That would require the current regime in DC to view terrorism as a significant issue. Not a "man-caused disaster", or an "overseas contingency issue". They would rather worry about pushing forward with the apparent "democratic socialist" agenda, rather than actually providing for the national defense.

I can't see how this happens, 2 or 3 well trained security guards with some autos/rpg's should be able to protect a large boat like that, its not like there coming out of the water, they have to come close no? ...but I agree why aren't more people onboard armed seems silly

Simple, international law and insurance. Maritime law claims you can not shoot at an aggressor unless they attack you first. Insurance would go up dramatically if every ship was allowed to have a full on armory. There are companies in existence now that provide armed support to shipping companies, if these are paid for generally overall insurance goes down however, it is a new expense for the shipping company...so they would need to pass on that cost.

On a news program today, the Commandant of the Coast Guard was talking about how the proper thing to do is to have the legal framework in place internationally. Sure. Let's just sit around and do nothing and try to set up some legal framework. What a load of BS.

:thumbdown

The danger to that approach is deciding what laws you are going to enforce. If you had an agreed convention (such as the Law of the Sea convention that was agreed to 27 years ago, but never ratified by the US for a variety of reasons) then you could enforce anti-piracy laws. All military actions should have some legitimacy IMO. Otherwise, what is seen as piracy by one country is simply taxation to another country. Laws aren't such a bad thing. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be enforcement, simply that there should be a commonly agreed to set of rules.

I suspect this thread just became a candidate to be moved to the Politics lounge.

Would you feel better if the report came from Faux News?

Obama twice approved plan to rescue U.S. Sea Captain

Obama Twice Approved Plan to Rescue U.S. Sea Captain - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

heard from a friend at fox news that they did call in the snipers.

even trade, our guy for 3 snipers. hehe

Well, he approved "do what is necessary" he didn't say "use snipers & kill the bastards". :rofl:

Either way, glad it ended the way it did. At least Hillary didn't get a chance to d.....r......a..........w it out, like the last Clinton that dealt with Somalia. Do wonder how CNN would treat Bush, if he had done "approved the plan" for something like that :rofl:

:iagree:

Let the military interrogate ooops sorry shouldn't use that word should we, let the military question nicely the poor little person with the sore little handywandy who surrendered, to find out more detail regarding the pirates HQ how many are involved and who and were they live and the finer details of any hostages and were they are being held etc. Then send the special forces of the US, France, and the UK to free the hostages and ultimately bring these pirates lives to an end. The Media who have been courting these scum for press stories also have film and other information of the so called leaders and were they live, send in a snatch squad for each of these villains and use them as bait to capture the others. Keep the F***ing whimsy politicians out of the decision making and let the military sort them out. Its the only way to get the job done and no questions asked.