Somali Pirates Kill Four Americans

Sad news from the Indian Ocean. The pirates that seized the Quest on Friday and took four Americans hostage, owners Scott and Jean Adams and Phyllis Macay and Bob Riggle, have shot and killed all four.

The US central command said that negotiations were under way with the pirates when the US forces heard gunfire, boarded the yacht and found the four American bodies.

"As they responded to the gunfire, reaching and boarding the Quest, the forces discovered all four hostages had been shot by their captors," general James Mattis of US central command said in a statement.

The U.S. had sent four navy warships, including an aircraft carrier, to the scene. After boarding the ship, two pirates were killed and 15 have been detained. The Adams had been sailing around the world on the ship since 2004. What a tragic way for their journey to end.

The New York Times has more details here, and says 13 pirates have been detained. Some background on Somali pirates is here and here.

< Walker's Senseless Explanation For Permitting Police And Firefighters To Collectively Bargain | Richard Cohen: Funny Union Guy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I rest (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    my case.

    that is unfortunate. (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    however, it must be pointed out that these people completely disregarded the international warnings to steer clear of this area, for this very reason. with any luck, perhaps others will take heed, and we'll not have a reprise.

    Duly pointed out... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    but lets not blame the victims...murder is murder.  How awful.

    I lose my sympathy and quasi-admiration for the pirate scene when they resort to murder...inexcusable.  I wouldn't be surprised if the ante keeps getting raised and more lives are lost on both sides....eye for an eye leaves everyone blind and all that.  

    Rather than both sides strapping up harder, how about some diplomacy and a cease fire instead of a d*ck-swinging contest that will get more people killed...I don't know.


    It takes two to (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:25:21 PM EST

    yup (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    even if you wanted to try and negotiate who would you talk to?

    There is no clear leader.


    Exacly (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    Some of the gangster ringleaders... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    are known...lets at least try to negotiate a set vig to pass the Somali coast and be done with it, save some lives all around.

    Handing out 30 years ain't working, nor will bigger guns or looser shoot first protocols...these cats have little to nothing to lose.


    Would not be the first time? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by the capstan on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    Didn't the US of A pay 'tribute' to some folks in Tripoli--until, of course, we sent the Marines in?

    By the bye: checking facts I came on this sentence from the treaty: "... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

    Ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams.


    so (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    you are saying that officials should pay off the pirates to keep them from killing people?

    I am sure that would work splendidly as far as curtailing their activity.


    Until they kill a few (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    to show their demands for more are serious.

    I'm saying it is worth a shot... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    to negotiate a set vig to save some lives, yeah, I have no clue if it would work.

    The stick don't work so well when your adversary has nothing to lose...a carrot might work.  


    IMO (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    the carrot that would work is when you write "carrot" on the rocket before you drop it in the launcher.

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    if they feared death they'd find another way to make a living than piracy...the stick works for cats like us to keep us from pirating designer furniture from the corporate offices of Goldman Sachs...we've got a quality of life left to lose.  

    why the heck should they fear death? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    havent you been reading all the reasons they cant be simply blow to bits.  as I would recommend?

    They don't fear death... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    and won't start fearing if you start dropping bombs, imo.

    Look at it this way brother...what does a stinger cost?  What does it cost for the navy to make chase?  Buku bucks I'd imagine.  Instead, drop a floating bag with 10 grand in it off the side of the boat when the pirates come...everybody wins.  The pirates get a reduced risk-free booty, and the boat gets safe passage at a discount to a navy escort or a stinger. I don't see skinny Somalis passing on that easy ten large.

    And the big benefit, everybody lives.  


    Until (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    The next time,when they want $20,000.  Then the next time after that when they want $50,000.

    And so on.....


    Throw ten overboard... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:31:30 AM EST
    if they pass it up and keep chasing, then start shooting.

    I just don't see 'em motoring by an easy ten grand...but I could be wrong.  

    But like I said, at least worth a shot instead of going broke and getting people killed playing hard-arse of the high seas.  


    They get many chances (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    Such as when we say "give up and we won't shoot" mulitple times.

    Fine... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Don't think outside the L&O box...keep doing what we're doing, or worse...its working so well.

    Actually (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    We've tried negotiating and asking "pretty please" with these guys.

    Hasn't stopped them, has it?


    took 15 comments to bring up (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    concept deterrent component of sentencing failed.  

    How About (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    How about we just leave well enough alone.  Let Oman, Yemen, & Somalia figure out how to secure the waters around their own countries.  If our ships aren't safe to transport goods, let Maersk & Co hire their own army to secure the area, or leave.

    And tell people not to take their million dollar boats through pirate infested waters.

    Now the US is going to prosecute and store 15 people for life because 4 people decided to sail through known pirated waters.  Add in the cost of an aircraft carrier & Co sent to rescue them, and these 4 are going to cost US taxpayers tens, if not hundreds of millions.

    I wonder what idiot thought killing these people was a good idea.

    Negotiate, what, that's like telling the DEA to negotiate with drug dealers, good in theory, but what makes you think these pirates are organized to a degree that a person or two could call off all the pirates.  

    They are only doing this for cash, so what would the negotiation be, payments so they don't pirate, pretty sure a lot of hands would be open and the pirating wouldn't stop.


    I have a better idea (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    Now the US is going to prosecute and store 15 people for life

    Long rope and a short drop. Hang'em.


    Yes, let's have the sentence first (none / 0) (#56)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    and verdict later, if at all.

    +1 (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    They should've never been there.  Agree they are victims, but still, really foolish to not heed the warnings if true.

    Special ops (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    As the U.S. special forces team cleared the vessel, it discovered two pirates who already were dead. Another two were killed by U.S. personnel, one by gunfire and one by a knife, Fox said.

    "A pirate was killed by a special operations force members with a knife while clearing the interior of the vessel," Fox said.

    The news now is that (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    there were 19 pirates and that the Navy went in  after shots were fired on board the hijacked yacht and two captives had been killed.

    This has gone long enough. Time to send in the Marines.

    So...you'll spend untild billions... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    ...sending the Marines to patrol for a few hundred pirates, and not hesitate to suggest it, but will you support the same government spending those untold billions giving jobs to fellow Americans who just want to work their honest 40 and have enough to live on and maybe a little more?

    Well, we could just say (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    "Hey, you leave the US to travel, to trade, to do anything....you're on your on."

    How would that work out?

    As much as I often times would like to drop my pants and suggest a kissing exercise to much of the world, that hasn't worked well in the past.


    Send the Marines! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:54:25 PM EST

    Members of the corps
    All hate the thought of war
    They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means
    Stop calling it aggression
    We hate that expression
    We only want the world to know
    That we support the status quo
    They love us everywhere we go
    So when in doubt, send the Marines

    It would be a nice world if Americans had carte blanche to do as they please around the world, but we can't be the worlds' policeman to enforce that end, can we?


    No need for billions (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:57:20 PM EST

    The Navy needs target practice and conducts it at regular intervals.  The funds are already appropriated.  A 5 inch 54 caliber projectile is not that expensive.  If we can identify the pirate base this is not much more that a change location for the next target practice.

    pirate base? (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    you mean the entire country of Somalia?

    Cause I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about here.


    The vessle those dirt bags (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:06:12 PM EST

    used did not depart from the whole country of Somalia.

    Declare a War on Pirates ? (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    They operate like drug cartels, small branches that having nothing to do with one another.

    It would physically impossible to find, then identify who is a pirate and who isn't until they seize or attempt to seize a vessel.  Pretty sure they don't hoist the jolly rodger flag for easy identification.

    Plus this isn't our problem.  Tell people to stay out, and if the big conglomerates insist on sending their ships in to do business, they can finance their own security.  

    If Maersk & Co wants to start sharing profits with the Marine Corps, then no problem, send in the Marines.  Otherwise, let the people making the profits from that trade route figure it out.


    Do you feel the same way (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    about, say, those hikers being held as spies in Iran for crossing the border?

    Me ? (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    Yes, Americans have no business in Iran, it's hostile to Americans and the reason they were there was to earn their chops in their field.

    What did they think was going to happen if they got caught ?

    Are you suggesting we make Iran safe for American reporters ?


    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:33:18 PM EST
    I actually agree with you.  Those hikers had no business hiking over there where they could accidentally (or on purpose) cross the border.

    And these boaters should have known about the area they were in - they were experience yachts-people.

    But it still doesn't make it any less sad.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    Sucks that people living the dream end up in a nightmare.  

    "spend untold billions" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    didnt ask me but my response would  be to give the ships a rocket launcher and a really loud bullhorn.

    "come any closer or fire on us and we will erase you"

    problem solved.


    The Problem With That is... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    ... International treaties.  For obvious reasons, certain countries don't want certain other counties having weapons on their vessels.

    We don't want some broke down Chinese/Pakistani/Russian vessel with rocket launchers on it entering the port of Houston.

    So there are treaties as to what is acceptable, and as it stands, nothing over a hand gun is allowed on the high seas.  It's why they are tying to use sound waves and water cannons, not prohibited.


    maybe (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    its still the simplest and easiest solution.

    one or two rocket launcher encounters and the incidents would drop off precipitously

    anyway.  they are pirates.  who is going to care?


    it's not about what happens in the middle (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    of the ocean with regard to the pirates.  Most of these ships are not destined for Somalia.

    Wherever they end up in port they would still have the rocket launchers on the ship.


    just playing (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    devils advocate

    rocket launchers dont float


    decent point (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    I'm all for not polluting the oceans.  But if it came down to the choice of either I die, or I pollute the oceans, I'd probably go with polluting the oceans.

    If There was an Easy Solution (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    there wouldn't be pirates.

    No, but dead bodies float, kidding (none / 0) (#43)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    Its time (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:47:44 PM EST

    Its time to(in order):

     A. Find 15 lengths of manila rope.
     B. Give the yard arms a weight test.
     C. Feed the fish.


    it would be nice (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    to just tell people "don't sail there"

    but "known pirated waters" just happens to contain one of the most important shipping routes in the world, if not the most important.

    If you're trying to get "there" from "here" (choose any two places) by water, chances are pretty high you will have to go through "known pirated waters"

    For example (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    from the article linked

    "Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, deputy commander of the US navy's fifth fleet, said those on board were part of a group that had set sail from the southern tip of India. The vessel had apparently been bound for Oman."

    If you look at a map, that is nowhere near Somalia.  It's on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula entirely.

    Basically you're writing off an entire ocean.

    From what I heard (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    They were with a group and decided to break off and find a different route to their next destination.

    Appears to be pretty close (none / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    See map.

    compared to what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    size is relative I guess, but it's not like they were sailing right off the coast.

    And again, we're willing to just write off the Suez canal and essentially the entire Indian Ocean?


    The Suez Canal is the 2nd busiest port in the world, after Panama.  It would be logistically impossible to close.


    Esentially Nothing (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    The hot spot is maybe 600 miles long, basically the Horn of Africa, the Indian Ocean is thousand and thousands of miles.  Quite trying tie an entire Ocean to very small region.

    FYI, going around Africa is an option that is viable, sure its longer and costlier, but had they chosen that route, they would be alive and we wouldn't be cleaning up this mess and spending untold millions prosecuting the perpetrators.  

    There is no right to sail around the world safely.

    Commerce can either finance their own protection or stop doing business there.  I am tired of financing their safe transportation and they privatize the profits made from that adventure.


    they weren't even on the horn (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    they were on the other side of the peninsula.

    What you're suggesting would shut off the entire Arabian Peninsula.  I hear there are some pretty important goods that are occasionally shipped from there...

    I'm not sure how you'd "go around Africa" on your way from Oman to the southern coast of India.

    I wonder how much oil the U.S. military uses.

    Link # 2

    "navies have been unable to contain piracy in the Indian Ocean because of the vast distances involved."

    "They have the whole of the Indian Ocean pretty much pinned down,"


    For commerce? Of course not (none / 0) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    That's why we have various navies patrolling the area.  Nonetheless, these people tempt fate being anywhere near this area w/o protection.  

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    to be clear, I'm responding more to the assertion that we should just clear our navy out of the area and let everyone fend for themselves.

    If I were a recreational sailor I would probably stay clear.  But I can understand the temptation to test fate.  For those of us who are less risk-averse, it might be worth it to do what you love and live your life the way you choose until the end comes, not live in fear of what might happen.

    You could drown, or get caught by pirates, or get struck by lightening.  I remember when I was going to Africa on vacation a few years back my doctor was freaking out about all the ways I was gonna get sick and die and cause a mass outbreak of some sub-tropical disease when I came home.  But you take your chances, because to not take those chances means to let fear win.

    Everyone has their own line.  Whether that line is subtropical disease, pirates, or fear of getting hit by a car crossing the street, I think we can all agree that you have to accept some risk in your life.  And it's up to each individual to determine what level they are comfortable with, and what things in their life are "worth the risk".  For me it was visiting my sister in Namibia.  For them it was sailing around the world.  That wouldn't be my personal choice, but I understand it.


    my geographical bad (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    replace "subtropical" for "tropical" :)

    Also in Regards to... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    ... geography, when you keep stating 'the other side of the Peninsula'.  The horn is facing the south western side of peninsula, Oman, for the most part is on the southern side, hardly on the opposite side.

    We can freely go into the Persian Gulf which as far as I know, hasn't had a pirate incident, to get oil.

    The route you speak of effects Europe far more than us, yet we seem to, and you seem to, think the US military's job is to protect foreign commerce.  It might raise the price oil to sail around Africa a little bit, but far less less this 'War on Pirates' would cost taxpayers.

    We can't even keep drugs and people out of our own country, yet we are going to magically eliminate pirates 10,000 miles away in a very vast body of water in a country hostile to the US.  Get real.  

    Indonesia has loads of pirates and as much as it costs, they figured out it's nearly impossible to eliminate pirating, so they are re-routing the ships.  Problem solved.


    actually (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    there have been attacks in the persian gulf as well.

    Also, if you are sailing from the Persian Gulf around the entire continent of Africa, you'll still have to pass by the horn, maybe not as close, but you can't avoid it entirely, and the seas can get pretty rough.

    "The piracy situation is now spinning out of control into the entire Indian Ocean right to the top of the Arabian Sea over 1,000 miles from the coast of Somalia," Link

    I never said we could magically eliminate pirates.  But we certainly can't just ignore them either.  I would love to say "let's just live without oil".  But we're not there yet.  We can, however, live without the drug war.


    another (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    link here and here

    "over the past three months (September to November) piracy activity in the Gulf of Aden has dropped dramatically, while activity in the Indian Ocean and along the east coast of Africa have collectively increased nearly 60 percent - reaching an all-time high."

    "Somali pirates have now mounted attacks within 240 kilometres of South African and Pakistani waters and 400 kilometres off India."

    There is no avoiding it.


    But Their Destination... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    ... was probably the Suez Canal.  Meaning they were actually in a safer area then the Gulf of Aden, which is the center of piracy.

    Oman is 350 miles from Somalia.  Not that far in oceangoing terms.  Either way, it is not up to the US to make sure their coast if free of pirates so Americans can safely sail the world.

    So these people wanted to sail around the world via Oman, well lots of stuff I want to do that probably isn't real safe, should I have the military clear out the Cairo & Tripoli so I can report the news ?

    Or just wing it like these sailors or the reporter in Cairo ?  No to both, what I should do is keep my A out of harms way or suffer the consequences, the military isn't to keep every inch of the world safe, it to keep America safe.


    Is there a subject upon which TL (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:48:46 PM EST
    commenters do not have an opinion?

    hopefully not when it comes to (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:34:27 AM EST
    crime, prosecution and sentencing. I just wish they all agreed with me.

    Wow (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:08:19 AM EST
    A lot of bloodthirst going on in this thread.  Why don't y'all talk like pirates.

    As to the existence of the Somalian variety, from Wikipedia:

    A United Nations report and several news sources have suggested that piracy off the coast of Somalia is caused in part by illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters by foreign vessels that have, according to Somali fishermen, severely constrained the ability of locals to earn a living and forced many to turn to piracy instead.[4][5] Other articles allege that 70 percent of the local coastal communities "strongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the country's territorial waters", and that the pirates believe they are protecting their fishing grounds and exacting justice and compensation for the marine resources stolen.[6][7][8] Some pirates have suggested that, in the absence of an effective national coast guard following the outbreak of the Somali Civil War and the subsequent disintegration of the Armed Forces, they became pirates in order to protect their waters.

    While the international community cannot let stand the criminal element, they should also be addressing -- or at a minimum talking about -- the root cause.

    if this is truly the reason (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    why havent the pirates mentioned it instead of killing people and asking for ransom.

    I am all for stopping polluting.

    the same wiki page says this:

    Piracy off the Somali coast has been a threat to international shipping since the second phase of the Somali Civil War in the early 21st century.[1] Since 2005, many international organizations, including the International Maritime Organization and the World Food Programme, have expressed concern over the rise in acts of piracy.[2] Piracy has contributed to an increase in shipping costs and impeded the delivery of food aid shipments. Ninety percent of the World Food Programme's shipments arrive by sea, and ships into this area now require a military escort.[3]

    but what you should really read is the Summary of recent events


    It HAS been mentioned (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:33:40 AM EST
    Capt.  Just not by our media.  And I'm certain that there is more to it than can be described in a single paragraph.  My guess is that it may have started that way -- and while it is still likely a big factor -- they have discovered that the piracy itself is far more lucrative than fishing ever was.

    And I actually have read the entire article.  And others like it.  The whole situation is incredibly awful.  Many of the pirates are viewed by their families and communities as basically working stiffs -- doing what they can to support their families.  Because they have no other job options.

    Let me be personally clear here.  I do NOT condone or support the acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia.  Not in any way, shape or form.

    Having said that, I still think the International Community should be trying to address the root cause(s) as well as pursuing criminal justice.


    well as far as I can tell (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    Somalia is a complete mess.  and has been for a long time.  other than occupying the country I am not sure what we could do.

    but we cant allow them to keep killing and kidnapping people no matter bad it is.  


    Agree with all of that... (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    ...except for the "occupying" bit.  

    Just remember that the "we" in "...we cant allow them to keep killing... " must be the International community and not just the USA.

    But in concept, agree with what you are saying.


    fwiw (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    it is the international community.

    Of course it is.. (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    ... when you're not shouting it out.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it.