Hostages are nothing new and have happened under almost every presidency. We still have missing-in-action soldiers in Iraq believed or known to be held by insurgent groups. US businessmen overseas are grabbed from time to time and held for hostage but they companies don't publicize the situation or the ransoms paid for fear of encouraging copycats. The North Koreans capture anybody that goes near their borders and they have taken people out of China, South Korea, and in international waters, including our own naval personnel under Nixon. Anybody trying to work in and around North Korea risks this. The Somali pirates are something new, operating at this scale and are going to have to be dealt with soon. Already copycats in Malaysia, East Africa, and South America are trying the same thing. First of all we must start convoying these ships so we can keep them protected by naval vessels. It's been an effective solution for piracy for 400 years. Eventually we are going to have to hit them in their bases. Sink their mother ships, shoot up their speedboats, and bomb their ports. SOme civilians may be killed, but what the hell. This is Somalia. We sent troops there to help feed the suffering bastards and the end up dragging American bodies through the street. Fug 'em. But most of the world's freighters are not American. The US doesn't need to protect Liberian, European, Panamanian, and Indian ships. Let those countries do it for themselves or ally with us to get it done and pony up fome funding. But we should hit them so hard when a US-flagged ship is attacked that the pirates will choose some more profitable Norwegian or Japanese ships to take.
Appeasement is being attacked at least three times, on US and foreign soil, and responding with weak words, idle threats, and a cruise missile attack designed to ENSURE no one was injured. Appeasement is answering aggression with muddle-headed "diplomacy". I'm full-up misusing the term appeasement in it's most correct form. But it makes the point. As for the predictions - guess we'll just wait and see. I know one thing for sure - weakness (perceived or actual) invites aggression. Mamby-pamby UN-centric handwringing is both perceived and actual weakness. It will be punished sooner or later.
Uhhh. What "appeasement"? 1. 1st WTC Bombing -- perpetrators identified, caught, tried and jailed. What appeasement? 2. Embassy Bombings -- perpetrator identified, retaliatory strikes designed specifically to kill Bin Ladin were launched but the Pakistanis tipped him off both times. What appeasement? 3. USS Cole Bombing -- happened one month before Bush was elected. Al Qaida perpetrators were identified early in the Bush administration but no retaliatory action was taken at all. Bush dropped the ball but still no appeasement. Did Clinton appease the Yugoslav oppressors of Kosovo? No, he bombed them into submission without the loss of a single American life and their president went to War Crimes trials in the Hague. Did he appease the ungrateful Somalis for killing US troops that were there to help them? No, he pulled the whole relief effort and let the bastards starve in the ghettos of their own creation. Did he appease the Serbs in Bosnia? Or did we run them out after the Europeans had failed to do so? Did he appease the Russians, who accomplished exactly squat during his tenure? You are wearing blinders, amigo.
No blinders. The 90s (and our handling of the Beirut bombings) are a text book example of how and why power must be wielded or it is effectively ceded. Your first 3 comments actually make my point. We failed to act on the information we had. And that had everything to do political ideology. Bosnia was a media war and is still a mess. The Russians couldn't find their own azzes with both hands and a mirror after the wall came down. You're giving that to the 90s? :lol:
And Clinton gladly sold us out to them by giving up satellite secrets and putting a bunch of pro-chink politicians in important places with access to sensitive data. Least we forget about the admitted illegal campaign money funneling. No, Clinton kowtowed and bent over backwards to appease and accommodate China. His hands are dirty.
DRC, I must warn you. Red gets REEEEEEEEEEEL sensitive when you start bad mouthing slick willie and his clan. I know from experience. It really doesn't matter that the clintons were good friends with no less than 12 people who "committed suicide" under VERY suspicious and shaky circumstances. I would bet that if you took a poll of any 20 members of this board they don't know 12 people combined that have taken their own life. But of course el rojo will demand proof and C.S.I lab reports and the like.:grin:
