More information on the complexity of the Russia/Georgian issue specifically and all previous Russian satelite countries...bottomline..we need to be very careful promising to come to the aid of these countries under the NATO umbrella.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7715735.stm

Is it smart of the US to stick it to Russia every chanch it gets. Like how would we feel if Russia made an ally of a Carabean island right off OUR shore? Why can't there be some acknowledgement of thier sphere of influence?

I agree..when the iron curtain fell...Sect of State Baker "promised the russians none of their previous satellites would be allowed into NATO....every succeeeding administration has gone back on that promise.

Democracy is right and Communism is wrong. It doesn't give us the right to punch Beijing in the face and then not be prepared for the ramifications. That's what happened with Georgia and Russia. I'm all for defending a Democratic nation. But when that nation starts provoking Russia, we shouldn't automatically rush to their defense with guns blazing.

America is not a democracy. There has never been a communist government anywhere. communism means no government. Stalin was Georgian.

I'm not so sure Georgia really provoked Russia. I mean, I've heard that, and I've heard another side of the story claiming that Russia was playing games in South Ossetia and had troops there. I don't think we, as Americans, know the real story, we only know the two sides' propoganda about the matter.

But no matter who started what, NATO is the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", and I don't see Georgia anywhere near the Atlantic coast. Nor are a lot of the proposed members of NATO in any way related to the Atlantic Ocean.

It really would be dumb to entangle ourselves in ways that could one day create a conflict not necessary to our interests.

This stinks of the NEOCON desire to find new ways to create a paradigm of "us against them" that they've been yearning for ever since the fall of the iron curtain and the end of the cold war.

Exactly

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But no matter who started what, NATO is the "North
> Atlantic Treaty Organization", and I don't see
> Georgia anywhere near the Atlantic coast. Nor are
> a lot of the proposed members of NATO in any way
> related to the Atlantic Ocean.
>
Would it make you feel better if they renamed it?

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly


Stephen Leeb the wall street guru who predicted $200 a barrol oil (which is coming back) recently urged investing in Defence stocks which will surly be a good investment as this conflict with Russia is promoted

SBS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > But no matter who started what, NATO is the
> "North
> > Atlantic Treaty Organization", and I don't see
> > Georgia anywhere near the Atlantic coast. Nor
> are
> > a lot of the proposed members of NATO in any
> way
> > related to the Atlantic Ocean.
> >
> Would it make you feel better if they renamed it?

You mean rechartered it?

They should at least explain how Georgia meets the requirements of Article 10. How is Georgia, with only Black Sea ports, going to "contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2008 10:25PM by Bob.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You mean rechartered it?
>
> They should at least explain how Georgia meets the
> requirements of Article 10. How is Georgia, with
> only Black Sea ports, going to "contribute to the
> security of the North Atlantic area?"

So, by that logic, why are Belgium, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, The Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, et. al. a part of NATO? None of them have ports on the Atlantic either. Any likely aggressor against NATO is not going to come from the direction of the Atlantic. Georgia would be in the first line of defense against an agresssor from the east. It would benefit Georgia by providing a deterent to agression against them, knowing NATO would step in to defend them.

Im not willing to spend the life of one american soldier for Georgia. They either learn to live with their neighbors or they dont.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im not willing to spend the life of one american
> soldier for Georgia. They either learn to live
> with their neighbors or they dont.

Do you have that same opinion about Israel?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Im not willing to spend the life of one
> american
> > soldier for Georgia. They either learn to live
> > with their neighbors or they dont.
>
> Do you have that same opinion about Israel?


not yet! but if they continue on the road they are on...maybe some day soon.

SBS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You mean rechartered it?
> >
> > They should at least explain how Georgia meets
> the
> > requirements of Article 10. How is Georgia,
> with
> > only Black Sea ports, going to "contribute to
> the
> > security of the North Atlantic area?"
>
> So, by that logic, why are Belgium, Denmark,
> Italy, The Netherlands, The Czech Republic,
> Germany, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, et. al. a part
> of NATO? None of them have ports on the Atlantic
> either. Any likely aggressor against NATO is not
> going to come from the direction of the Atlantic.
> Georgia would be in the first line of defense
> against an agresssor from the east. It would
> benefit Georgia by providing a deterent to
> agression against them, knowing NATO would step in
> to defend them.


