Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Navy Ship Outruns Pursuing Pirates
UPI ^ | May 7, 2009

Posted on 05/07/2009 10:35:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway

Suspected pirates failed in an effort to attack a U.S. Navy ship off the eastern coast of Somalia. the Navy said Thursday.

Two skiffs, assumed to be pirate vessels, chased the Lewis and Clark, a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet, for more than an hour Wednesday before giving up, CNN reported.

During the pursuit, the skiffs fired small arms at the Lewis and Clark and got within one nautical mile before the ship used evasive maneuvers and pulled out of range.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: maritime; navy; pirates; somalia; somalipirates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
To: Stunned
"Oh for crying out loud. What have we come to?"

Utter weakness.

The Lewis and Clark class are manned largely by merchant mariners, not Navy seamen. This was done to supposedly cut costs. It shouldn't be like this. If it was a Navy ship with fighting sailors onboard, we'd have turned around and sent them to the damn deep where they belong.
101 posted on 05/07/2009 11:41:55 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If the Navy ship was carrying munitions, wouldn’t there be a chance a rocket propelled grenade or small arms fire from the pirates might blow up the whole ship?

If so, running away from a fight seems the right thing to do.


102 posted on 05/07/2009 11:45:29 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
USNS = CIVILAN CREW, but Navy owned vessel.

The USNS Sacagawea is civilian crewed as well. Still lightly armed, unlike her sister ship the USNS Lewis and Clark.

Yelling civilian doesn't change that, because I already understood that part.

103 posted on 05/07/2009 11:46:03 AM PDT by Domandred (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

“The might U S Navy is turning and running from pirates in skiffs?”

How many times do I need to say it? A USNS ship has a CIVILIAN CREW.


104 posted on 05/07/2009 11:46:56 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ETL

I lost a friend on the Cole, so I am not among those who have forgotten.

Hence the phrasing - most people in their right mind...

The dangers are much different in the open ocean than they are near land and/or in port. The security requirements, escorts etc. are different when approaching littoral waters.


105 posted on 05/07/2009 11:47:06 AM PDT by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

Try USNS Lewis and Clark. USNS Lewis and Clark and USS Lewis and Clark are two separate vessels.


106 posted on 05/07/2009 11:52:32 AM PDT by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Maybe the pirates were Union Pirates and “0” doesn't want to risk a backlash.
107 posted on 05/07/2009 11:56:40 AM PDT by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

Any ship could be a “gun” ship.....

All US Naval vessels operating in dangerous waters should have some mounted guns and crew that could operate them.....


108 posted on 05/07/2009 11:58:53 AM PDT by nevergore ("It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
I'm yelling, because my Navy has been called cowards to many times on this thread already.

There is allot we don't know about this incident. What orders the Captain had. If any weapons were in its armory. How far away was the nearest combat vessel? And why aren't our combat vessels in a location where they can respond to incidents quickly? And what are the standing orders from the Commander and Chief?

I was in the Navy during the time Qaddafi decided to extend the coastal claims of Libya to the waters where American naval maneuvers were conducted. Jimmy Carter meekly rescheduled our maneuvers to stay outside disputed Gulf of Sidra, ordering us to not cross Qaddafi's line. True to form, Carter failed to confront Qaddafi over the issue even after a siege on the American embassy in Tripoli in 1979.

Within months after taking office, Ronald Reagan took a stand. He made it clear that American maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra would proceed as they always had before Carter. Anticipating trouble, Reagan was asked by the Joint Chiefs what American pilots do if attacked? Would Reagan's orders allow for “hot pursuit”? Reagan's answer – “All the way into the hanger.” You know the rest of the story.

Thats the kind of leadership we need back in Washington, and its not there. That is where the cowards are.

109 posted on 05/07/2009 12:01:25 PM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Class and type: Lewis and Clark-class cargo ship
Displacement: 41,000 tons (41,700 t)
Length: 689 ft (210 m)
Beam: 105.6 ft (32.2 m)
Draft: 29.9 ft (9.1 m)
Propulsion: Integrated propulsion and ship service electrical system, with generation at 6.6 kV by FM/MAN B&W diesel generators; one fixed pitch propeller; bow thruster
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)


110 posted on 05/07/2009 12:06:06 PM PDT by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Cowards!


111 posted on 05/07/2009 12:07:35 PM PDT by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims. Execute child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Ballsy - attack a USNS ship? One would think such vessels would be an excellent trial platform for ship mounted non-lethals, if such things exist. Problem is probably range. Your non-lethals may not have the effective range to deal with RPG’s and 50’s.

Another thing you might try would be smaller versions of drones. They are developing some sweet new smaller-form factor missile types that ride better on smaller drones.

