Posted on 04/13/2009 10:33:39 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - President Barack Obama promised Monday to work with other nations "to halt the rise of piracy," while Somali pirates vowed revenge for the deaths of three colleagues shot by snipers during the daring high-seas rescue of an American sea captain.
The pirates' threat raised fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off lawless Somalia.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Needs a barf and gag alert! Everything with Zero’s name on it needs a barf and gag alert.
Serious question - what is the argument AGAINST arming the crews on these ships, or at least employing a security detail on board?
Could that be why he hesistated like a little girl from taking action?
President Barack Obama promised Monday to work with other nations “to halt the rise of piracy,”
To hell with other nations! Can’t he say: “America will never accept a threat on any American anywhere in the world because a threat against one is a threat against all?”...
Obama: Fighting 'rise of privacy' (piracy) (Yet another Obama gaffe) (Chicago Tribune April 13, 2009 12:15 PM by Mark Silva)
"And I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region...."
Obama pledges to fight piracyBody of story, first sentence
President Barack Obama promised Monday to work with other nations "to halt the rise of piracy"Thems two different animals thar news slanter extraordinaire AP.
Obama "promised" to talk about halting "the rise of piracy", not to fight it and bring the incidences down.
Big difference between what Obama said (yap yap yap, like his new dog) and fighting piracy.
Nice words to appease your useless idiots "Present" Obama.
Argument against arming them is:
1.) Increased insurance premiums for owner of ship
2.) International Waters conundrum - who has jurisdiction over the incident
3.) Many times the local law enforcement/power structure of a particular region is the “pirate” shaking down the owner of the vessel.
4.) misguided liberal belief that if a crew is armed, they will initiate conflict and it will be more costly than just paying off the thugs.
“Work with other nations” = I’m not sticking my neck out but voting ‘present.” “Halt the rise of piracy” = Bush’s fault.
If the crew fought off the pirates for 3 hours with firehoses, wouldn’t it have been far more effective to dip the hose intake in the fuel tanks and hose the bad guys down with fuel?
Lawyers.
It’s a liability issue.
Insurance companies know that they’ll be on the hook when some ACLU lawyer judge shops and gets a judgement against the company that authorized arming the crew in a situation where a pirate gets shot.
They were probably fire hoses, which wouldn't be connected to the fuel lines anyway.
Bah-HAHAHAHA!
Obama has already showed the "pirates" just how good he is at getting other nations to co-operate with him. This is a "coded" message from Obama to the pirates saying "the open sea is your oyster, pluck it". The pirates will just avoid American ships, which will make Obama powerless to do anything.
That's right. You can't even find co-operation between countries to fight crime on cruise ships, never mind piracy on the open sea's. Nobody wants jurisdiction, and the expense that goes along with it to prosecute criminals in their lands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.