Well, Germany, and the Netherlands have north sea ports, which are practically north atlantic ports. I took a ferry from Cuxhaven Germany to Harwich England in the early 1990s.

I don't agree with Greece or Turkey being part of NATO, either.

I don't disagree that it would benefit Georgia. But I just don't see any reciprocal benefit for the US or other members of NATO.

Now the NY Times is reporting that Georgian leaders were more the instigator in the conflict with Russia. We need to be very careful when allying ourselves with these 21st century "democracies"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=georgia&st=cse&oref=slogin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2008 06:39PM by Vince(1).

In either case, Russia has "occupied" parts of Georgia and essentially annexed part of their territory as recognized by international law. On one hand you assert that the US is wrong to use it's military to occupy regions that are not theirs to control, and yet you give the Russians a pass on the same thing.

Quote

The accounts are neither fully conclusive nor broad enough to settle the many lingering disputes over blame in a war that hardened relations between the Kremlin and the West. But they raise questions about the accuracy and honesty of Georgia’s insistence that its shelling of Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, was a precise operation. Georgia has variously defended the shelling as necessary to stop heavy Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages, bring order to the region or counter a Russian invasion.

The Russian troops have taken up positions in and around civilian areas where folks live - on purpose. Regardless of how and why the Georgians decided to shell the area - there are conflicting stories on both sides, but it still holds that Russia is in violation of international law at the moment. I suppose you cheered when the Russians went in and shelled Chechnya?

As far as benefit - there is no "benefit" of the NATO alliance other than agreeing to protect your neighbors from aggression. The only countries in Europe that have (in recent memory) provoked aggressive conflict, is the Russians and Serbia (backed by Russia). Maybe most of the Europeans see it as a benefit to keep moving the trip line to stop the Russians from being aggressive further back? There was never a reciprocal benefit for the US in any of this other than keeping Europe "free". Could you imagine the Europeans sending any large numbers of troop to our aid if someone tried to invade the US? Other than Naval forces?

The comparison between our intrusion into Iraq and the Russians intruding into a country which touches it's border...a country aligning itself with the U.S. and it's plans to install star wars technolgy into previous satlellite countries...is hardly a fair comparison. A fair comparison would be if Russia tried to install missles into Cuba..and we all know what happened then.

Our foreign policy in the previous soviet union and satellite countries is nothing less then provocative and designed to disrupt peace and instigate violence.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> touches it's border
s/b "its"

> with the U.S. and it's plans
s/b "its"

> satlellite
s/b "satellite"


> nothing less then
s/b "than"

Poor spelling and grammar is the least of Vince's problems.

And FYI, attacking someone's poor spelling and grammar makes you an asshole, unless the post is written in that 13-year-old thug gangsta AOLspeak. Then it's not only acceptable, but encouraged.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The comparison between our intrusion into Iraq and
> the Russians intruding into a country which
> touches it's border...a country aligning itself
> with the U.S. and it's plans to install star wars
> technolgy into previous satlellite countries...is
> hardly a fair comparison. A fair comparison would
> be if Russia tried to install missles into
> Cuba..and we all know what happened then.
>
> Our foreign policy in the previous soviet union
> and satellite countries is nothing less then
> provocative and designed to disrupt peace and
> instigate violence.

How does installing missile defense, or allowing a country to become part of NATO "instigate violence"?

When has NATO gone to war, other than in an instance where a member country was attacked? ? ? The US has certainly been a bit more aggressive than most of the other NATO allies - other than the UK going into Falkland (for good reason) and the French continuously manipulating countries in Africa - but what is it that Russia is afraid of? A NATO first strike? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

So Vince. Tell me. DO you believe that the US, or any of their allies would purposefully attack Russia without provocation? Seriously? Because that is what RUSSIA is using as its reasoning behind non-expansion of NATO. Somehow we are all conspiring to conduct a first strike on them? Do you believe that? Because that is the only way I can see you coming to the conclusion that NATO expansion is about "instigating violence".

I would bet it has more to do with their wanting to invade their neighbors at will, and when this pesky NATO Alliance comes along and those countries (that the Soviets held an iron grip over) that want their independence tell Russia to go stick it up their craw, it just burns them no end that they can't roll tanks over the border with impunity. I still can't figure out how people come to the conclusion that the countries with Democratically elected governments are somehow the "bad guys" that want to inflict massive "violence" on those poor, peaceniks in Russia. The ones whose government employed the most repressive secret police on the planet - that made people disappear on a regular basis for just having a question or thought outside the "norm", and to this day will use lethal radioactive poisons against their own people to send a message.

Yeah. Very thoughtful and insightful there Vince. I can see you are really up on who the Russians really are.... Those poor poor people. LOL

I believe the US govt has in the past and is currrently instituting policies with the sole purpose of disrupting historical areas of influence with the hopes of weakening foreign governemnts and maintaining a cold war mentality of confrontation. When any country sees itself being boxed in it may strike out first...and a self righteous/unscrupulous government might hide behind that first strike as an excuse to forward it's own interests.

Your terminology of desribing good guys and bad guys is artchaic and naive. The US Govt has a history of violence against it's own people almost as great as the USSR (which by the way is not the current governemnt of Russis). Violence against native americans under the care of the US Govt...the STD medical experiments on blacks in this country in the early 20th century...the accepted apartheid of blacks for over a hundred years...are right up there with crimes against humanity!

Then move to China you tard. Maybe Canada - they already have socialized everything, and it is just a short drive away.

If you hate it here so much, go someplace where they favor your views on life.

Folks like you are really hard to understand. You have the freedom to be an idiot (which you obviously choose to exercise) - and then what do you do, but bite the hand that feeds you. Strangely enough, dog owners will get smart from time to time and get rid of the dogs that bite them too often.

On the other hand, as they like to say, "the grass is always greener on the other side". I suggest you go to a country you think is the model you will cream your pants over, and see if it is all you want to dream it is. If so, either stay there, or come back and tell everyone why they should want to be that way. Good grief.

Im happy right here...just because I choose to live here doesnt mean I ignore our history and pretend we have no faults. What makes us great isnt our history...it's our potential for a better future.

Well, it sounds like you are seriously conflicted. Which probably leads to your heavy use of prescription medication.

I wish I had all the prescription drugs you have prescribed for me! Might help me put up with the likes of you...Mr. Cup Half Full! You are one of the most negative people on here. I am still not 100% sure you and Gravis (another psycotically negative person on here) aren't one in the same. I certainly hope there arent 2 of the likes of you roaming around Fairfax.

.
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe the US govt has in the past and is
> currrently instituting policies with the sole
> purpose of disrupting historical areas of
> influence with the hopes of weakening foreign
> governemnts and maintaining a cold war mentality
> of confrontation. When any country sees itself
> being boxed in it may strike out first...and a
> self righteous/unscrupulous government might hide
> behind that first strike as an excuse to forward
> it's own interests.
>
> Your terminology of desribing good guys and bad
> guys is artchaic and naive. The US Govt has a
> history of violence against it's own people almost
> as great as the USSR (which by the way is not the
> current governemnt of Russis). Violence against
> native americans under the care of the US
> Govt...the STD medical experiments on blacks in
> this country in the early 20th century...the
> accepted apartheid of blacks for over a hundred
> years...are right up there with crimes against
> humanity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America.27s_Defenses

In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

and that

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv)



And these were all policies conceived by the Neoconservatives between 1997 and 2000.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2008 11:39PM by Bob.

Yeah, I don't get it. Was this post to somehow bolster Vince's argument that somehow this policy you are showing was designed to be confrontational in some way?

The "fight and decisively win..." line doesn't mean they want to do it, just that the military forces need to be in place that allow for that capability if the need arises. If you don't have a credible military, then when you threaten to use force, no one will believe you - even if you don't really intend to do it.

Just look at the Somali pirates. A new crop of extreme Islamic pirates - almost reminds you of the old Barbary Coast days after the US Revolution.

Do intend to be consistent and associate every person or groups of people with their religious beliefs? I really don't see the need to associate the Somalian pirates with their religious beleifs. They arent standing behind the religion as a basis for pirating...they are merely impoverished people doing what every impoverished person would do to survive...anything!

No you putz, the Barbary Coast pirates were Islamic, and so are the Somali ones. Get it?

I can't help that they are Islamic, they just are, get over it.

OMG you are going to justify what they are doing because they are impoverished!!!

You are a fucking idiot.

TARD!!!!!!!!!!!

Get the fuck away from me you self-righteous troll. That you can even believe what they are doing is justified????? Give me a FUCKING BREAK.

IMPOVERISHED!!!!

Somali pirates transform villages into boomtowns
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_af/af_pirate_boomtown_1

Quote

MOGADISHU, Somalia – Somalia's increasingly brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars, marrying beautiful women — even hiring caterers to prepare Western-style food for their hostages.

And in an impoverished country where every public institution has crumbled, they have become heroes in the steamy coastal dens they operate from because they are the only real business in town.

"The pirates depend on us, and we benefit from them," said Sahra Sheik Dahir, a shop owner in Haradhere, the nearest village to where a hijacked Saudi Arabian supertanker carrying $100 million in crude was anchored Wednesday.

These boomtowns are all the more shocking in light of Somalia's violence and poverty: Radical Islamists control most of the country's south, meting out lashings and stonings for accused criminals.
...

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMG you are going to justify what they are doing
> because they are impoverished!!!
>
> You are a fucking idiot.
>
> TARD!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Get the fuck away from me you self-righteous
> troll. That you can even believe what they are
> doing is justified????? Give me a FUCKING BREAK.

I don't think he was trying to justify their actions. I think he was just saying that they weren't committing acts of piracy because of some extremist islamic belief, but because they live in a country with very little economic opportunities.

Afghani opium farmers aren't justified for growing opium, but they do it because it is the only crop they can grow that will make them any sort of money. They live in an impoverished country with very little infrastructure. Nobody is going to go to the effort and expense to buy their soybeans or wheat crop, transport it with the risk of hijackings and murders across poor or non-existant roads. But somebody is willing to pay them a pittance for their opium and take those risks because they can sell it at a huge profit in Europe and America.

Doesn't justify it, but when you understand a cause, you can sometimes find the solution faster.

The pirates are poor. Someone higher up the food chain is making money off of this piracy -- someone is able to take the stolen goods and sell them for huge profits. Shut those people down and make it harder to offload huge shiploads of stolen goods and sell them and you'll put a huge dent in piracy. Keep attacking and killing the poor people at the bottom of the food chain and there will be another poor person to pick up right behind them. I'm not saying they should stop interdiction of the actual pirates, but until the kingpins and rogue nations that buy and sell the stolen goods are stopped, piracy will continue to get worse, not better.

Same with drug dealing in downtown DC. If all we ever did was focus on the thug standing on the street corner, and never went after the producers, the distributors, the smugglers, we'd never get rid of drugs. oh... wait. That is practically what we do. Look at the results.

TY Bob...it's nice to have someone not trying to twist your words on here.

I figured RV misunderstood what you were saying.

People react like that when they mistake a reason for a justification or an attempt to apologize for an action.

A lot of people are running around saying "they should bomb the fishing villages" or "they should just kill them all" as if that is going to solve anything.

Piracy will not go away until the real profit makers are taken down -- even if those people are rogue corporate executives or rogue state actors. These fisherman are only doing what will immediately serve their needs in an impoverished country. There are bigger fish who are making the real money off of this activity, and what makes them even more culpable is that they could make a comfortable living without supporting piracy. They're just greedy, amoral bastards.

It seems the Georgian president isnt so popular at home as he used to be. His provocative actions against Russia backfired.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7744859.stm

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I figured RV misunderstood what you were saying.
>
> People react like that when they mistake a reason
> for a justification or an attempt to apologize for
> an action.
>
> A lot of people are running around saying "they
> should bomb the fishing villages" or "they should
> just kill them all" as if that is going to solve
> anything.
>
> Piracy will not go away until the real profit
> makers are taken down -- even if those people are
> rogue corporate executives or rogue state actors.
> These fisherman are only doing what will
> immediately serve their needs in an impoverished
> country. There are bigger fish who are making the
> real money off of this activity, and what makes
> them even more culpable is that they could make a
> comfortable living without supporting piracy.
> They're just greedy, amoral bastards.

My reaction was to this part of his statement:

"...they are merely impoverished people doing what every impoverished person would do to survive...anything!"

My statement was to the fact that we are seeing a rise in piracy - perpetrated by radical Islamic followers - as in the day of the Barbary Coast Pirates. A true statement. Have you heard of any extreme catholic pirates lately? Ever? I can't remember - did Rome ever commission pirates or privateers in the name of God? Maybe they did, I honestly don't know. But my reaction was to Vince trying to justify their actions - and yes, he was doing that with his last statement.

I did NOT twist Vince's words. Although he is good at twisting what I say and that is just fine evidently. I am not sure who the bigger fish are making money off this - might be worth pointing out who they are if it is common knowledge.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems the Georgian president isnt so popular at
> home as he used to be. His provocative actions
> against Russia backfired.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7744859.stm

Seriously?

Vince you have reading comprehension issues.

Quote

The Georgian and Polish presidents have accused Russian troops of firing near a motorcade carrying them close to the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

Both South Ossetian troops and Russian forces in the area denied involvement. No-one was injured in the incident.

President Mikhail Saakashvili and his Polish counterpart Lech Kaczynski were planning to visit victims of fighting between Georgia and Russia in August.

The area has seen much cross-border gunfire since a ceasefire was agreed.
...

Other than the fact that it notes one of the opposition party leaders in Georgia is using the recent events to help bolster efforts for his party, there is nothing in the article that even comes close to the assertion you are making. Maybe you should go to Georgia and ask people there how they feel and report back to us.

What, you see an article someone else posts with their assertion and you take it as your own? Every day, you manage to prove again and again what an idiot you are. You sit here and call republicans brainwashed, etc - and yet you spell everything as if YOU were a Communist, and you act just like faithful party followers would.

Answer this, do you like Communist governments? Would you want to live under one?

Catch up on your history. Russia is no longer a communist country.
People own private property....religion is allowed to be practiced (unfortunately)...there are private enterprises. Now dont come back with a recital of all the authoritarian abuses the Russian government is guilty of. These instances do not make Russia a communist country.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> My reaction was to this part of his statement:
>
> "...they are merely impoverished people doing what
> every impoverished person would do to
> survive...anything!"
>
> My statement was to the fact that we are seeing a
> rise in piracy - perpetrated by radical Islamic
> followers - as in the day of the Barbary Coast
> Pirates. A true statement. Have you heard of any
> extreme catholic pirates lately? Ever? I can't
> remember - did Rome ever commission pirates or
> privateers in the name of God? Maybe they did, I
> honestly don't know. But my reaction was to Vince
> trying to justify their actions - and yes, he was
> doing that with his last statement.
>
> I did NOT twist Vince's words. Although he is good
> at twisting what I say and that is just fine
> evidently. I am not sure who the bigger fish are
> making money off this - might be worth pointing
> out who they are if it is common knowledge.

I didn't say you twisted his words.

As far as catholic pirates, You don't remember the privateers? Spanish and English captains given license by the crown to plunder all vessels flying certain national flags?

Piracy is definitely not a muslim thing. Neither the catholic nor the muslim pirates are commissioned by any religious authority "in the name of God". Their religion and their acts of piracy do not follow one or the other -- In fact, how do you know that every person in every raid is a muslim? I'm sure there are non-muslim somalians who are just as willing to attack a ship for money.

As far as who the bigger fish are, I don't know, and I don't know if it is common knowledge. But there has to be people, organizations, countries, or corporations that are enabling the sale of the stolen goods. I mean, they aren't just taking half a million sneakers, or TVs, or 100,000 engine blocks and selling it in the markets of mogadishu, somehow that stuff is being re-inserted into the trade flow.

Think about any illicit trade -- there is always someone who appears legitimate who is actually making all the money at the top of the pyramid. Bankers, brokers, middlemen, etc. Theft of this scale cannot occur without sophisticated methods of taking the goods and converting them to cold hard cash.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2008 11:05PM by Bob.

Understanding why a person commits a crime...is not excusing them. And it is a fact that people will do whatever it takes to survive. We all do...some of us were just lucky enough to be born in the US...in a part of the US with a decent educational system. We are not "better" then people born in less advantageous situations who commit crimes of any sort..we are just luckier. That doesnt mean people commiting crimes are not to be prosecuted...but their humanity is not to be denied.