Another surprising sort of thing: We used to operate these ships that had large dirigibles on tethers. On the dirigibles were radar. Around the dirigibles were surface assets and guard ships. The guard ships protected the radar asset. The other surface assets were used to pursue vessels of interest.

A combination of one of these radar ships, a helicopter carrier, and some patrol boats and you have an end to piracy off of Somalia. There’s about 700 to 800 miles of Somalian coastline in the Gulf of Aden. Not impossible to bottle up. Air assets can make quick work of the distance, and they’ve got enough firepower to give bad guys a moment of pause, even if you don’t want to kill them with it.

Not going to happen.


112 posted on 05/07/2009 12:10:55 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

With all that ammo on board? McGyver + Swiss Army Knife = Lots of dead pirates.


113 posted on 05/07/2009 12:11:18 PM PDT by Moltke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Back in the late 1960’s and early 70’s ammunition ships along with the oilers and supply ships were actually USS Navy ships and were armed. To bad we now contract those services out.


114 posted on 05/07/2009 12:21:03 PM PDT by longhorn too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

yeah, they ran away... That is how the media spins it. However, evasive maneuvering isn’t exactly running in cowardice. A supply ship is not supposed to be a combatant, so it doesn’t fight back because it really can’t. It isn’t equipped to return fire or anything else. That’s why you typically see these ships within a battle group.


115 posted on 05/07/2009 12:23:13 PM PDT by Peanut Gallery (The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Peanut Gallery
yeah, they ran away... That is how the media spins it.

No, that's what the enemy will take from it.

A supply ship is not supposed to be a combatant, so it doesn’t fight back because it really can’t.

Lame excuse. Are you telling me that supply ships didn't even have a .50 cal in WWII???

It isn’t equipped to return fire or anything else. That’s why you typically see these ships within a battle group.

No, it's because of an idiotic UN Treaty.

116 posted on 05/07/2009 12:26:58 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (It's time to waterboard that teleprompter and find out what it knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

The OBAMA DOCTRINE: Our Navy SHOULD run away from Somali pirates. That way, no one gets hurt. We ESPECIALLY don’t want AFRICAN MUSLIMS to be killed, wounded or captured. A successful operation.


117 posted on 05/07/2009 12:27:14 PM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
“...pirate vessels, chased the Lewis and Clark...”

US Navy runs from two pirate skiffs??

Surely, that is simply not possible. The Lewis and Clark has to be French.

118 posted on 05/07/2009 12:31:19 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
"From Wikipedia: The USS Lewsi and Clark was...”deactivated while still in commission on 1 October 1991” and was “decommissioned on 27 June 1992...”"

Yes, thus my comment that there haven't been any Franklin-class subs in service for years. Are we having some kind of trouble communicating here?

119 posted on 05/07/2009 12:35:47 PM PDT by Dan Middleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
I will try to clarify this once again: the USS Lewis and Clark was a nuclear submarine, now decommissioned. The USNS Lewis and Clark (note the difference in prefix) is the supply ship in question in this article.

Got it now?

120 posted on 05/07/2009 12:38:35 PM PDT by Dan Middleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; All

I am amazed at the pathetic excuses for this being offered on this thread. Not armed? How expensive would it be to outfit it with about four MaDeuces? Not a combat vessel? Who, in their right mind, would consider engaging a couple of ragtag pirate boats combat?


121 posted on 05/07/2009 12:50:20 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

USS Lewis & Clark was decommissioned long ago.


122 posted on 05/07/2009 1:25:41 PM PDT by SmithL (The Golden State demands all of your gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How does one keep up with such things??


123 posted on 05/07/2009 1:34:26 PM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
"When the Marines were taken off of ships starting in the late '80s, this is what one of the unintended consequences turned out to be."

That's not an excuse. Sailors can still fight, and all throughout our history, they were exptected to do both boarding parties and landing parties when Marines weren't around, which, considering how small the Corps was before WWII (back when it was actually a corps, and not a seaborne army), light infantry was a regular duty of American sailors.

I collect old Bluejackets' Manuals, and until fairly recently, light infantry training was a big part of the Navy's basic training. This is taken from my 1940 edition:



Just a few years prior, navy recruits also had to qualify with the Browning .30 cal machine guns as well. Also, keep in mind that support ships like the Lewis and Clark are no longer ships of the line. They're now US Naval Ships (USNS instead of USS), and are now largely staffed by merchant mariners on contract with the Navy. USNS ships can in reality hardly even be considered naval vessels the way we currently operate. They're just merchant ships with a coat of grey paint, for all practical purposes.
124 posted on 05/07/2009 1:43:26 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

The Lewis and Clark along with several other names explores
are the name of these new Sealift command supply ships.

