Or, A pirate's life for me?
Maybe some of you who are on the cutting edge of the news world have heard this, but pirates, who headquarter in Somalia, have just captured a Saudi Super Tanker that was carrying $100 million in crude oil. They captured it at sea and have now taken it back and it is anchored of the coast of Somalia. All 25 crew memeber are reported as being unharmed, and so far both the US and NATO navies have said they plan no intervention. Previously Somali pirates have ransomed ships for $1 million, but those were smaller, less valuable vessels.
SO what do you fools think? You up for a career change? I mean if the navies aren't going to do anything about, what's the risk? I've got some kitchen knives, and SZ, you have a canoe right? That's all we need to get started. We'll hijack one of those barges on the Willamette and with the proceeds we can buy a bigger boat and maybe some weapons and the skies the limit.
Nov 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 sucka ass fools had something to say:
Do pirate ships have wireless? I need to be able to blog wherever I am.
When I first heard this report several news cycles ago, I thought that the Somalis were dense for waiting until November to hijack the tanker. The booty wouldve been worth about twice as much had they ganked it in July.
If SZ doesn't want to participate, maybe our pirate life can start with hijacking his canoe?
Hey, why wouldn't I participate? Space Zombie's been pirating MP3's for years!
Brilliant idea JGW!
SZ better hire an around the clock guard on his canoe. Good thing doggie SZ isn't much of a guard dog.
And yes, Lank, we'll have to have wireless, otherwise what's the point? If I can't check my email 30 times a day, look at random crap that I didn't know I needed to know, spend inordinate amounts of time researching projects I might or might not ever undertake, and of course document all these goings on, why do any of it?
Though, I might be wrong, I think SZ is the only one of us that already has a pirate costume (of arguable sexual persuasion maybe, but still a pirate). We might need him to be our captain. Unless someone agrees to poke out one of their eyes and buy a parrot.
Speaking of parrots, does it make anyone else sad when the see a photo of modern day pirates and there is a hook, eye-patch, peg-leg, parrot, or even a striped shirt to be seen? I think we need to make up a new name for them, as they are clearly not pirates.
I just read an update of this story, here's the best line:
"Puntland forces, their guns blazing, freed a Panama-flagged cargo ship from pirates on Oct. 14."
I think perhaps this reporter has a second career as a pulp fiction writer?
For the record, I love good science fiction.
Wow--he really did delete it!
Thought I wouldn't?
Arrrr, I think I might have missed something.
So I have a somewhat serious question in light of this pirate thing all the sudden getting tons of attention (this has been going on for years, though not in this intensity).
Some articles are suggesting the root cause of this is the lawlessness in Somalia. Is it appropriate for the UN, US, or whoever to use military power to instill some law/order/civilization to prevent the lawless lands from getting out of control? Afghanistan could be one example. Where is the line drawn where military intervention becomes appropriate?
Define "appropriate." Can we (the US)? Yes. Should we? In my opinion? In your opinion? Are you asking us if you think we should?
We cannot keep using military power since we cant pay for it.
If we keep doing that, China can start little fires just so we have to borrow money from them to put the fires out and we will be forever in their debt financially.
Genocides might need intervention--but paid for by the world.
Despite your predictive prowess in regards to how white people think, I would not ask you for my opinion. Yes, I am curious about what people think the appropriate role is for US or UN intervention.
The Advisor offers the necessity for restraint under fiscal constraint. Which is relevant point, but doesn't really address my question of when intervention becomes palatable.
If genocide is the cutoff would it be appropriate to intervene BEFORE it actually happened, if it seemed imminent?
Money aside, I wonder if intervening in troubled places like Somalia or Sudan to help prevent crimes associated with such lawlessness isn't without merit. Not to suggest military force as a cure-all. I'm just curious what the bloggers here think is an appropriate role for the US or international bodies in regard to military action. Or is it too case-specific to be able to summarize briefly?
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think that "appropriate" is such an arbitrary word, that it can lead to many different opinions and a debate without a common agreement of what we're debating. Actually, palatable is pretty arbitrary too as war is never palatable, even when necessary.
But, I think there's too many factors to make a sweeping statement:
- our own finances and whether we're going alone (as the adviser pointed out).
- how much money and time would it cost? would the intervention be over within a couple days? and what would it accomplish? momentary fleeting peace? or a longstanding foundation for future democracy and prosperity?
- is the end result of leaving them be going to threaten our safety? is our well being at stake? are other people outside of the region's well being at stake? or is this just to help the people in one region? I guess this is all about how much influence this region holds.
- how horrible is the situation? are we talking genocide of hundreds or millions? or, is it short of genocide and only categorized as oppression? is the side being massacred going on the offensive with an agenda or simply fleeing or trying to live?
But here's my sweeping statement: I would advocate for military intervention in many cases. If it's a situation like Darfur and a (relatively) small amount of military intervention would save a significant amount of lives, and not just as a short term solution, then I'd be happy to have my tax money and volunteer others lives toward it. But it's all about cost. If we simply need to march in there and come to the rescue and only lose one life to save a thousand, sure. If we're spending all our money and losing a ton of lives, self interest eventually trumps all huminitarian effort.
Any intervention should not be carried out by under the US flag? It should be done with UN or regional security forces. It will never work if it is seen as US imperial aggression. It must be seen as the world coming to the rescue for purely altruistic reasons.
Lank gave Afghanistan as an example. Look how swimmingly thats going. If Afghanistan is ever the comparison case, do not approve of intervention.
The original question should we intervene to impose order on out of control areas. Hell no. Lawlessness isnt inherently dangerous.
The Somalis taking oil is not a big deal. History is made of people taking others' resources. The US would be a hypocrite to say the Somalis cant have Saudi oil.
I believe the US going alone or going with UN was covered in my first bullet. The last paragraph was assuming that was taken care of. You also may consider many other aspects of how we frame the operation, even to the point of how we brand it (operation restore hope and all that bullshit). Somehow that shit has an affect on public opinion as well.
As for your second point, that's exactly why "appropriate" is an arbitrary term. If you're asking what I prefer to do as a taxpaying American, I'm not going to worry too much about hypocrisy of the US, when I'm just one member of it. I have my opinion. I would rather that the US did not take others' resources, and I would rather that the UN intervened when somebody takes somebody else's resources, given it's easy enough for the UN to do so.
Piracy is a small-time issue, which the US should not bother getting caught up in. Pirates generally ransom ships worth $150 million + carrying cargoes over $100 million for amounts around $1 million. For the companies shipping these goods, that is a relatively small amount and becomes just part of the price of doing business. In fact, it's apparently cheaper for them to pay these ransoms than to change their shipping routs.
The real danger in Somalia and other lawless regions would be if we stepped in and radicalized them against us with aggressive military action. Any intervention should be strictly financial and should be aimed toward building infrastructure, reforming the economy, and helping create employment opportunities that would stand as viable alternatives to piracy.
SZ, if you notice Lank's question asked over two comments, this isn't just about intervening to prevent piracy. He mentions genocide and makes a reference to Afghanistan. So, yeah, you probably don't want to exercise military force on a region just to prevent piracy.
But, your second statement about how intervention should be strictly financial has me wondering...are you talking about all cases?
Good points all around.
I don't think money should be the primary driver. In "normal" times we are usually waging some small-scale conflicts. From a cost perspective these are small, since we're generally paying for troops whether they are in combat or not. (Much of the money goes to working class families, and while yeah, they could be doing more productive things like rebuilding infrastructure domestically with that money, the costs are usually overstated, in the sense that we are paying ourselves. Actually, I'm sort of surprised that Republicans don't lump military salaries for primarily poor families in their classification of "entitlements".)
Large scale conflicts, under which I would lump Iraq and Afghanistan, with massive weapons and equipment use obviously does not fall under this category. But those small-scale conflicts have been of debatable merit, even though they were "cheap".
But, JGW wasn't saying its all about money, just that its a major factor. Which I agree with.
I agree that conflicts won't work if they are viewed as imperial. I would hope the U.S's global role doesn't stay that way, if for no other reason than we can't afford it anymore. There are conflicts, such as Kosovo, where I think U.S.-flagged involvement would have been OK, if the situation was too politically sticky for others. I wouldn't rule it out, but would consider it in extreme situations only.
"Lawlessness isnt inherently dangerous." I disagree. It isn't inherently destructive, but it is dangerous for the potential for might to make right at any moment.
History is made of many things, including genocide.
S.Z., while I agree with your conclusion, your cost of doing business argument is absurd. If you are talking about the shipping company, the value of the goods on board is irrelevant. They are paid some fee and incur some costs as part of providing the service. I'm certain the success of their business does not include a one million dollar cost that was unexpected. If you are talking about the owner of the goods on board, even if it is 150 million it is quite presumptive to assume their profit margins are big enough as to be able to swallow a $1M cost. The margins on commodities or services with low barriers of entry, technological advantage, and product differentiation are usually quite low.
You are right that the risk has probably been built into the cost of doing business via insurance, but this is based upon the previous rate of (occasional) attacks, not the frequency we've seen the last couple weeks. It is not sustainable as a "cost of doing business".
That the cost of ransom is cheaper than sailing all the way around Africa is 100% irrelevant.
I agree with non-military intervention as an alternative whenever possible. However, most of our foreign aid tends to go to Israel rather than places that need it. Plus, American's have much less stomach for financial aid than military engagement it seems.
So while I agree that invading Somalia under a U.S. flag right now would be ridiculous on all fronts, most notably the scale of the conflict (very few lives and relatively small dollars are on the line). But what if they were U.S. ships staffed by 50 U.S. citizens?I wonder how bad the Pirating would have to get for it to become a problem. What if food prices sky rocketed globally?
I did not mean to suggest Afghanistan as a shining example of U.S. involvement. But, IMO things do get a little grayer there. Lets say that, hypothetically, there was a solid end game strategy there instead of the opposite. If so, would a country harboring a group attacking the U.S. coupled with a system of rule that runs counter to many of our fundamental principles and values (particularly in regards to women's rights) be a valid place for military intervention - even if it was just droid planes or bombing al queda camps, say.
I think attacks in afghanistan and pakistan could arguably have some merit. Though I would have preferred SZ's financial solution it has even more potential for being a sinkhole than defense subcontrating. And again, you are now actually losing A LOT more money compared to paying it to your own citizens.
As Jon Stewart once said "ahhh, billions of dollars. Is there anything you CAN'T solve?"
SZ brings up a good point. Not to long ago I was listening to Bill Clinton speaking and he said that for some ridiculously low amount of money (relatively that is, I can't remember what he said, but it was something like $47 billion) that we could take major steps in curbing world poverty.
His idea would take care of such basics as food, water, and shelter.In my eyes that would be the greatest foreign policy ever. Working to help those in the world less fortunate than us to achieve what should be a common baseline of living.
Though, that's not what Lank asked. He specifically addressed military intervention.
Well, in that sense I am a strict worldist. Military intervention should only be enacted in two cases.
1. In defense of one's country from an outside source.
2. With world consensus, or in other words through the UN.
Obviously for that second one to work the US needs to change the its policies in how it deals with the UN. W's administration saw the UN as a hurdle to be jumped over. They worked to make it an useless and ineffectual organization.
Personally I see the UN as the best hope we currently have for working towards world peace and prosperity. I hope (and if I were religious, I'd pray) that the Obama administration pays more than lip service to the UN. I hope he backs it as it should be backed. That he helps shape it from the often ineffective bureaucracy that it currently is, and into the world governing body it should be.
Can Obama do this? No, not by himself. But if the US were to actually abide by what the UN decides, it could go a long way towards making it a more functional body.
MT, your defense or UN solution does not include Darfur, Hitler, and many other genocides and atrocities. Are you OK with that?
It seems there is a strong pushback in our generation from previous one's which saw the US's role as partially an international body for good. Perhaps we have just become too jaded due to a shift towards intervention not on moral or philosophical grounds but based on "interests", generally code for business and money.
Have we gone so far away from altruistic intentions that we should pull back all the way and let whatever happens outside of our borders happen. I'm sure we were never "altruistic" to begin with, but we've come a long way in one generation from Eisenhower's attitudes about the military to Reagan/Clinton/Bush.
Advisor, why would US "be a hypocrite to say the Somalis cant have Saudi oil"?
There's a lot of naivete in that statement. As members of a global community, it is difficult for the US to get involved in foreign conflicts. As we have seen with the Iraq War, American Exceptionalism can lead to strained international relations and strengthens the hands of our enemies. Russia and Iran have both grown stronger during the last seven years and part of that has to do with the international response to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we are less jaded than we are cautious and/or conscientious.
I'm fine with Eisenhower's view of the military. Sadly I don't think you can trust our government, regardless of who it is led by, to use our military in any manner which might be considered altruistic. Hence why I lean towards a world body like the UN, thinking that the more the power is shared amongst the world, the hard it is for one countries self interest to rule the day.
I do not feel that my views are in any way isolationist. I'm not advocating that we leave Hitler alone and let him conquer the world while we deal with our own problems. What I am saying is that our government, and by extension our citizens, have proved that they are incapable of deciding when the military should be used and in what manner. If you look at our history of military interventions, how many of them are defensible from any perspective other than American? Both World Wars, maybe Bosnia, maybe a couple of others, but not most.
I just want any decision that involves military force (which needless to say involves killing people, innocents included since it's naive to think that collateral damage, as it's so quaintly called, isn't a basic aspect of war) should be decided from as many view points as possible.
Since it is clear that our country will never get rid of its military (something which I have advocated in the past) then the only discussion is how it is used. I want it used as a tool of good. I want them to use it to stop Darfur. I want them to use it to stop Pol Pot. I want them to use it to defend all those people who need defense. Is our government capable of making those choice. I don't think so. Is the UN? I don't know. It doesn't look like it.
Since it doesn't look like our military will be used in a fashion I think that it should be, I'd rather that there be constraints placed on it by a world ruling body than its willy nilly use by such criminals as Bush and Cheney.
"There's a lot of naivete in that statement"
There a lot of naivete in many of my statements, but in this I'm primarily asking a question and noting a shift away from viewpoints of the past - not really passing judgement one way or the other. What I'm trying to ask is if going away from American exceptionalism doesn't have some costs that we should consider? Caution is wise, especially given recent history. But caution isn't what I'm hearing. I'm hearing more of a revolutionary change in philosophy towards isolationism and indifference to any interest but our own. Which perhaps is warranted, given our distrust for our governments role abroad, as MT points out...
MT, I agree with you, but the problem is that the UN has done nothing on Darfur, and this would seem, to me, exactly the type of situation that the U.S. SHOULD get itself involved in. Not necessarily militarily, but if other options were exhausted I think I'd be behind it. Yes, it could alienate other countries, and yes, it could create antagonisms, but its still worth it, no?
I think Bosnia or Kosova were NATO not UN as well.
Post a Comment