where we have mismanaged anything in a very tense situation. There is nothing wrong with buying time with negotiation. Although I agree at the end of the day once we get our captain back, we don't need to be yielding to any of their demands.. As far as I can see haven't.

Sorry, I don't get the parallelism of Neville and the Navy commander As far as I can tell we haven't conceded a thing to them, nor done anything to appease them. As I understand it negotiations buy time and wear out the guys stuck in a tiny little boat who must be getting uncomfortable and maybe losing a little clearheadedness.
Just trying to be optimistic in all of this.