The are built here in San Diego


125 posted on 05/07/2009 1:46:23 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
I think you raise some great points. I'm a former Marine, so I'm a little biased, but you're right, it doesn't have to be Marines that defend a ship from marauders. But, from what I understand, the Navy now gives it's recruits extremely limited training in small arms or close combat skills that would be necessary to repel boarders in such a scenario.
126 posted on 05/07/2009 1:47:20 PM PDT by Big_Monkey (Flubama - bringing disease everywhere he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

I don’t think the Navy gives any small arms familiarization to sailors these days...heck, I was on Swift Boats in Nam and spent a week at Pendleton doing small arms fam...if it wasn’t for that I would not have touched a small arm, except for a .45 ACP which we carried when on quarterdeck watch...which was empty.


127 posted on 05/07/2009 1:53:43 PM PDT by Cuttnhorse (Obama...the convergence of Affirmative Action and the Peter Principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
"I think you raise some great points. I'm a former Marine, so I'm a little biased, but you're right, it doesn't have to be Marines that defend a ship from marauders. But, from what I understand, the Navy now gives it's recruits extremely limited training in small arms or close combat skills that would be necessary to repel boarders in such a scenario"

Currently, the amount of training the Navy gives for these situations is pathetic; basically, just a couple of hours on a firing range with a pistol. That's it. The good news is that sailors on the new Littoral Combat Ships are expected to be "do everything" sailors, very similar to the kind of sailors we used to have... and this may once again include small squad tactics and landing parties. Perhaps this will eventually make its way to the fleet, and thus all Navy recruit training. We'll see.
128 posted on 05/07/2009 1:56:54 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Even with some pintle-mounted .50s there’s really no point in risking an engagement if you don’t have to have one. There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage.

I don’t have a problem with this ships’ actions.


129 posted on 05/07/2009 2:11:21 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
No it is not a gun ship but as a former US Navy man I can tell you they have weapons on board. On top of that THEY HAVE THE HIGH GROUND and could have blasted them to bits. Why they didn't turn around and blow them out of the water is beyond me. "Obamessiah the Weak" must have standing orders for us to tuck our tails and run away.

Disgusting

130 posted on 05/07/2009 2:34:13 PM PDT by Jmouse007 (tot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold; ArrogantBustard; The Iguana
Okay -- I'll speak more slowly, clearly and try to avoid threatening the racially sensitive....whose first reaction to anyone criticizing ANYONE black is to pull their head out of their ass and scream "RACIST"...

1st point: The ship is DEFINED as a U.S. Naval Vessel in the article - and is described as "a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet".

2nd point: The ship was attacked in an area the Navy HAD to know was subject to pirate attacks by African Muslims -- since it's been in all the papers. < /sarcasm>
An overwhelming majority of "African Muslim" pirates are black...

3rd point: One would assume our military forces NEEDED the "dry cargo and ammunition" or they wouldn't have shipped it half way around the world..

4th point: The U.S. Navy must have something in their Mission Statement and ROE that requires them to practice "Force Protection", using lethal force if threatened......
Military supply lines - INCLUDING merchant ships on the high seas carrying war material, comes under that mandate.

5th point: I haven't already forgotten that our black poseur of a President - ordered the Navy to stand down when an American Captain was held by pirates a short time ago, until "his folks - the FBI arrived to negotiate"....
Why did this black President feel the FBI needed to be involved in dealing with black pirates on the high seas?

6th point: Since nearly 97% of blacks in America voted for and celebrate the first black President, the media hails him as the black messiah who is the smartest man to ever serve as President (even though NONE of them or us has seen ANY DOCUMENTATION to substantiate that claim) and the President himself never misses an opportunity to call attention to his uniqueness as a black President -- I find it a simple matter of logic to frame criticism of his actions as a black President...

Finally - one can't help but wonder if our current President would behave as he has against Black African Muslim pirates, if he was not himself a black who celebrates his African roots and was born to a Muslim father, adopted by a Muslim father, personally stated his familiarity and admiration for aspects of Islam and some suspect is STILL a Muslim.....

If it's racist to question Obama's history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist -- then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.

131 posted on 05/07/2009 2:56:15 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

How far would you run to hide?

When do you stand and fight against bastards who think you’re fair game to rob, rape or kill?

Do you avoid a fight with them NOW, allowing them to become even stronger and more dangerous — to threaten your children or grandchildren?

Our “civilization” has become far to “civilized” to survive for long......


132 posted on 05/07/2009 3:00:19 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Even with some pintle-mounted .50s there’s really no point in risking an engagement if you don’t have to have one. There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage. I don’t have a problem with this ships’ actions.

What about the downside of just leaving them there to attack the next ship that comes along? Maybe it will be an unarmed U.S. ship.
133 posted on 05/07/2009 3:01:31 PM PDT by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
Roger that...

Earlier in this thread - I made the point that this is occurring under a black African President - whom some suspect of STILL having Muslim sympathies....

I was called a racist....

