International Piracy Issue 72 replies

Please wait...

RedDevilXLT

21st Century Digital Boy

50 XP

2nd February 2007

0 Uploads

7,334 Posts

0 Threads

#61 11 years ago

seriously, you really need to learn how to read. I never said to nuke Somalia OR mentioned the word "nuke" in any of my previous posts. A few others did, but not me. I didn't mind killing the pirates without hesitation, but nuking an entire country is out. I even went back and quickly reread my posts to make sure that I never mentioned nukes. I also never said that everyone in Somalia is a pirate.

I'm not sure where you're reading this information and if I did mention nukes somewhere, I'll stand corrected.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#62 11 years ago

I don't think, or at least I certainly don't hope anyone was seriously suggesting nuking Somalia. They've had enough political violence in the last decades.




Smitty025

The local Paultard

74,515 XP

24th May 2003

0 Uploads

6,469 Posts

0 Threads

#63 11 years ago

NiteStryker;4871340No. Mars is only slightly bigger than our moon.

The UN and the League of Nations are some of the most useless organizations in the history of mankind.

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

I dont care why they are there. They got no right to fuck with us. Im not gonna try and be understanding and have sympathy for them. I just want to see their bodies floating in the ocean.

I really hope they are not that stupid.

Social conditions suck everywhere, why is somolia so special that they get to hijack ships?

Yea right smitty. You obviously dont know shit about naval warships. Even LHD's carry a shit ton of ammo. (At least enough to provide 15 AAV's with over 200 rounds of 50 cal ammo each and over 96 mark-19 rounds each). Not to mention their 556 ammo and the ammo for the gatling guns on the top of the ship.

Trust me, we have plenty of ammo.

Wow, way to horribly misquoute someone. Read my post and try to figure out where you went wrong.




Smitty025

The local Paultard

74,515 XP

24th May 2003

0 Uploads

6,469 Posts

0 Threads

#64 11 years ago

NiteStryker;4871340No. Mars is only slightly bigger than our moon.

The UN and the League of Nations are some of the most useless organizations in the history of mankind.

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

I dont care why they are there. They got no right to fuck with us. Im not gonna try and be understanding and have sympathy for them. I just want to see their bodies floating in the ocean.

I really hope they are not that stupid.

Social conditions suck everywhere, why is somolia so special that they get to hijack ships?

Yea right smitty. You obviously dont know shit about naval warships. Even LHD's carry a shit ton of ammo. (At least enough to provide 15 AAV's with over 200 rounds of 50 cal ammo each and over 96 mark-19 rounds each). Not to mention their 556 ammo and the ammo for the gatling guns on the top of the ship.

Trust me, we have plenty of ammo.

Wow, way to horribly misquoute someone. Read my post and try to figure out where you went wrong.

Oh, and even though the ammo point was not mine, it is true. See Rich19's post earlier about it.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#65 11 years ago
NiteStryker;4871340Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

Maybe so, but the ships can't be everywhere at once, and killing the pirates simply leaves a gap in the market that is filled really quickly. Again, without tacking the root cause of the piracy, you'll be facing a never ending stram of pirates, some of whom will be able to attack before your slaughter catches up to them.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#66 11 years ago

RedDevilXLT;4871372Isn't it obvious? Because they're next to the ocean! If Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and any other -stan had access to a vast ocean like Somalia, they too would have funded pirates...but alas their terroristic creativity is limited to killing themselves in consistently predictable manners. :lol: [/QUOTE]

Sand pirates! Or is that more akin to Tuskin Raiders / Jawas?

Vasili;4871442Cool bro, Josepth Stalin quotes make it justified.[/QUOTE] Fuck yea. Am I wrong?

Warforger;4871493Ummm since when was everyone in Somalia a pirate? We would be killing everyone in Somalia by nuking it. Out of any reasons I've ever heard of nuking anything, nuking a country because of a couple of pirates is by far the weakest. [/QUOTE] Again, Somolia is a lawless warlord-owned country. Not many nice people there that contribute positively to the world we live in. I dont see them hijacking ships and then claiming they are doing so to "protect the environment and the dolphins".

[QUOTE=Warforger;4871493]I mean going by your logic, lets take every Muslim load them up in camps, stuff them in gas chambers and kill them all. I mean after all there terrorists just because there Muslim, so every Somalian must be a pirate because there Somalian.

Eh...I have heard instances of good muslims so I am not immediatly warm to that idea. I have not heard of good somolians.

