SKorea storms Somali pirates to rescue ship crew

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stanmaxkolbe

Guest
SKorea storms Somali pirates to rescue ship crew

SEOUL, South Korea – South Korean special forces stormed a hijacked freighter in the Arabian Sea on Friday, rescuing all 21 crew members and killing eight assailants in a rare and bold raid on Somali pirates, South Korea said.

The military operation in waters between Oman and Africa, which also captured five pirates and left one crew member wounded, came a week after the Somali attackers seized the South Korean freighter and held hostage eight South Koreans, two Indonesians and 11 citizens from Myanmar.

“We will not tolerate any behavior that threatens the lives and safety of our people in the future,” South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said in a brief televised statement, adding that the rescue was a “perfect operation.”
Read rest of article:
foxnews.com/world/2011/01/20/somali-pirates-seize-ship-vietnamese-crew/
 
**WAY TO GO, SPECIAL FORCES OF SOUTH KOREA! **

You guys gave those Somali pirates a real ‘butt kicking’! OORAH!

I love it when ‘the good guys’ win! 👍 😃 🙂
 
Three days earlier, the South Korean destroyer which had been following the hijacked ship saw a group of pirates leave the freighter and attempt to hijack a Mongolian-flagged ship .The South Koreans, using a helicopter and fast boat, were able to intercept the pirates and prevent the hijacking. Several pirates were believed killed.
latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-south-korea-rescue-20110122,0,4074767.story

So South Korea has done some good in the shipping lanes. But I have to wonder, how can a landlocked country like Mongolia be able to register ships? :o
 
Dale_M said:
But I have to wonder, how can a landlocked country like Mongolia be able to register ships? :o
Click to expand...
International law requires that every merchant ship be registered in a country, called its flag state. The country doesn’t have to be on an ocean or have an outlet to an ocean. A ship’s flag state simply exercises regulatory control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly, certify the ship’s equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution prevention documents.

There must be some financial reason why a company would choose to register its ships in a place like Mongolia.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
North Korean Special Forces are pretty tough, too. Tangling with the guys on either side of the 38th Parallel can leave you hurting! 😉
Click to expand...
No doubt, but remember how fierce the “Republican Guards” in Iraq were reputed to be? If their heart is not in their fight, they fold. South Koreans have much more faith in, and less fear of, their government. And, South Korea is about 50% Christian at this time. Military service is compulsory, so potentially half of the South Korean military could be Christian, which lends principle to their fight.

However, this exercise served two clear purposes: The rescue of South Korean (and other) citizens, and that South Korea will use military force, if needed, to accomplish it. This may have been the experience and morale-building exercise that was needed for what lies ahead. In over 100 years, Korea has only experienced true peace since the US presence there.
 
po18guy said:
No doubt, but remember how fierce the “Republican Guards” in Iraq were reputed to be? If their heart is not in their fight, they fold.
Click to expand...
That’s not true of Koreans, north or south. North Korean commandos etc. are as good as any in the south. Furthermore, U.S. estimates of their forces do not rate them lowly.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
That’s not true of Koreans, north or south. North Korean commandos etc. are as good as any in the south. Furthermore, U.S. estimates of their forces do not rate them lowly.
Click to expand...
You are correct in your assessment of the Koreans (North and South) being militarily formidable. Another war there will be terrible.
 
I heard someone suggest at one time that if we took the multi-national naval flotilla that is patrolling the pirate-infested waters off the eastern coast of Africa and organized it to escort convoys of merchant vessels that the effect would be a deterrent to to these modern-day Blackbeards.
 
Cactus said:
I heard someone suggest at one time that if we took the multi-national naval flotilla that is patrolling the pirate-infested waters off the eastern coast of Africa and organized it to escort convoys of merchant vessels that the effect would be a deterrent to to these modern-day Blackbeards.
Click to expand...
I think I remember at the time a man who I tend to not like at all - Glenn Beck - suggested that we send in the Marines, citing Jefferson’s use of them in stopping piracy in his day? I could be mistaken.
 
grampben said:
I think I remember at the time a man who I tend to not like at all - Glenn Beck - suggested that we send in the Marines, citing Jefferson’s use of them in stopping piracy in his day? I could be mistaken.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s the origin of the “to the shores of Tripoli” part of the Marine Corps anthem. If I recall the history, Jefferson was not content simply to stop them at sea, but accomplished a land invasion.

Since the decline of British or American imperialism, there’s nobody left who is able or willing
to go in and change rogue regimes for the sake of international order. Not that I’m advocating bringing it back.
 
Cactus said:
I heard someone suggest at one time that if we took the multi-national naval flotilla that is patrolling the pirate-infested waters off the eastern coast of Africa and organized it to escort convoys of merchant vessels that the effect would be a deterrent to to these modern-day Blackbeards.
Click to expand...
The ship owners would not stand for it. Even worse the early days of both world wars having a ship stand idle while a convoy gathers is not seen as economically feasible so they will attempt to run the pirate danger spots depending upon the vastness of the ocean to get them through.

Something like a Q ship or just a couple of Marines aboard with a guided missile to take out an attacking fast boat is all that is needed. But since the merchant seamen along with the “flags” on the ships come from Mongolia and not the USA, well Mongolia doesn’t see it in its interest to recruit their own people or even something like the French Foreign Legion to protect “Mongolian” shipping.

But I guess a Gurka or French Foreign Legion equivalent would be seen as mercenaries even though other nations hire out battalions as UN “Peace Keepers”
 
JimG said:
Well, that’s the origin of the “to the shores of Tripoli” part of the Marine Corps anthem. If I recall the history, Jefferson was not content simply to stop them at sea, but accomplished a land invasion.

Since the decline of British or American imperialism, there’s nobody left who is able or willing
to go in and change rogue regimes for the sake of international order. Not that I’m advocating bringing it back.
Click to expand...
I would say Iraq was a good form of ‘imperialism’, and is a fundamentally better place now. Imperialist in that we spread liberal democracy, not in a territorial sense of course.
 
Below is an answer I posted to somebody who talked about American imperialism:

Now here is some real American history:

Views of American history, distort our present policies. Involvement in far-flung and unpopular conflicts doesn’t represent a recent innovation or the result of some conspiratorial takeover of U.S. foreign policy. American military involvement in remote corners of the globe characterized every stage of our emergence as a world power. The purpose of these conflicts and interventions has little connection to colonialism or conquest or empire building in the classical sense. More often the United States has done this for unselfish intentions. Regardless of the wisdom behind these frequent military or diplomatic initiatives, their overall, long-term impact most often benefited the peoples involved as well as the world at large.

Unlike other empires in human history, the powerful American sphere of influence has generally promoted the cause of both prosperity and liberty.

People forget the United States fought its first war against Islamic extremism more than two hundred years ago. This is where we get the first verse of the “Marines’ Hymn” “to the shores of Tripoli."

The first Barbary War (1801-5) lasted four years after President Thomas Jefferson sent the new Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American interests and honor. The semi-nations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli [today Libya] functioned like today’s State sponsors of terrorism backing ruthless pirates who devastated U.S. shipping until Washington paid lavish tribute to these local thugs.

The United States has a long-standing tradition of small wars or so-called low intensity conflicts. If you study U.S. military history it has a tradition of fighting small wars. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. The army and navy added a few small-scale engagements of their own. Some resulted in heavy casualties; others involved not fighting. Most of these campaigns were fought by a small number of professional soldiers. I can testify to this from some of the missions I was involved in though the 1970s -1990s.

I just want to scream when I hear not well educated on the subject or leftwing Hollywood stars, politicians and educated leftwing college professors totally distort the Bush administration Iraq policy saying this is the first time we have ever attacked a country without being attacked first. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest!
 
JimG said:
Well, that’s the origin of the “to the shores of Tripoli” part of the Marine Corps anthem. If I recall the history, Jefferson was not content simply to stop them at sea, but accomplished a land invasion.
Click to expand...
Two big differences - the Marine Corps is involved in a matter of far more importance in the Middle Easst than to be used as the local cop for other countries. If those nations are that interested in the safety of ships registered under their flags, let THEM send troops.

Secondly, At Tripoli, there were governments who directed those attacks, profited from them, and could be held responsible. The governments were not pirates themselves. Today, Somalia has no government worth speaking of, and to the extent that it has, such government has no control over those freebooting pirates.

Invading Somalia would require occupying the country, hardly something even our most zealous warhawks would want - especially when American flag ships are not the primary target of those fishermen-turned-half-as*ed pirates.

As far as I’m concerned, we should protect our own, and let the others, if they care to do so, protect their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top