stupid is as stupid does

Don't be stupid, of course they're easy to find. Just look for the guys with the eye patches and parrots on their shoulders. :winkwink:

There is actually a simple solution. Send Danza down there. He'll have them all cleared out in a matter of hours.

Yea, Tony Danza or Omorosa from Celebrity Apprentice!

what happened to good ole cannons? :(

heh figures

dad . . . . ?

For years we had a no fly zone in Iraq.

Now we need no sail zones. If any unauthorized boat is spotted in these areas, a drone takes them out no questions asked.

Then you put military forces and private security firms on protecting passageways closer to land.

thats what im thinkin too

You seem to know everything. Even more than the CIA. They should put you in charge, and we could send over a stern warning on lavender stationery with little hearts on it.

I'm pretty sure that the CIA is very aware of the UN reports and such on this matter. If they're not, that's not my fault.

Here's a suggestion. I know it's a little wild and out there, and not quite popular these days, but you should try it nonetheless: read.

I realize that facts and figures in studies and reports aren't quite as accessible and entertaining as a random talking head on Fox News, but really, they tend to provide rather more information.

As a random aside, why do you and your ilk always assume that carefully analyzing a situation before taking action is the "soft approach"? Decisively taking action by doing something utterly ineffective is dumb. Only idiots do that.

What matters is efficiency. Sometimes that requires a few well-placed bombs, sometimes it requires several months of negotiations. Neither is the answer to everything.

you're right. Options should be explored.

But the bombs will be the only answer these animals will understand. I have a feeling.

Seems more like the ONLY answer you have.... Bombs.. or Bombs :ak47:

Pirates are always bad.

Who do you want to bomb?

The grunts? They're expendable. Their bosses have an endless pool of replacements.

The organized gangsters orchestrating some of the attacks? They're well-hidden, tracking them down would be extremely costly, and a good number of their financiers are abroad.

The warlords orchestrating some other attacks? They're easier to find, but their spots are quickly taken by others, and weakening them strengthens the islamists.

The government members suspected to be involved in some attacks? Lack of proof would ensure international outrage, and more importantly, they're the ones the US is trying to support to keep the islamists from gaining power.

Again, look at the war on drugs. Billions of dollars have been poured into it, and it has been pretty much entirely ineffective. The issue here is similar, only in this case, the criminals are actually operating in a truly lawless country.

Sure, regular airstrikes would suppress the issue a bit. But the decreased quantity of incidents would in all likelihood come at the cost of an increased severity of incidents. Fewer ships would get attacked, but more hostages would be killed. And billions of dollars would have to be spent to achieve that questionable trade-off.