Besides, nukes vs gas chambers is 2 different things. I want Somolia a giant glass circle on the planet. Thats easier than hiring labor to build gas chambers. Then you have to have the gas, and you have to watch for leaks, and its just a very meticulous process. Then they might go on strike, and there could be lawsuits against the workers for building a structure intended to cause harmful injury or death, etc etc.

[QUOTE=RedDevilXLT;4871566]seriously, you really need to learn how to read. I never said to nuke Somalia OR mentioned the word "nuke" in any of my previous posts. A few others did, but not me.

That was this guy. (aka NiteStryker).

[QUOTE=Rich19;4872157]Maybe so, but the ships can't be everywhere at once, and killing the pirates simply leaves a gap in the market that is filled really quickly. Again, without tacking the root cause of the piracy, you'll be facing a never ending stram of pirates, some of whom will be able to attack before your slaughter catches up to them.

See if you nuke them, it wipes out every possible resolution. There wont be anybody to fill the void.

:D

I am such an asshole.




Smitty025

The local Paultard

74,515 XP

24th May 2003

0 Uploads

6,469 Posts

0 Threads

#67 11 years ago
NiteStryker;4873550Besides, nukes vs gas chambers is 2 different things. I want Somolia a giant glass circle on the planet. Thats easier than hiring labor to build gas chambers. Then you have to have the gas, and you have to watch for leaks, and its just a very meticulous process. Then they might go on strike, and there could be lawsuits against the workers for building a structure intended to cause harmful injury or death, etc etc.

I think this could be part of a second stimulus plan. I can see it now: $600 billion for construction of gas chambers to be used to kill all residents of Somalia.

The economy will be back to normal in no time!




Nemmerle Advanced Member

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,174 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,206 Posts

6 Threads

#68 11 years ago

The problem with nukes is they're the great equaliser. Sure we can nuke Somalia, but then it gets kinda hard to complain about our enemies using WMDs on their problems or to justify non-proliferation. Maybe Russia uses chemical weapons on its insurgent problems, maybe Israel just decides to go and crop-dust Gazza, maybe Iran decides to send Israel some nice bio weapon in a shipment and watch the results. We keep these things off of the table because once we use them we've done away with a lot of the stigma attached to them. It’s like expanding bullets; they’re illegal for the military because they were used against the British, not because of a moral objection. Not using nukes isn't so much an act of decency; it's just keeping everything on the playing field where we know we're going to win. The minute that’s no longer the case the WMDs are coming out in a big way.

The problem with WMDs is the line drawing. If we use nukes then who are we justified in using them on, who gets to have them and who doesn't. When it's a conventional war there's a nice clear dividing line between what's acceptable and what's not, WMDs. At the end of the day we might quibble over casualty figures and genocides but we're prepared to sit back and watch as long as we can still apply the smack down when we need to. Morally there's not a lot of difference. Practically? Two different worlds. So the question is really whether Somalia’s important enough to give that up over. And considering there are easier ways to do away with them I don’t think it is.




Vasili

Lurking.

108,260 XP

1st October 2006

0 Uploads

10,426 Posts

0 Threads

#69 11 years ago
NiteStryker;4873550 Fuck yea. Am I wrong?

Yeah.




Miltonmonkey

This is my User Title

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,095 Posts

0 Threads

#70 11 years ago

Nemmerle;4873625The problem with nukes is they're the great equaliser. Sure we can nuke Somalia, but then it gets kinda hard to complain about our enemies using WMDs on their problems or to justify non-proliferation. Maybe Russia uses chemical weapons on its insurgent problems, maybe Israel just decides to go and crop-dust Gazza, maybe Iran decides to send Israel some nice bio weapon in a shipment and watch the results. We keep these things off of the table because once we use them we've done away with a lot of the stigma attached to them. It’s like expanding bullets; they’re illegal for the military because they were used against the British, not because of a moral objection. Not using nukes isn't so much an act of decency; it's just keeping everything on the playing field where we know we're going to win. The minute that’s no longer the case the WMDs are coming out in a big way.

The problem with WMDs is the line drawing. If we use nukes then who are we justified in using them on, who gets to have them and who doesn't. When it's a conventional war there's a nice clear dividing line between what's acceptable and what's not, WMDs. At the end of the day we might quibble over casualty figures and genocides but we're prepared to sit back and watch as long as we can still apply the smack down when we need to. Morally there's not a lot of difference. Practically? Two different worlds. So the question is really whether Somalia’s important enough to give that up over. And considering there are easier ways to do away with them I don’t think it is.

And that's not even going into the fallout left by nuking an entire country and rendering it inhabitable. And then having that radioactive ash spread into the atmosphere and into other countries.