That is the level to which critical discourse has declined in this forum..... We have the WRONG President to deal with the current threats to our Republic -- for economic to energy independence or national security....

134 posted on 05/07/2009 3:06:32 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage.

Waaah. Then 20mm, or whatever it takes. My point is that at no time in WWII would we have been so stupid. We are virtually assuring that the Muzzie pirates will feel safe doing exactly what you needlessly fear by completely disarming supply ships and ordering them to avoid all confrontation. Such behavior places the time and place of a real attack at the enemy's discretion with virtually guaranteed substantial loss of life. Best that they not know what we are going to do and force them to maintain a safe distance.

135 posted on 05/07/2009 3:36:45 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (It's time to waterboard that teleprompter and find out what it knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
It's a Navy ship for cryin out loud!

You got ammunition? Use it!

All Navy ships patrolling those waters should be armed.

136 posted on 05/07/2009 4:17:51 PM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom Needs A Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Now that was funny.


137 posted on 05/07/2009 4:35:43 PM PDT by publana (How'd that trip into dummyland work out for ya, Arlen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

How hard would it be to arm it with a few 50 Cal’s, and maybe a few Dragon missile launchers?


138 posted on 05/07/2009 4:39:07 PM PDT by Kozak (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

We ship ammo in unarmed boats??? How about gold? We deserve Obama. We’re stupid


139 posted on 05/07/2009 4:40:12 PM PDT by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee
“It's a Navy ship for cryin out loud!”

As it has been said over and over again on this thread it is a Navy owned ship BUT operated by civilians. USNS not USS. Like someone else said, a merchant ship with a coat of gray paint.

140 posted on 05/07/2009 4:45:24 PM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: river rat

“If it’s racist to question Obama’s history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist — then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.”

I’ll take your side on that issue!


141 posted on 05/07/2009 5:09:42 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

I reckon you’re right... still... I would make sure my crew was armed and ready to go.


142 posted on 05/07/2009 6:56:55 PM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom Needs A Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
"I’ll take your side on that issue!"

Thanks - but you'd better sandbag your bunker!
I could have guessed that it would be someone from Texas who would have arrived FIRST and ALONE.
Sort of like the quip accredited to a Texas Ranger who showed up at a major riot ALONE. When asked why he came alone, he replied: "One riot, one Ranger".

It's amazing how cowed folks in this forum have become.
Most are afraid and refusing to acknowledge the race issue that IS present in Obama's "administration", because THEY made it so and campaigned upon race as much as anything.

So - I'll judge the results as reflective of the race that supported him at nearly 100%...and scrutinize Obama's actions to determine how they are biased toward his race and his radical Leftist bias at the expense of my race and conservative positions.

That is pure survival theology and self defense...

143 posted on 05/07/2009 7:19:40 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Waaah. Then 20mm, or whatever it takes

Funny you should mention that. On the Other side of the pond the closed equivalent (navy owned, mostly civilian crew) to the USNS Lewis and Clark is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary

RFA Fort Rosalie

RFA Fort Rosalie this is what we do

144 posted on 05/07/2009 7:25:06 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Obama in Office for 100 days: Wall Street panics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Why is anybody surprised at Obama’s payback? It must delight him to hear the white folks howl in anger and despair under the weight of his Presidential power. The louder the better. Real change is happening in continuous destructive multi-directional waves. Similar to the forces of hell being unleashed by a massive satanic army. Cliches; “tear down the walls” & “burn baby burn” are etched in the LSD enriched minds of Ayers & Wright types. Combined with a wanton plague of immorality, we witness the errosion of our great nation; delighting the conductor and his long oppressed masses. MSM long told lies are now facts, told by people to blind to see. This man is the antithesis of any savior. Gird yourselves.
145 posted on 05/07/2009 7:41:15 PM PDT by Broker (Reward: $100.00 for the lost book of Islamic Praise Songs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
That's one real purty toy, there fella.

Bet it makes nice holes in waterlines too, at a mile. :-)

146 posted on 05/07/2009 7:41:48 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (It's time to waterboard that teleprompter and find out what it knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Broker

I agree - but beware—

Criticism of Obama, the black racist president, implementing EXACTLY the destruction he ascribed to by listening to a “preacher” vomit out the Black Liberation Theology - will get you labeled a racist....


147 posted on 05/07/2009 9:05:05 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why would the U.S. Navy run from pirates- shouldn’t it be the other way around?


148 posted on 05/07/2009 9:08:27 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

If the ship was not capable of facing pirates and being able to deal with them effectively- it should not have been traveling without other ships with that capability. Either way this is not good.


149 posted on 05/07/2009 9:10:38 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

If not able to deal with pirates- needs escort that can. With the threat of terrorists and others that wish to do us harm we should not have a Navy ship out there without the means to defend itself.


150 posted on 05/07/2009 9:14:10 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson