PDA

View Full Version : We still kick ass



f_inscreenname
04-12-2009, 05:07 PM
Navy snipers kill 3 pirates with head shots and rescue the Capitan. Taking the last pirate prisoner.
Kick ass Navy!!!!

MOP
04-12-2009, 05:10 PM
Just plain excellent, the American Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

justleft
04-12-2009, 06:43 PM
Snipers from the rolling deck of one ship get head shots on 3 in a rolling
life boat.

Now that is some shooting !!!!!! :superman:

Carl C
04-12-2009, 06:55 PM
That's awesome news. Now they need to start arming these ships with enough firepower to take out an engine and at least one smaller rifle to stop the attackers.

DonziJon
04-12-2009, 07:20 PM
GO NAVY...Yes

zelatore
04-13-2009, 12:35 AM
That IS some impressive shooting. I wonder what range they were at - had to be a couple hundred yards at least I'd guess.

Ghost
04-13-2009, 12:47 AM
That IS some impressive shooting. I wonder what range they were at - had to be a couple hundred yards at least I'd guess.

I had a similar curiosity. On the other hand, if the seas were flat enough, I wonder if we didn't have the gear (bubble-free rebreathers and much more) to surface at night, within a few yards, to take the shots from the water at short range.

I don't know, didn't see much on the news, and sorta hope we don't even find out. But I was VERY happy we got that captain out safely, and I don't mind the dispatching of hostage-takers in the process. Theirs is a sad plight, but I think we need not put up with it.

zelatore
04-13-2009, 01:09 AM
I don't know which would be harder - a long range shot from boat-to-boat or a relatively close range shot from the water. I've never tried it, but just imaging how hard it would be to steady yourself while swimming :eek:

Just Say N20
04-13-2009, 06:12 AM
Question. I should say Rhetorical Question, because I actually know the answer.

Why are most people happy to learn that this pirate/hostage situation has been resolved with the safe return of the captain, and the permanent elimination of some of the pirates, yet when the "pirates" are terrorists, caught in the act of trying to kill "captains" who are US citizens or US military, some people get their panties all in a bunch, when the captured "pirates" complain an "infidel" touched their holy book inappropriately, or made them put their underwear on their head, ad nauseum? So much so that it is decided we must shut down this horrific "torture camp," and let the "pirates" free, so they can immediately begin trying to kill the "captains?"

McGary911
04-13-2009, 07:23 AM
Snipers from the rolling deck of one ship get head shots on 3 in a rolling
life boat.

Now that is some shooting !!!!!! :superman:

Not to mention, that they would have all shot simultaneously. I can see timing the roll of the boat(s) just right......and waiting for the right moment. That could take some patience. NOW imagine that all 3 snipers had to wait for the same right moment. That's gotta complicate things, huh?

ChromeGorilla
04-13-2009, 07:40 AM
I had a similar curiosity. On the other hand, if the seas were flat enough, I wonder if we didn't have the gear (bubble-free rebreathers and much more) to surface at night, within a few yards, to take the shots from the water at short range.



This is probably the most likely thing that happened IMO...

They swam in without the pirates knowing then pop up and smoked 'em. I highly doubt they sniped these guys from a long distance on open seas....

rustnrot
04-13-2009, 07:55 AM
In my opinion, we have another Hero Captain here, Captain Phillips of the Maersk Alabama. He sacrificed himself for his crew and got out alive!

He, along with Captain Sullenberger, who landed the plane in the Hudson River get a standing ovation from me! We need all the heroes we can get these days.

f_inscreenname
04-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Actually the life boat was tied off to the Navy ship on a hundred foot line. The one pirate was on the Navy ship "negotiating." The shots may have come from the Navy ship.
Anyway, every time I throw anything to my Buddy's boat it always ends up in the water. 3 perfect shots, from 3 shooters, in less then the reaction time it took to move to safety after the first shot and the targets are on a moving/bobbing boat. Wow!

McGary911
04-13-2009, 11:55 AM
Had to go across the pond to get a good news article, but here it is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1169712/Flawless-U-S-Navy-snipers-killed-Somali-pirates-just-shots--dark-deck-rolling-ship.html

No sneaking up underwater. These guys made the shots......at night...Crazy skill.

Ghost
04-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Wow, hadn't seen that. I had no idea they were right there with the Navy ship. Last I had seen, some small orange Navy craft had approached the lifeboat and been fired upon, and retreated. Nice shooting. (I wonder how many snipers actually fired at once?)

Somehow, I'm thinking those pirates weren't the sharpest knives in the back.

FISHIN SUCKS
04-13-2009, 02:32 PM
You know, when I saw that Phillips was saved on the news this morning, it was like getting a big ole shot of 'PRIDE' injected into your whole body. Damn that's a good feeling. I was just with a good friend of mine 3 weeks ago in San Diego who is the Captain (CO) of the USS John Paul Jones, a Destroyer just like the USS Bainbridge, and he is headed to that vicinity this month for 7 month tour.

zelatore
04-13-2009, 03:40 PM
Question. I should say Rhetorical Question, because I actually know the answer.
Why are most people happy to learn that this pirate/hostage situation has been resolved with the safe return of the captain, and the permanent elimination of some of the pirates, yet when the "pirates" are terrorists, caught in the act of trying to kill "captains" who are US citizens or US military, some people get their panties all in a bunch, when the captured "pirates" complain an "infidel" touched their holy book inappropriately, or made them put their underwear on their head, ad nauseum? So much so that it is decided we must shut down this horrific "torture camp," and let the "pirates" free, so they can immediately begin trying to kill the "captains?"

I've been asking myself the same thing.
(I hope you weren't specifically directing this at me...I may be the token liberal around here but I don't think I'm especially easy on terrorist)

For some reason, at least speaking for myself, I've been far more interested in the outcome of this situation. I've also felt more desire for revenge. I don't know if it's the boating connection or what, but I'd get a great deal of satisfaction out of the US taking the Israeli approach and just blowing the snot out of the pirates.

That's not to say I think we should do so - there are obviously a lot of things to consider beyond my desire for revenge. But no doubt it would be sweet.

And once again, just gotta say hat's off to the shooters. This has movie of the week written all over it. (do they still do that?)

BigGrizzly
04-13-2009, 05:27 PM
We are talking Seals here, this is not a everybody group. I have known three and they all are great guys with iron will s.

Ghost
04-13-2009, 05:39 PM
What were those fake merchant ships in WWII called that were set up to fight submarines? I wonder if we could send some of those in, and kidnap a bunch of pirates. Might tell us who their bosses were and how they were organized, etc.

Or maybe we just blow them away. Either works for me.

DonziJon
04-13-2009, 06:51 PM
I'm waiting for the REAL Handwringing to begin in the US Media........AND the Democrat Wing in the US government. When will Rep. Murtha (D) Demand an investigation into "the sensless killing of inocent Civilians ..(Pirates)....who were minors that were only trying to provide for their familys in difficult times in their country". John

GAG ME.

Just Say N20
04-13-2009, 07:29 PM
I've been asking myself the same thing.
(I hope you weren't specifically directing this at me...I may be the token liberal around here but I don't think I'm especially easy on terrorist)
For some reason, at least speaking for myself, I've been far more interested in the outcome of this situation. I've also felt more desire for revenge. I don't know if it's the boating connection or what, but I'd get a great deal of satisfaction out of the US taking the Israeli approach and just blowing the snot out of the pirates.
That's not to say I think we should do so - there are obviously a lot of things to consider beyond my desire for revenge. But no doubt it would be sweet.
And once again, just gotta say hat's off to the shooters. This has movie of the week written all over it. (do they still do that?)

Don,

Not directed at you at all. Really. I'm with you on this one. Doing this also has the advantage of sending a message to the pirates that they better not screw with us.

I had posted a cartoon a while back with two apartment doors side by side. One with an anti-gun sign on the door, and the other with a target all shot up with what look like shotgun slugs. The caption was something to the effect of which home is more likely to be robbed.

Some of this stuff seems like such a no-brainer to me, I don't get why some people want to argue about it.

dfunde01
04-13-2009, 07:48 PM
That IS some impressive shooting. I wonder what range they were at - had to be a couple hundred yards at least I'd guess.

100 feet from fan tail of destroyer to life boat. Pitch dark. Night vision gear. Pirates heads visible through open top hatches. Life boat was under slow tow. Three coordinated head shots.

zelatore
04-13-2009, 08:23 PM
Today at lunch I heard the local talk radio shows start in with 'should we invade Somalia?'

Er, no. We can't afford another full on invasion/occupation.

But we sure as hell could afford to target known pirate mother ships.

I understand the pirates currently hold a couple hundred hostages and are now threatening retaliation against them for the killing of their 3 men. I think it's all smoke. They're only in this for the money - they (should) know if they start killing hostages they'll have a harder time getting the cash.

I do believe maritime law is pretty generous about this sort of thing when it comes to fighting back. I think we'd be in the clear legally to take them on at sea. Task a few spy sats and get some real-time intel showing who's who and what they are doing. We could easily destroy one of their ships from over the horizon.

Cuda
04-13-2009, 09:44 PM
I don't think we should give a damn whether we are ok legally or not, when dealing with these terrorist. I commend O for not getting involved, whether we hurt some pirate's sensibilities or not.

Ghost
04-14-2009, 02:02 AM
It'd be nice if we quit sending any money over there at all...a policy I think we could stand to embrace in a lot of places.

BigGrizzly
04-14-2009, 08:40 AM
Now Doesn't anybody realize that this was the first American flaged ship that was ever taken and why. My take is that these guys were testing the water. they bit off more then they could chew. If the threats are smoke that is one thing but if they follow up on them that changes the ball game.
my opinion will rest until it happens. Trust me revenge is sweet, but not having to take it is even sewwter.

BUIZILLA
04-14-2009, 08:54 AM
Now Doesn't anybody realize that this was the first American flaged ship that was ever taken and why. actually this was the second... the first was in the 1850's and the perpetrator was then executed around 1860... US laws back then for piracy were punishable by death, today it's life in prison..

BigGrizzly
04-14-2009, 09:06 AM
OK Buiz call me a liar for a lousy 159 years. I do think the reduction in sentence should not have occured, but that is probably a religious topic:biggrin.::biggrin.:

Cuda
04-14-2009, 09:34 AM
There is an old pirate saying: Dead men tell no tales.

Tony
04-14-2009, 04:38 PM
I'm waiting for the REAL Handwringing to begin in the US Media........AND the Democrat Wing in the US government. When will Rep. Murtha (D) Demand an investigation into "the sensless killing of inocent Civilians ..(Pirates)....who were minors that were only trying to provide for their familys in difficult times in their country". John


Yeah, this will probably happen.
Post a link when you see a major credible media source take this position.

While I understand it would be hard for you to compliment our president on his firm but low-key response, it's a shame you would tarnish the successful efficiency of this incident with ridiculous predictions of potential public reaction.


GAG ME.

In my opinion, what you might be gagging on is paranoia...

:beer:

roadtrip se
04-14-2009, 05:24 PM
with you Tony. It takes work to be that paranoid. BOO!

Maybe I'll offer up a shot special and see where Chris Farley has been hanging today...

Ghost
04-14-2009, 06:00 PM
In my opinion, what you might be gagging on is paranoia...


with you Tony. It takes work to be that paranoid. BOO!

To be accurate, isn't 'paranoia' markedly the wrong term for what you are describing? It appears that what is being described is having a very low opinion of certain members of the press and of our government, manifested in a prediction of a crappy thing they might say. I could see a critic calling that 'jumping the gun' or 'selling them short' and then attributing it to someone's being 'overly cynical' or 'devoid of faith in people' or whatever.

But 'paranoia' is a term that means something else.

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 06:14 PM
Yeah, this will probably happen.
Post a link when you see a major credible media source take this position.

While I understand it would be hard for you to compliment our president on his firm but low-key response, it's a shame you would tarnish the successful efficiency of this incident with ridiculous predictions of potential public reaction.



In my opinion, what you might be gagging on is paranoia...

:beer:

TARNISH WHAT? I guess you didn't catch my earlier post in THIS thread. :cool!:

GO NAVY...Yes

BTW: Have YOU Ever Served?? John

gcarter
04-14-2009, 06:16 PM
What were those fake merchant ships in WWII called that were set up to fight submarines? I wonder if we could send some of those in, and kidnap a bunch of pirates. Might tell us who their bosses were and how they were organized, etc.

Or maybe we just blow them away. Either works for me.

"Q" ships?

It might work if there were enough of them.
And particularly maybe if they were flagged from third world countries.

boxy
04-14-2009, 06:20 PM
I guess you didn't catch my earlier post in THIS thread. :cool!:
GO NAVY...Yes
BTW: Have YOU Ever Served?? John

Jon, what does this answer have do with your earlier post?

On another note, how come any time your posts are called into question, your automatic response is "Have you served?"
So you served, so have thousands of others, and so have a lot of people on this board. you don't see them throwing it up as an excuse every time they get called out.

Your post was asinine, you got called on it, deal with it.

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 06:29 PM
Jon, what does this answer have do with your earlier post?
On another note, how come any time your posts are called into question, your automatic response is "Have you served?"
So you served, so have thousands of others, and so have a lot of people on this board. you don't see them throwing it up as an excuse every time they get called out.
Your post was asinine, you got called on it, deal with it.

So I guess you are NOT one of the ones who HAVE SERVED...That was your choice. If you had you would step up to the plate and say.. YES I have served. PROUDLY. John

boxy
04-14-2009, 06:31 PM
No John, I have never served in the US Military. I am a supporter of the men and women who have chosen to enlist in both of our countries Armes Forces, and I have great respect for veterns of all foreign wars.
Having not served doesn't precluded me from calling your defense a smokescreen.

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 06:36 PM
No John, I have never served in the US Military. I am a supporter of the men and women who have chosen to enlist in both of our countries Armes Forces, and I have great respect for veterns of all foreign wars.
Having not served doesn't precluded me from calling your defense a smokescreen.

I'll bet you have not served in your own Military either. SHAME ON YOU.

Tony
04-14-2009, 06:43 PM
To be accurate, isn't 'paranoia' markedly the wrong term for what you are describing? It appears that what is being described is having a very low opinion of certain members of the press and of our government, manifested in a prediction of a crappy thing they might say. I could see a critic calling that 'jumping the gun' or 'selling them short' and then attributing it to someone's being 'overly cynical' or 'devoid of faith in people' or whatever.

But 'paranoia' is a term that means something else.


Nope...I'm sticking with paranoia.

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) or fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear), often to the point of irrationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality) and delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion). Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.

More recently, the clinical use of the term has been used to describe delusions where the affected person believes they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing two central elements:


The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur, to him or her.
The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.

:beer:

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 06:51 PM
The MOST Qualified Person to comment on Paranoia would be the person who has experienced this condition. :kingme: :kingme: :kingme:

Donziweasel
04-14-2009, 07:25 PM
100 feet from fan tail of destroyer to life boat. Pitch dark. Night vision gear. Pirates heads visible through open top hatches. Life boat was under slow tow. Three coordinated head shots.

I would have taken that shot........;)

I read it was 75 ft.....

boxy
04-14-2009, 07:26 PM
I'll bet you have not served in your own Military either. SHAME ON YOU.
Did you shake your fist when you yelled that......

Get a grip, it was 1984 when I was 18, the Canadian Forces did not need me then. The World is a little differnent now, if I was 18 now maybe my decision would be different.

When did you serve?

Cuda
04-14-2009, 07:27 PM
Paranoids have enemies too.

Ghost
04-14-2009, 07:59 PM
Nope...I'm sticking with paranoia.

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) or fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear), often to the point of irrationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality) and delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion). Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.

More recently, the clinical use of the term has been used to describe delusions where the affected person believes they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing two central elements:


The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur, to him or her.
The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.
:beer:

You make my point for me. There was no anxiety, fear, or concern over persecution in the post. Just a disdain for the press and Murtha. A disdain leading to a prediction that they would say something lousy. But there isn't any fear, anxiety, or worry of persecution there. Here it is again if you doubt me:


I'm waiting for the REAL Handwringing to begin in the US Media........AND the Democrat Wing in the US government. When will Rep. Murtha (D) Demand an investigation into "the sensless killing of inocent Civilians ..(Pirates)....who were minors that were only trying to provide for their familys in difficult times in their country". John

GAG ME.

You might even claim the analysis of how pisspoor the press and Murtha are was irrational, or even delusional. (That could make for an interesting argument, either way, based on historical behavior of the press and Murtha.) Or you might say you thought someone was paranoid because of things other than what was said in the post. You could make a case for 'disgust', 'excessive cynicism', 'irrationally or delusionally thinking the worst of people', whatever. But the post itself lacks the very criteria for 'paranoia' that your posted definition cites. That was my point.

Cuda
04-14-2009, 08:04 PM
You make my point for me. There was no anxiety, fear, or concern over persecution in the post. Just a disdain for the press and Murtha. A disdain leading to a prediction that they would say something lousy. But there isn't any fear, anxiety, or worry of persecution there. Here it is again if you doubt me:



You might even claim the analysis of how pisspoor the press and Murtha are was irrational, or even delusional. (That could make for an interesting argument, either way, based on historical behavior of the press and Murtha.) Or you might say you thought someone was paranoid because of things other than what was said in the post. But the post itself lacks the very criteria for 'paranoia' that your posted definition cites. That was my point.
Quit clouding the issue with facts. :)

Ghost
04-14-2009, 08:09 PM
"Q" ships?

It might work if there were enough of them.
And particularly maybe if they were flagged from third world countries.

Yep, that's what I was thinking of.

mike o
04-14-2009, 08:14 PM
Quit clouding the issue with facts. :) See Any cute nurses today Joe?:biggrin:

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 08:38 PM
Did you shake your fist when you yelled that......
Get a grip, it was 1984 when I was 18, the Canadian Forces did not need me then. The World is a little differnent now, if I was 18 now maybe my decision would be different.
When did you serve?

I served from July 1959 to September 1968. US NAVY. Oh MY freakin word.., I did lose it and not only shook my fist...I just yelled WHO RAH.:biggrin: :biggrin:

Totally Unaceptable: My Inner Neanderthal reared it's ugly head again. I need to seek counciling.......maybe join a Focus Group or something and promise to be more tolerant of those who are MOST Tolerant.. :yes: :yes: John

Cuda
04-14-2009, 08:50 PM
See Any cute nurses today Joe?:biggrin:
Just a cute CNA I had yesterday too. I guessed her in her early twenties, and was pleasantly surprised she was 36. :)

My favorite CNA is off today. :(

Cuda
04-14-2009, 08:53 PM
I served from July 1959 to September 1968. US NAVY. Oh MY freakin word.., I did lose it and not only shook my fist...I just yelled WHO RAH.:biggrin: :biggrin:
Totally Unaceptable: My Inner Neanderthal reared it's ugly head again. I need to seek counciling.......maybe join a Focus Group or something and promise to be more tolerant of those who are MOST Tolerant.. :yes: :yes: John
In '59, we were in Norfolk, Va, having been stationed at Pearl Harbor, and Subic Bay, via San Diego. :)

DonziJon
04-14-2009, 09:14 PM
In '59, we were in Norfolk, Va, having been stationed at Pearl Harbor, and Subic Bay, via San Diego. :)

I transferred to Norfolk in summer 1960 from Great Lakes. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. No Liberty. Fire up the boilers and wait for orders.

Got transferred out in spring 1964 up to SuBase, New London. John

roadtrip se
04-14-2009, 09:54 PM
of what our services did to stop the pirates. Most of the country is, and God knows we can use some good news.

Ghost, I'll take "paranoid' back and just run with negative. And a bit of a downer, too. I'll back up Tony and Boxy for calling it out.

When I think of somebody who served and made me proud to be associated with him and know him, it would be Digger. He was always postive and respectful. He would have never posted the negative BS and then hide behind his service to the country, like it gave him a free pass.

Too bad Digger doesn't frequent here any more. Ironically, I think some of his departure had to do with attack dog political discussions like this one and others like it posted here recently.

Cuda
04-14-2009, 10:02 PM
I transferred to Norfolk in summer 1960 from Great Lakes. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. No Liberty. Fire up the boilers and wait for orders.
Got transferred out in spring 1964 up to SuBase, New London. John
I think dad was on maneuvers out of Panama City during the missle crisis.

Ghost
04-15-2009, 02:54 AM
There's been plenty of debate of various kinds here. I think some more interesting speculation would be, well, more interesting.

If you consider betting your life savings at even money that lightning will strike Alex Trebek in the next hour (pretty damned unlikely), there is a two by two matrix of scenarios:

bet it all & lightning doesn't zap Trebek: bad decision, bad outcome
bet it all & it does zap him: bad decision, good outcome
don't bet & lightning doesn't strike him: good decision, bad outcome
don't bet & it does: good decision, good outcome
The point is that all decisions are made in the face of uncertainty. You have to make sense of the best course as best you can. And sometimes you make the wrong choice and get lucky, and sometimes you make the right choice and get unlucky.

With that in mind, SUPPOSE Obama, the Navy, etc. had done exactly what they actually did. But things went wrong, and we end up with a dead captain, one dead Seal, two dead pirates, a wounded one captured, and one captured unharmed.

IF that were the outcome, it leaves the questions:

what would you think about Obama's and the Navy's choices?
what would the public think?
what do the Dems and Reps say?
what does the press say?
With an outcome like we had, it's easy for all to line up in lockstep and celebrate a relatively clean win. But differing reactions would almost certainly be more likely if the outcome were not a clean win. But I wonder how different they would be.

I know it may be a tough one to answer fully honestly, but if anyone wants to take a shot, I'm curious what you think. I have my answer written, but I will hold off and try not to put ideas in people's heads. I also have taken a guess at what others will think, which I'm willing to share later. (If people want me to prove my honesty, I can send it somewhere in advance.) Please understand I don't want to start a big argument--I think just individual opinions will accomplish about as much alone as would a lot of debate on this one. Just seems interesting to me.

Regards,

Mike

Cuda
04-15-2009, 03:46 AM
Obama should have come on tv to broadcast "Mission Accomplished".

BigGrizzly
04-15-2009, 07:51 AM
Well boys and girls the Pirates attacked another American ship, but did not board it, WHY do you think the boarding did not occur. Maybe they were paranoid. Just to add to Poodles comment. When it comes to the Seals, Special forces, Rangers Snipers and the others, Failure is not in their vocabulary nor is it an option their heads. The word missed doesn't exist. Trust me on this 100 feet or 100 yards it makes no difference. Remember when a Seal hears the word Captain, it means something.

BUIZILLA
04-15-2009, 08:20 AM
Well boys and girls the Pirates attacked another American ship, but did not board it, WHY do you think the boarding did not occur. Maybe they were paranoid. the ship shot back in this instance...

BigGrizzly
04-15-2009, 08:56 AM
BUIZ, this surprises you. The maritime law does not say you can't have personal protection. But a deck mounted cannon is what it is referring to. Its not my fault that my side arm is a AR 15. So 22 guys with small arms can be a good deterrent. Its like the high school bully beating o n the little guy.

zelatore
04-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Obama should have come on tv to broadcast "Mission Accomplished".

Joe, that's the funniest thing you've written in a long time! :rlol:

zelatore
04-15-2009, 10:21 AM
With that in mind, SUPPOSE Obama, the Navy, etc. had done exactly what they actually did. But things went wrong, and we end up with a dead captain, one dead Seal, two dead pirates, a wounded one captured, and one captured unharmed.

IF that were the outcome, it leaves the questions:

what would you think about Obama's and the Navy's choices?
what would the public think?
what do the Dems and Reps say?
what does the press say?
With an outcome like we had, it's easy for all to line up in lockstep and celebrate a relatively clean win. But differing reactions would almost certainly be more likely if the outcome were not a clean win. But I wonder how different they would be.

I know it may be a tough one to answer fully honestly, but if anyone wants to take a shot, I'm curious what you think. I have my answer written, but I will hold off and try not to put ideas in people's heads. I also have taken a guess at what others will think, which I'm willing to share later. (If people want me to prove my honesty, I can send it somewhere in advance.) Please understand I don't want to start a big argument--I think just individual opinions will accomplish about as much alone as would a lot of debate on this one. Just seems interesting to me.

Regards,

Mike

I'll play.

Let's start by reiterating we can only speculate and this exercise is more informative about those writing than those being written about.

So, let's assume Obama gave the order and something went wrong as outlined above.

what would you think about Obama's and the Navy's choices?
Good decision, bad outcome. Again, since it didn't actaully happen this way you can't be sure, but I think I'd have even supported W. had he made this decision. And most of you know I was no fan of his, so I would have to look past my personal issues with him even it it was begrudginly. To make light of it, sort of like I can say the CTS-V is a damn nice car even though I don't like GM.

what would the public think?
Right now it looks like overwhelming support. Had things gone wrong, I think we would have more descent, but perhaps not as much as has been implied for two reasons. First, (positive thinking) the public was really up in arms about the pirates attacking a US ship, so this would temper anger if a rescue mission went south. Second, (negative thinking, at least among some) Obama still has huge public support in general and that would further temper the bad news.

what do the Dems and Reps say?
Most of the Dems line up behind Obama in support. I'll further say the majority do it more out of party loyalty than actual support of the mission. A few speak out against it. Again, the majority of that few doing it not because they were against the mission but because they see a chance to make headlines.

Most of the Reps jump up and down demanding Obama's head on a stick, claiming this is an example of how he doesn't understand the military. Many of this group don't actually believe this but are just following the party line that anything a Democrat does is a mistake. A few of the more outspoken among them try to play this into an impeachment (I have no idea how, but it seems like the Republican party likes to blow everything up into a call for impeachment recently). A few stand up and support Obama's action because they truly feel this was the right course regardless of the bad outcome.

what does the press say?
The press splits 60/40 pro Obama. Most here would tell you the press is totally in bed with the Dems. Perhaps. More than that though the press rides the public sentiment. During the last election it was popular to be anti-W and by extension anti-Rep. Most of the media rode that tide to good ratings. At this point, they are largely still pro-Obama if not pro Dem. Most of the talking heads say he made the right call under tough conditions but things went south. A minority, although a large one, say he made a mistake. Fox calls for impeachment.

With an outcome like we had, it's easy for all to line up in lockstep and celebrate a relatively clean win.
Easy, yes. In fact, I think the country as a whole wanted - perhaps even needed - a good reason to celebrate. With current economic conditions combined with the nature of people to want to rally together, this was just the sort of public 'win' we needed. In the big picture 3 dead pirates means relatively little. But this could be a springboard for more positive public sentiment over-all. Not logical, but stranger things have happened. Or more likely the whole thing will be forgotten when the media finds the next big thing to latch on too. Sandra Kantu anybody?

Ghost
04-15-2009, 04:53 PM
I'm pretty close with you Z. Appreciate your thoughts, and taking the time to explain why.

My own answers:
Good decision, bad outcome.
A. Most of the public are simply sympathetic and still think the choices by Obama and the Navy were good, with unfortunate outcomes.
B. A very few Democrats splinter and say it was stupid to use violence, should have paid the ransom, blah blah blah.
C. A few more in the left of the press do the same, certainly second guess a lot.
D. The right sticks by the Navy’s choices staunchly, but some conservative press and pols alike start asking about what Obama’s real role was, and if he really let the Navy make the calls or if he intervened in ways we don’t know about. No one ever learns.

My predictions of others’ answers:
My instinct is that everyone else will, believe it or not, say about the same. But the further left they lean, the more they may tend to overlook some of B&C. The further right they lean, the more they may overlook D.

(I will, however, always be curious about D anyhow, even in our current, far happier outcome. In part because the FBI negotiator was sent, and because of some of the legal system vs. terrorism lines parties were already walking. I suspect Obama may have intervened briefly, to think about what he wanted to do. And I’m not saying that is right or wrong. But I simply doubt the Navy would have asked the FBI in, so I suspect there was some White House guidance, or hedging, for a little while, before turning the Navy loose. But it was vital never to let that appear to be the case from a negotiation standpoint, as well as being clever from a political/hedging one.)

DonziJon
04-15-2009, 06:55 PM
IMHO: Here's the deal: Obamas Instructions to the CO of the Bainbridge ..."If the Ship Captain seems to be in imminent danger, do what ever you have to do to protect"... (ie: Take the Shot) ........or something to that effect......

This language from Obamas order was specifically worded to give the CO of the Bainbridge latitude to do whatever HE...the CO thought was necessary....under the "Presidents Stated Conditions for engagement".....which... Would Be Open to Interpretation after the fact...therby giving Obama cover if whatever path that was taken didn't work out. John

BTW: The Navy Seals were dropped from BLACK Helicopters. :yes:

TBroccoli
04-15-2009, 08:46 PM
Amazing outcome. and thanks. I enjoy reading all the comments. i understood most of them but am lost with the comment "BLACK helicopters" Please explain. From: proud United States Merchant Marine; Acta non Verba.

CJmike
04-15-2009, 09:39 PM
How you guys turn a great act by some amazing people into a 5 page political discussion blows me away. I was Army but in the case I fully support the Navy Seals. I think this was a great moment for us.

But I really think this board should be less about politics and more about Donzi's.

Cuda
04-16-2009, 04:41 AM
How you guys turn a great act by some amazing people into a 5 page political discussion blows me away. I was Army but in the case I fully support the Navy Seals. I think this was a great moment for us.

But I really think this board should be less about politics and more about Donzi's.
Just because we have a common hobby (Donzi), doesn't preclude us from having other opinions. After all, how many times can you debate which oil is best? :)

Ghost
04-16-2009, 05:04 AM
How you guys turn a great act by some amazing people into a 5 page political discussion blows me away. I was Army but in the case I fully support the Navy Seals. I think this was a great moment for us.

But I really think this board should be less about politics and more about Donzi's.

I agree, the Navy really got it done, and I commend the President for doing his part to enable this.


Just because we have a common hobby (Donzi), doesn't preclude us from having other opinions. After all, how many times can you debate which oil is best? :)

Peanut rules!

gcarter
04-16-2009, 06:57 AM
I'll play.

Let's start by reiterating we can only speculate and this exercise is more informative about those writing than those being written about.

So, let's assume Obama gave the order and something went wrong as outlined above.

what would you think about Obama's and the Navy's choices?
Good decision, bad outcome. Again, since it didn't actaully happen this way you can't be sure, but I think I'd have even supported W. had he made this decision. And most of you know I was no fan of his, so I would have to look past my personal issues with him even it it was begrudginly. To make light of it, sort of like I can say the CTS-V is a damn nice car even though I don't like GM.

what would the public think?
Right now it looks like overwhelming support. Had things gone wrong, I think we would have more descent, but perhaps not as much as has been implied for two reasons. First, (positive thinking) the public was really up in arms about the pirates attacking a US ship, so this would temper anger if a rescue mission went south. Second, (negative thinking, at least among some) Obama still has huge public support in general and that would further temper the bad news.

what do the Dems and Reps say?
Most of the Dems line up behind Obama in support. I'll further say the majority do it more out of party loyalty than actual support of the mission. A few speak out against it. Again, the majority of that few doing it not because they were against the mission but because they see a chance to make headlines.

Most of the Reps jump up and down demanding Obama's head on a stick, claiming this is an example of how he doesn't understand the military. Many of this group don't actually believe this but are just following the party line that anything a Democrat does is a mistake. A few of the more outspoken among them try to play this into an impeachment (I have no idea how, but it seems like the Republican party likes to blow everything up into a call for impeachment recently). A few stand up and support Obama's action because they truly feel this was the right course regardless of the bad outcome.

what does the press say?
The press splits 60/40 pro Obama. Most here would tell you the press is totally in bed with the Dems. Perhaps. More than that though the press rides the public sentiment. During the last election it was popular to be anti-W and by extension anti-Rep. Most of the media rode that tide to good ratings. At this point, they are largely still pro-Obama if not pro Dem. Most of the talking heads say he made the right call under tough conditions but things went south. A minority, although a large one, say he made a mistake. Fox calls for impeachment.

With an outcome like we had, it's easy for all to line up in lockstep and celebrate a relatively clean win.
Easy, yes. In fact, I think the country as a whole wanted - perhaps even needed - a good reason to celebrate. With current economic conditions combined with the nature of people to want to rally together, this was just the sort of public 'win' we needed. In the big picture 3 dead pirates means relatively little. But this could be a springboard for more positive public sentiment over-all. Not logical, but stranger things have happened. Or more likely the whole thing will be forgotten when the media finds the next big thing to latch on too. Sandra Kantu anybody?

For anyone here w/a short memory, this has already happened.
The late '70's and the end of Carter's term. Similar economic conditions. The Iranians held our diplomats hostage. The military makes an attempt to rescue and the outcome couldn't have been any worse. If I remember correctly, the rescue helicopters flew into each other in the dark in the desert. There we were w/egg on our face asking the Iranians for permission to rescue our troops and material from their territory.
I distinctly remember how ashamed I was of the administration.
Carter was a president who placed "human rights" of third world countries ahead of the good of our own country. I don't believe he ever met a Left wing dictator that he didn't love. He would give away the keys to our military to further some unobtainable blue sky accord w/the Russians, Chinese, and any Central or South American Comunist dictator. He loved the Sandinistas, and didn't mind at all that the Russians were building a supply chain in the Carribean.
I believe Carter had a lot of the same desire to be liked and loved by the world that Obama does.
That desire got our butts kicked.

f_inscreenname
04-16-2009, 03:57 PM
For anyone here w/a short memory, this has already happened.
The late '70's and the end of Carter's term. Similar economic conditions. The Iranians held our diplomats hostage. The military makes an attempt to rescue and the outcome couldn't have been any worse. If I remember correctly, the rescue helicopters flew into each other in the dark in the desert. There we were w/egg on our face asking the Iranians for permission to rescue our troops and material from their territory.
I distinctly remember how ashamed I was of the administration.
Carter was a president who placed "human rights" of third world countries ahead of the good of our own country. I don't believe he ever met a Left wing dictator that he didn't love. He would give away the keys to our military to further some unobtainable blue sky accord w/the Russians, Chinese, and any Central or South American Comunist dictator. He loved the Sandinistas, and didn't mind at all that the Russians were building a supply chain in the Carribean.
I believe Carter had a lot of the same desire to be liked and loved by the world that Obama does.
That desire got our butts kicked.


This is the exact reason I'm a Reagan republican and always will be.

http://www.supernova19.com/forumcw/Smileys/classic/offtopic.gif

DonziJon
04-16-2009, 06:08 PM
GO NAVY: For those of you who have never served. TEAMWORK. :) :)

BTW: Can any of you gun experts identify that weapon? Just wondering. John

boxy
04-16-2009, 07:00 PM
Jon, you might be typing, but all I'm hearing is .....


"I got my shins blowed off by a Japan-Man's machine gun, so don't come cryin' to me with your problems!"

"Sorry I'm late. I had to stop by the wax museum again and give the finger to FDR."

Cuda
04-16-2009, 08:21 PM
I actually don't think Carter was a bad president, just a naive president.