posted
Pirates attack Navy ships off the coast of Somalia.
What on Earth were they thinking trying to take on a 567" guided missile cruiser with a nine meter fishing boat?
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe they were not thinking at all. Too bad it wasn't a Green Peace boat. We used to have fun with those. When they got close enough we would open fire on them with fire hoses. They started to realize that when we filled their boat with water it started to sink. Oh for the good ol' days.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Greeen Peace boats were circling US Navy vessels, I'm going to guess they wouldn't be there to cheer on the miliraty. The odds of them being there to disrupt and interefere would be more likely, and slowly sinking their boat (with a very obvious way to avoid such a fate) would be among the... more humane actions that could be taken.
Besdies, they probably didn't let them drown. If the other Green Peace members didn't pick them up, navy ships have a sufficiently large brig for the trip back.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking about quite a while ago here (more 'n ten years). An' it's not as if they weren't asking for it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stan, you take pleasure in sinking environmentalists. Whether it was the appropriate action, your attitude towards the affair shows you to be a disgrace to the military.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greenpeace boats have a habit of interfering with Navy operations.
I was in Norfolk when the Russian Navy ships came, and Greanpeace crossed into the controlled water of the base, aiming straight at the Russian vessel.
A Navy tug rammed their bow, turning them out of the area almost instantly.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see where he might find some satisfaction in teaching people there are repercussions for their actions.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Stan, you take pleasure in sinking environmentalists. Whether it was the appropriate action, your attitude towards the affair shows you to be a disgrace to the military.
When they are coming up and are going to try and deface a Naval vessel with spray paint, I don't think it's a disgraceful to spray seawater into their boat. I think we were rather nice. Heck, we could've shot them.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you are a disgrace at all, Stan. My husband (a former Marine) described what the Marines would do in situations like that and water would have been a blessing. Men alone on a ship are very creative. Disgusting but creative.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when I told him about this thread, he the first thin he said was that they were just lucky you didn't shoot them.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To quote Gary Larson, I think the pirates were thinking "If we pull this off, we'll eat like kings."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And when I told him about this thread, he the first thing he said was that they were just lucky you didn't shoot them.
When did it become morally defensible for the US military shoot people for being a nuisance? We are just going to skip the irony of Greenpeace protesters being the victims of hyper military aggression.
It does remind me of the saying, "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." I'm just trying to figure out what kind of animals we are giving guns to.
posted
These days, I have no doubt they would be shot. Any small raft or boat trying to pull up to a US NAvy vessel after being repeatedly warned away is going to likley be deemed a threat and dealt with accordingly. Particularly if said raft or boat is fully of screaming people.
I said water cannons were kind because my first inclination was a quick course correction in the direction of their boat. There are so many worse things to happen than being shot with a water cannon. In these cases, the Navy will take action. The fact it was non-lethal and about as non-destructive as possible is a plus.
Wasn't there something of a controversy a number of years ago where Greenpeace was protesting the British Navy dumping waste (legally, as much as it matters), and in response the British actually started aiming for the Greenpeace rafts while dumping the barrels?
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
A: Ramming the Greenpeace boat. B: Boarding the Greenpeace boat, beating the captain, and then staging a dinner after the fact. C: Having two special ops travel to a foreign country disguised as newlyweds, attach bombs to the bottom of Greenpeace's flagship, and then deny everything. For a while.
Based on the second comment, I'll go with choice number C.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hadn't heard about A or B. But I like those too. (well, not the beating)
The solution I heard was the scuba divers (frogmen) attaching bombs and sinking the Rainbow Warrior.
I'm just so bummed they bought them a new ship when it was all done.
Thing about the french.. they expect everyone else in the world to take flack that they would never suffer themselves.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
there are still pirates? did they where hats and have a cool flag? i'm suprised that they call them pirates, and not terrorists or some such more modern term.
and the greenpeace people are probably lucky they didn't get shot by the navy, but i don't think that says anything good about the navy. it makes me wonder what would have happened if the navy had occupied india during gandhi's peacefull resistance. shot him or drowned him? but that attitude has been prevelant in america for generations. peacefull resistance in the south in the 60's? do what the navy does, spray them with fire hoses, let loose the dogs, or just shoot them.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the Rainbow Warrior was indeed choice C. Though I didn't know it was the French that bought them the RW2.
I have no specific problems with peaceful resistance, but they're fooling yourself to think that should you stage such a protest you will leave at the time and in the manner of your chosing. You may not agree with said laws, and they very well may change in the future because of your actions, but they aren't going to change fast enough to spare you the water hose or tear gas should you break the law.
And I'm not sure I'd classify Greenpeace as a peaceful resistance organization anyways. To my knowledge, they're a bit more.... confrontational.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, what do you think the Navy SHOULD have done in that situation?
I think saltwater is about the best they had a right to expect.
I would have laughed as well, since it would have looked like an old slapstick routine. I am sure they were never in any danger of physical harm from the hoses, and attacking a Navy vessel is just plain stupid.
It IS a security risk, which is why the Navy HAS to respond in some way. A small boat loaded with explosives can severly damage a ship and kill soldiers, without a doubt.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: but that attitude has been prevelant in america for generations. peacefull resistance in the south in the 60's? do what the navy does, spray them with fire hoses, let loose the dogs, or just shoot them.
What an ignorant statement. There's a huge difference between hosing down a peaceful group of protestors and spraying a ship that interferes with Naval operations.
Any ship, be it greenpeace, pirates, or welcoming nuns bearing candy and good will should be treated as a threat if they approach or interfere with a military vessel.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:i may be the only one, but i see quite a difference between greenpeace and terrorists.
Could you let us in on how a Navy captain is supposed to see that difference when a boat insists on violating the security cordon around his ship?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with pfresh. I think it's rather funny that pirates still roam the seas. I know, I know. It's not supposed to be funny, but I'm fascinated with pirates.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Could you let us in on how a Navy captain is supposed to see that difference when a boat insists on violating the security cordon around his ship?
Apparently, new legislation was passed requiring terrorists to identify themselves prior to undertaking any suicide bombings, hijackings, or IED attacks by painting giant red X's on their chests, vehicles, boats, and buildings.
A Red Cross spokesman attempted to voice his concerns about possible confusion between Red Cross personnel and terrorists, but was promptly shot when he attempted to approach the podium...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i believe in the original post regarding greenpeace it was specified that they knew it was greenpeace and allowed the greenpeace boats to get close enough to use hoses. that doesn't sound like they were suspected terrorists to me. but again, i could be wrong.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe he also specified in a later post that the greenpeace activists were attempting to spraypaint the Navy vessel. What, exactly, would you have them do to prevent the boats getting close enough to use hoses? Shot them out of the water at further range?
Now, I certainly think they should have been warned not to come any closer first, but we don't know that didn't happen. Whether I always agree with our military or not, our tax dollars went to buy that boat. I don't particularly care to have it defaced, or to spend more money having the spraypaint removed. I don't think activist groups should be allowed to go around vandalising public property without being expected to face the consequences, and in this case it sounds like they used about the mildest consequences available. As has been stated, they could have actually sunk the boat, or arrested the activists. As it is, all they had to do was sail away.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:i believe in the original post regarding greenpeace it was specified that they knew it was greenpeace and allowed the greenpeace boats to get close enough to use hoses. that doesn't sound like they were suspected terrorists to me. but again, i could be wrong.
The point of a security cordon is to not let boats inside it - any boats.
If Greenpeace boats can come in, terrorists will pretend to be Greenpeace.
A captain who bets the life of his crew on his assurance that this boat is indeed Greenpeace is not a very good captain. Especially when he has non-lethal alternatives to keeping the boat out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Could you let us in on how a Navy captain is supposed to see that difference when a boat insists on violating the security cordon around his ship?
Apparently, new legislation was passed requiring terrorists to identify themselves prior to undertaking any suicide bombings, hijackings, or IED attacks by painting giant red X's on their chests, vehicles, boats, and buildings.
Well, y'know, by the Geneva Convention, irregular forces are supposed to wear identifying marks. [/random]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also international waters are international waters, and I know rules of conduct are different there compared to territorial waters of whatever country, the ship is in. A ship at sea is considered semi-sovereign of it's own accord regardless of what country its colors are. The captain can perform marriages, and used to be allowed to judge trials also. The U.S. Naval captains were still allowed to order keelhauling during Vietnam though I don't know that anyone ever did.
AJ
Incidentally a lot of things I googled have their facts wrong and say only the Dutch Navy allowed Keelhauling.
Note that hanging and flogging were abolished in 1898, but there is no mention of keelhauling. I believe that keelhauling was technically not abolished until either 1980 or 1988.
posted
I don't have that much of a problem with hosing. It's all sad business.
I do, however, take issue with armed forces men who talk casually about murder and feel entitied to used their guns when it pleases them, just because they were issued guns.
posted
You don't have much of a problem with hoses, yet you told Stan he was a disgrace to the military in your first statement? Guns had not been mentioned at all at that time.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, Please don't compare homicidal idiots such as the gentleman in your linked article to the members of our armed forces just because they both have guns. It's a demeaning and unfair comparison.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do believe they were not thinking at all. Too bad it wasn't a Green Peace boat. We used to have fun with those. When they got close enough we would open fire on them with fire hoses. They started to realize that when we filled their boat with water it started to sink. Oh for the good ol' days.
Turning hoses on peace activists is sad business and one should not delight in it. In the beginning of Agamemnon by Aeschylus, Agamemnon is sailing home from Troy and is asked to sacrifice his daughter to appease a God and save his fleet. The fleet would have perished if he hadn't have killed her. And course, he angered another God by killing her, but his second sin, besides killing his daughter, is that once he understood the choice that was put to him, he sacrificed her like an animal. He didn't care about the deed anymore than if she were a calf.
Agamemnon earned the wrath of the Gods for two distinct crimes. The killing of his daughter and the casual attitude with which he went about doing it.