Bob Wrote:

>
> I didn't say you twisted his words.

Note, Vince responded to you by pointing out that somehow I twisted his words, so I was combining my response

Quote

Re: Georgia vs Russian Conflict
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 21, 2008 06:46AM

TY Bob...it's nice to have someone not trying to twist your words on here.

>
> As far as catholic pirates, You don't remember the
> privateers? Spanish and English captains given
> license by the crown to plunder all vessels flying
> certain national flags?
>

Those were not "catholic" pirates. Those were legalized privateers which conducted operations against French, US, etc depending on who the originator was, and who the victim was as part of an "anonymous" economic sabotage policy (in most cases) to disrupt the economies of other governments. The Church did not commission them in the instances you are talking about. There may have been some during the catholic church heyday in the Mediterranean - which was why I asked the question. Certainly, I didn't imply that Islamic religious leaders were authorizing these pirates in this instance. I actually made a bad comparison, since the pirates in the Barbary Coast days were in the employ of the governments of Tunisia, Algiers, etc - which were at the time, run by and heavily influenced by their Islamic faith. I believe those were called on by their religion to perform these acts as they were "holy" in nature.

Quote

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

> Piracy is definitely not a muslim thing. Neither
> the catholic nor the muslim pirates are
> commissioned by any religious authority "in the
> name of God". Their religion and their acts of
> piracy do not follow one or the other -- In fact,
> how do you know that every person in every raid is
> a muslim? I'm sure there are non-muslim somalians
> who are just as willing to attack a ship for
> money.

Remember, England was Protestant - not much in the way of "catholic" privateers there hmm. I was more curious if piracy had been advocated as a religious issue by Western or Christian leaders - any clue on that? I seriously doubt it, other than possibly the Catholic Church condoning acts against other Muslim countries during the Crusades or something. Sure, I am sure they "hire" crew members that may not be Islamic in nature.

>
> As far as who the bigger fish are, I don't know,
> and I don't know if it is common knowledge. But
> there has to be people, organizations, countries,
> or corporations that are enabling the sale of the
> stolen goods. I mean, they aren't just taking
> half a million sneakers, or TVs, or 100,000 engine
> blocks and selling it in the markets of mogadishu,
> somehow that stuff is being re-inserted into the
> trade flow.
>

In most cases it appears the cargoes and ships themselves were held for ransom. What, it is like 17 now that are being held? Haven't heard anything about moving the cargo to anyone else - just spending the money they make from the ships that have their ransoms paid.

> Think about any illicit trade -- there is always
> someone who appears legitimate who is actually
> making all the money at the top of the pyramid.
> Bankers, brokers, middlemen, etc. Theft of this
> scale cannot occur without sophisticated methods
> of taking the goods and converting them to cold
> hard cash.

Again, nothing about the sales of the goods on the ships - just the ransom themselves. It appears they are still holding ships and their cargoes hostage for those that have not paid their ransom. So not sure who else is involved other than these poor impoverished - unfortunate - folks in Somalia who just don't know any better.

RV..can you make a simple point without a torrent of quotes and cuts and pastes? What a waste you are!

Vince, can you make a point at all, simple or otherwise?
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
>
> >
> > I didn't say you twisted his words.
> Note, Vince responded to you by pointing out that
> somehow I twisted his words, so I was combining my
> response
>

I realize that. I just wanted to make sure it was clear, and that we were having a civil discussion, instead of the usual on this board.


>
> Those were not "catholic" pirates. Those were
> legalized privateers which conducted operations
> against French, US, etc depending on who the
> originator was, and who the victim was as part of
> an "anonymous" economic sabotage policy (in most
> cases) to disrupt the economies of other
> governments. The Church did not commission them in
> the instances you are talking about. There may
> have been some during the catholic church heyday
> in the Mediterranean - which was why I asked the
> question. Certainly, I didn't imply that Islamic
> religious leaders were authorizing these pirates
> in this instance. I actually made a bad
> comparison, since the pirates in the Barbary Coast
> days were in the employ of the governments of
> Tunisia, Algiers, etc - which were at the time,
> run by and heavily influenced by their Islamic
> faith. I believe those were called on by their
> religion to perform these acts as they were "holy"
> in nature.
>
> Remember, England was Protestant - not much in the
> way of "catholic" privateers there hmm. I was more
> curious if piracy had been advocated as a
> religious issue by Western or Christian leaders -
> any clue on that? I seriously doubt it, other than
> possibly the Catholic Church condoning acts
> against other Muslim countries during the Crusades
> or something. Sure, I am sure they "hire" crew
> members that may not be Islamic in nature.

Catholic, Christian, whatever. The point is that you can't equate the religion the pirates believe in with the act of piracy. As for the Barbary Coast pirates, don't forget that back then, everyone used religion as the justification for whatever it was they were doing. Hell, don't forget that goes on to this day (look at abortion clinic bombers, as just one example.) To say that they were "called on BY their religion" is a misstatement. Yes, their leaders might have used religion to motivate them, but that doesn't indict the religion, that indicts the corrupt leaders. It would be no different if Hitler called upon the germanic peoples to exterminate the jews in the name of God. That doesn't indict lutherans or whomever Hitler believed was the right protestant faith.




>
> In most cases it appears the cargoes and ships
> themselves were held for ransom. What, it is like
> 17 now that are being held? Haven't heard anything
> about moving the cargo to anyone else - just
> spending the money they make from the ships that
> have their ransoms paid.

This is just a recent spate of news stories. Obviously there is something in the works to merit this concerted effort to flood the news with these few recent pirate attacks. Piracy has been a growing problem for years. Sometimes they hold crews for ransom, other times the ships disappear and using false documents and registrations, the cargo is sold and the ships then used by cartels or other illegal groups to transport their cargos.

In 1999, there were 130 attacks. 330 attacks in 2001. There were 75 attacks in 2001 in the Malacca Straits, alone. According the to the International Maritime Board, 9 of every 10 hijacked ships are recovered.


>
> Again, nothing about the sales of the goods on the
> ships - just the ransom themselves. It appears
> they are still holding ships and their cargoes
> hostage for those that have not paid their ransom.
> So not sure who else is involved other than these
> poor impoverished - unfortunate - folks in Somalia
> who just don't know any better.


http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/view.jsp?columnId=138&contentType=column

Pirates sometimes work hand in hand with conspiring crew members (or, less often, stowaways). In many countries - in East Asia, Latin America, and Africa - Coast Guard operatives, corrupt drug agents, and other law enforcement officials, moonlight as pirates. Renegade members of British trained Indonesian anti-piracy squads are still roaming the Malacca Straits.


Pirates also enjoy the support of an insidious and vast network of suborned judges and bureaucrats. Local villagers along the coasts of Indonesia and Malaysia - and Africa - welcome pirate business and provide the perpetrators with food and shelter.


Moreover, large tankers, container ships, and cargo vessels are largely computerized and their crew members few. The value of an average vessel's freight has increased dramatically with improvements in container and oil storage technologies. "Flag of convenience" registration has assumed monstrous proportions, allowing ship owners and managers to conceal their identity effectively. Belize, Honduras, and Panama are the most notorious, no questions asked, havens.


Piracy has matured into a branch of organized crime. Hijacking requires money, equipment, weapons, planning, experience and contacts with corrupt officials. The loot per vessel ranges from $8 million to $200 million. Pottengal Mukundan, Director of ICC's Commercial Crime Services states, in a recent IMB press release:


"(Piracy) typically involves a mother ship from which to launch the attacks, a supply of automatic weapons, false identity papers for the crew and vessel, fake cargo documents, and a broker network to sell the stolen goods illegally. Individual pirates don't have these resources. Hijackings are the work of organized crime rings."




> poor impoverished - unfortunate - folks in Somalia
> who just don't know any better.

Nobody is saying they don't know any better. They are still culpable for their actions. The main point I was trying to make was they are doing it BECAUSE they are poor, not that their poverty excuses their actions. Just look at the recent surge in crime in this area. Just like during the 1990-91 recession when Vienna had a rash of gas station robberies. The REASON was because some people were desperate due to their economic situation. Again, just the reason. Anyone caught doing those robberies should have been convicted and sentenced to the full allowable prison terms.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2008 01:29AM by Bob.