RkFast Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I REALLY want to make one of my famous snarky half-talking-out-my-ass comments here, using this event to blast the anti-war, anti-military pacifist schmuck libs who think that "we dont need a military (in this case, Navy) anymore", but if I do Tom will slaughter me. So I wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Under the left's thinking, under what legal standing could the US sink or a pirate ship pursuing another, or even intervene for that matter? Even the vague mantle of National Security Interests (which the civil liberties lawyers fight tooth and nail) wouldn't apply. Wouldn't we need a UN mandate and congressional approval? If we can intervene there, then can we unilaterally intervene in muggings or carjackings in foreign countries? Drug wars in Mexico? Good question. How do we deal with attacks on international commerce without the right wing taking that as an excuse to attack, kill and conquer every "evil doer" in the world. I don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I REALLY want to make one of my famous snarky half-talking-out-my-ass comments here, using this event to blast the anti-war, anti-military pacifist schmuck libs who think that "we dont need a military (in this case, Navy) anymore", but if I do Tom will slaughter me. So I wont. Ya, they have done a lot of good so far with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Good question. How do we deal with attacks on international commerce without the right wing taking that as an excuse to attack, kill and conquer every "evil doer" in the world. I don't know 1.) Read up on World history. 2.) Off yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Like I said before, send the Marines. Molson, where do you think "to the shores of Tripoli " came from in the Marine Corps Hymn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Like I said before, send the Marines.Molson, where do you think "to the shores of Tripoli " came from in the Marine Corps Hymn? Yea right ,this time send some other countries Marines. and the Navy is too busy playing war games with the Chinese. And pentagon chief Mullen was stunned by the attack ,what a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Like I said before, send the Marines.Molson, where do you think "to the shores of Tripoli " came from in the Marine Corps Hymn? The problem, of course, is our troops are otherwise occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are short of troops there, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I have been getting the weekly piracy reports since 2002. I am sure they've been issuing them longer than that. These pirates have been out there, and ignored. Suddenly they hijack a tanker full of OIL and they're a big deal. Fancy that. Why does it put me in mind of ignoring terrorism around the world until it hits us? Duh. Well one good thing is piracy impacts all nations. Maybe it's a good cause to unit against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 1.) Read up on World history. 2.) Off yourself. 1) Which part of world history? Like the Ming Dynasty or something. 2) Eat chit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Are you suggesting that, since there might be some problems, the world should do nothing? The same possibilities you list exist here in the USA with domestic police enforcement...yet, we manage to pull it off. Due process? Of course, why not? If a group of pirates on many small unregistered ships wants to argue, after being apprehended, that the huge, fully legal ship, with papers, on a business or military mission, was trying to pirate THEM, then they are free to try to make that argument fly. The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers. Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved. Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization. Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Like I said before, send the Marines.Molson, where do you think "to the shores of Tripoli " came from in the Marine Corps Hymn? I actually have no problem with that. As for Tripoli, the Barbary Pirates were attacking our ships, so that is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers. Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved. Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization. Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight. I am glad that you recognize that the left believes in the law and the right doesn't, because that is exactly what you are saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I am glad that you recognize that the left believes in the law and the right doesn't, because that is exactly what you are saying No, the right (or at least myself) believes that the protections and rights of the US apply only to the citizens of the US, and that its mission is to further the interests of its citizens. Everything else is belongs in the realm of foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 [in best Bill Murray Caddyshack voice] 1,000 yards out. Slight wind left to right. I highly recommend the Phalanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I am glad that you recognize that the left believes in the law and the right doesn't, because that is exactly what you are saying Like those Prop 8 thugs in CA, right? Book a flight on a Concorde with Firestone tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I have been getting the weekly piracy reports since 2002. I am sure they've been issuing them longer than that. These pirates have been out there, and ignored. Suddenly they hijack a tanker full of OIL and they're a big deal. Fancy that. Why does it put me in mind of ignoring terrorism around the world until it hits us? Duh. Well one good thing is piracy impacts all nations. Maybe it's a good cause to unit against. Youre not obtuse enough to believe this line of thinking is limited to the US, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers. Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved. Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization. Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight. Why do you suggest the US do this alone, Cowboy style? Haven't we seen enough of that? I'm suggesting the US can't really do it, right now, as they are engaged in other conflicts. Also, the pirating isn't directed at the USA, yet...it is a world problem. Perhaps this country will take an inclusive approach and work with other countries to solve this problem...militarily if necessary...but together. Are there US ships currently being held for ransom? If so, then I think the USA has a legitimate course of action, to let the gov't of Somalia know that, unless they force the pirates to turn over the ships and crew, we will be stopping by to pick them up...but, don't think too long, as we will be knocking on your doors in a few minutes. But, in the absence of immediate situations like that, it doesn't behoove us to to act alone as "World Police". It is also VERY expensive (and you certainly don't like to spend the taxpayers money, do you?) And it tends to get a lot of our young men killed...and I would hope that is something both conservatives and liberals would like to cut back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I REALLY want to make one of my famous snarky half-talking-out-my-ass comments here, using this event to blast the anti-war, anti-military pacifist schmuck libs who think that "we dont need a military (in this case, Navy) anymore", but if I do Tom will slaughter me. So I wont. I have a lot of what you would call "liberal" friends and not a single one of them thinks we don't need a military. Nice strawman argument. I know all the conservatives want to kill anyone they don't like. The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers. Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved. Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization. Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight. The U.N. expects America to act like a citizen of the world not the rulers. Why is that a problem? Is it ok for a foreign country to come here and enforce laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I have a lot of what you would call "liberal" friends and not a single one of them thinks we don't need a military. Nice strawman argument. I know all the conservatives want to kill anyone they don't like. Excuse me, I CLEARY stated that its the ANTI-MILITARY portion of the left that Im speaking about. Those who think the military is "useless" and should be done away with completely. Those who think that our projection of power has NO PURPOSE at all. If you think there are not significant numbers of the anti-war left who not just want to us to "get out of Iraq", but want the military completely done away with, youre sadly mistaken. The U.N. expects America to act like a citizen of the world not the rulers. Why is that a problem? Is it ok for a foreign country to come here and enforce laws? Its a "problem" becuase whenever thing get nasty, the UN ducks and hides behind our backs and seems to say "DO SOMETHING!!!" Its a "problem" becuase hwnever someone needs help, they look to the US to provide it. You cant have it both ways. The World cant expect the US to just be a "tenant" but then fix the roof of the apartment building when its leaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Why do you suggest the US do this alone, Cowboy style? ... I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that that is not a solution consistent with the thinking of the left. I am simply asking what they would find an acceptable solution. Leave it up to Interpol? Set up a UN protection flotilla to sail around with blue smokestacks monitoring the situation? Would force for anything but self-defence be authorized? That would be a departure from normal peace-keeping operations... Or would we craft a UN resolution authorizing nations to initiate military combat in the area at their own discretion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts