Modern Piracy on the High Seas

Mr T said:

pla101prc, if there were a large number of unemployed people in an area, with no benefits and no prospect of jobs, who robbed and kidnapped those who had to travel through on their way to work, are you telling me that would be fine because they needed something to do? What if it was a member of your family - you wouldn't call the Police?!

Every part of the world's oceans should be safe to use (bar nature's influence) just as parts of a country should be safe to travel through. They're not always, but that's why it's acceptable for security forces to take action to make them safe.

It's true that many of these pirates break the law because there's little else to do, but if you take the view that they shouldn't be stopped because of that then you're saying poor people should never be arrested by the Police because they only do it because they're poor. Really that's a completely unsustainable position. You have to apply the law otherwise it will encourage people who could do something else but see crime/piracy as a way of making money easily and quickly to join in.

Click to expand...

y dont you read my comments before commenting on them?where did i say that the military shouldnt be there? i am saying that we dont have to be such hypocrits and try to "justify" this BS. its all politics, politicians dont make decisions base on what's right, we are playing by the rules that are drawn out by the major powers anyways. i studied this stuff all my life, i talked to many professors and fellow classmates about political issues including this one, i have not come across one person that would go straight to the international law and tell me that's y the campaign was initiated.

international law is a tool of the major powers because they are the only ones that can "enforce" it. countries like the US can just ignore that stuff when it does not work in their favour. so while it is valid to bring up this stuff to address the pirate issue, such action must be backed with political interests. nothing gets done without the motivation of political interests. if you are gonna base your analysis on laws then you'll never be able to understand how the international system really works

Defeating the Barbary Pirates required the occupation of their homelands, which the French did, killing about a quarter of the population.
These Pirates wont simply go away imho.

Mightypeon said:

Defeating the Barbary Pirates required the occupation of their homelands, which the French did, killing about a quarter of the population.
These Pirates wont simply go away imho.

Click to expand...

that's not what they want. if pirates are wiped out, then what reasons do the navies have to stay there? it works the same way as afghanistan, the americans dont really wanna kill every taliban, because if they do it means they have to leave...its strategically foolish.

this is the perfect status quo, just have enough pirates to keep the navies there, but not so much that would threaten the commercial lines

Gents..this thread is about pirates. Not Afghanistan or Iraq. Knock it off. Return to the subject at hand. Pirates.

bd popeye super moderator

Mightypeon said:

Defeating the Barbary Pirates required the occupation of their homelands, which the French did, killing about a quarter of the population.
These Pirates wont simply go away imho.

Click to expand...

I don't know if that is entirely true. The Barbary Pirates were deterred by from further piracy against US ships by the USNs Barbary expeditions, and they didn't bother the British (strongest navy in the world) either IIRC, so a firm naval presence protecting ships and punishing them for their actions did suffice to stop them. France invaded for more traditional colonial reasons (basic conquest lust, wanting markets, etc. etc.).

So the lesson to take from the history of the Barbary Pirates is that if you want to stop the pirates you have to go to the source and hit them hard. Although that might not work as well in Somalia because the pirates aren't centrally controlled. Furthermore, the Barbary Pirates were far more dangerous and deadly than the Somalis; they killed people and kiddnapped them for life as slaves frequently. The Somalis have a much better record of treating their captives well and negotiating in good faith.

USN/USCG team capture Somali pirates.


hi-res


hi-res


hi-res

Be sure to use the hi-res link(download) to see the pirate boat up close and personal.

GULF OF ADEN (May 13, 2009) Members of a visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) team from the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64) and U.S. Coast Guard Tactical Law Enforcement Team South Detachment 409 capture Seventeen suspected pirates after responding to a merchant vessel distress signal while operating in the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) area of responsibility as part of Combined Task Force (CTF) 151. CTF 151 is a multinational task force established to conduct counter-piracy operations under a mission-based mandate throughout the CMF area of responsibility to actively deter, disrupt and suppress piracy in order to protect global maritime security and secure freedom of navigation for the benefit of all nations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Eric L. Beauregard/Released)

Click to expand...

What did they do with the ship? (if you could call that hunk of junk a ship). Sink it? Leave someone on board? Tow it? What?

From what I get:
-The barbary priates happily raided British Malta when the royal navy was somewhere else.
-They also raided US ships after US interventions. However, at this times there werent that many US ships under US flag around
-They raided even friggin Iceland

Their defeat had 2 reasons:
1: Telegraph systems allowed message to travel faster than the pirates did
2: France occupied and brutalised their homeland
3: The Ottoman empire (former protector of the Berbers) ceased to be a great power

Considering the "US intervention": the US went in, got one of their ships captured, managed to blow that ship up, overthrew a minor chief and in the end payed a ransom.
I highly doubt that this was in any way instrumental to the end of the berber pirates, who were usually undeterred by France or Spain blowing up their cities or English and Portugese (in a joint action) blockading Gibraltar.

Mightypeon said:

From what I get:
-The barbary priates happily raided British Malta when the royal navy was somewhere else.
-They also raided US ships after US interventions. However, at this times there werent that many US ships under US flag around
-They raided even friggin Iceland

Their defeat had 2 reasons:
1: Telegraph systems allowed message to travel faster than the pirates did
2: France occupied and brutalised their homeland
3: The Ottoman empire (former protector of the Berbers) ceased to be a great power

Considering the "US intervention": the US went in, got one of their ships captured, managed to blow that ship up, overthrew a minor chief and in the end payed a ransom.
I highly doubt that this was in any way instrumental to the end of the berber pirates, who were usually undeterred by France or Spain blowing up their cities or English and Portugese (in a joint action) blockading Gibraltar.

Click to expand...

I thought that the US minor victory against the pirates was the turning point in the power of the pirates, and opened the eye's of the rest of Europe that the pirates could be defeated.

The pirates got military defeated on a fairly regular basis (and since the US payed tribute, which is worse than a white peace, I would label the affair as a Berber victory to be honest), the main mediterran (France Spain Portugal)nations simply didnt care enough, and for a long time there was the Ottoman Empire to contend with.

Italy was a non issue due to beeing splintered, Austria had no significant navy, and France and Spain were playing a 400 year long game of "bribe the Berbers to attack the other".

Another point was that the berber coast is not exactly the most valuable real estate, (think of Iraq without Oil) basically, the damages done by the pirates were lower than the amount of resources required to sbjugate them (especially at a time where the Ottomans were going strong).

On the subject of the Ottomans, while they, like Spain, lacked a bit in power projection (although they did tangle with the Portugese for East africa and India), their navy was, until the 18th century, a force to be recknocked with inside of the Med. Also, the ottomans enjoyed good relations to Poland, Sweden, Prussia and to an extent France (basically to every country that is able/willing to annoy the habsburgs, one a side note, the Polish intervention during the Siege of Vienna which saved the Habsburg is a main contender for historys most unrewarded good deed).

Historically, Anglo Ottoman relations were not that bad either...