In regards to Stan the Man, turning the hoses on the Greenpeace boat maybe the appropriate evil act to engage in, but it is a disgrace to strut about it.
quote:Please don't compare homicidal idiots such as the gentleman in your linked article to the members of our armed forces just because they both have guns. It's a demeaning and unfair comparison.
I believe, though I'm not sure, that the guy who shot the kid is retired Navy.
quote:Neighbours said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with US and Navy flags flying.
posted
There are currently about 1.8 million people on active duty, and alomst 1 million more in the reserves.
Roughly 26 million Americans living today have served in the military.
So...lets see, just as a safe estimate, 28 million people that are alive right now, have served, and one idiot should be held up as an indicator of what people in the miltary are like? That makes perfect sense...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And when I told him about this thread, he the first thing he said was that they were just lucky you didn't shoot them.
If we are to believe Mandy's husband, the kid was just unlucky. Let me be clear, I think that Stan, this murderer, and maybe Mandy's husband are a disgrace to all of the good people in the military who neither delight in hosing environmentalists nor consider it matter of luck when people with suspect manners don't get shot.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider it a disgrace if they delighted in hosing down environmentalists having a peaceful protest. Interfering with US Navy operations is not a peaceful protest. I would consider the activists to be acting in a more disgraceful manner than Stan.
While I agree that he shouldn't "delight" in what he did, I think saying he is a disgrace is overly harsh.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
There is a difference between suspect manners and blatently violated the security of military vessels. I don't know what the regulations regarded ships are because I was in the Army not the Navy, but because the facilities I worked in were sensitive, the regulations allowed for anyone trying to gain entry through the fence to be shot.
Now if someone tries to go through the fence and the MPs just arrest him, I would say he is lucky simply because the MPs took the more dangerous path for them and approached the intruder rather than taking the safer action and just shooting him. I'm not saying that the people deserved to be shot, only that they were in danger of it and are lucky they were not.
The military in recent years has had significant problems with people approaching their facilities in different vehicles and blowing them up, so I don't find it at all immoral or disgraceful for them to protect themselves.
I'm fairly certain the greepeace people knew that the Navy has regulations that allow them to respond to intrusions into their security cordon and disregarded them all the same. A little water is by no means extreme. As for the reveling in it, take into account that most of the sailors were probably in their early 20's at the time. You shouldn't expect them to act any different than most college students who do stupid stuff all of the time.
quote:You shouldn't expect them to act any different than most college students who do stupid stuff all of the time.
Yes we should. We should definitely expect people who are trained and trusted with military weapons to not act immaturely. We should also expect people who are responsible for military prisoners to not act like they're part of a particularly depraved fraternity hazing. Apparently we can't always expect that, but we darn well should.
Edit: No, I'm not comparing shooting water at a boat to abusing prisoners. But I do think that many of our recent military scandals, from Tailhook to Abu Gharib have been the result of military personel acting like stereotypical "college students" in a B movie. We should expect better.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But… I just wanted to talk about the pirates.
As far as Greenpeace is concerned, any organization that is willing to use terrorist tactics to achieve their goals shouldn’t be taken seriously. The Navy would be perfectly within their limits to use non-lethal means to dissuade attackers.
Furthermore, when you consider the threat small craft pose to Navy ships, unidentified craft should NEVER be allowed to get too close to a ship, through any means necessary. Green Peace should be responsible enough not to make it necessary for the Navy to respond. There are way too many threats for them not to take something like that seriously.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First: Dag, you are right for the security cordons. No boats allowed inside, much less near. That is except for the security force boats. This was at sea, and before 9/11 (well before).
second: Irami, I don't take offense to your putting my name and murderer in the same sentence as you did not straight out call me one.
At the time of these happenings it was the appropriate approved course of action. This is because it taught a lesson without taking any lives. Would you rather that we had shot them? They had ample warnings to leave. An really, fire hoses aren't that huge of a pressure. Only about 150 psi for your big ships, and about 100 psi for the smaller ships (boats). We didn't spray them, but instead the boat they were coming in on.
An' if anyone wants know about hazing, I know of some of that too, but that has no relation to this. That, and the people involved in those hazing cases are out of the service (OTH discharge).
My job is to protect the country. The only way to do that on a ship is to keep her afloat. That makes my second job to fight the ship (fight to keep her floating and fighting). If the boat keeps coming to the ship after warnings have been given we have to take action for we do not know the intentions of who is coming. I already work below the waterline, I don't want to die because we thought they were going to be nice. That is not why I re-enlisted. Heck, Irami, you aren't even a reason I re-enlisted. My 2 sisters back home, my mom and dad, and the rest of my family are. I want them to continue to live as they want, and it shouldn't be in fear.
I'm done with this for I believe that I would start to go on the defensive. I have calmed down in the past few days, but I am awaiting the decision from someone today to see if I am to stay here in NY. So, I am a little on edge right now.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stan, most of us understand what you're saying. Some people are going to take every opportunity to find fault with the military, no matter what.
I mean honestly, linking to an article about a possible retired Navy guy who shot a kid on his yard? Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
@ Stan![[Smile]](smile.gif)
