The Patriot Files Forums

The Patriot Files Forums (http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Posts (http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=83)
-   -   Pirates/Terrorist (http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108900)

39mto39g 04-14-2009 11:41 AM

Pirates/Terrorist
 
Were so scared because Navy killed 3 and captures one. That, in one day they took over 4 more ships. Well, I guess that a small show of force dosen't work, so maybe a bigger show would be in order. I recommend a battleship and one 16inch gun to their 5 man dingy, But that's just me.

Ron

PHO127 04-14-2009 03:59 PM

Just wish we would kick some ass without
 
worrying what others might think. Pirates, send in a couple of figates a couple of Coast Guard Cutters. A battalion of Marines and let them just kick some Somali ass, sink every Somali dingy in sight. Leave the bodies for shark bait and then negotiate.

Shoot first Ask questions later.

Dosen't anyone in charge have any balls anymore??

Arrow 04-14-2009 07:33 PM

Navy Seal/Pirate T-shirt on Rangerup Website
 
Mouse click on shirt to get larger view.

http://www.rangerup.com/navysealpirate.html

siabaa 04-16-2009 11:47 PM

Question.
 
Is it true that other nations, (not the US) mostly European Countries, have dumped toxic waste in a portion of the large Somalian coast?

Is it true that untouched by toxic waste portions of the coast and previously Somalian territorial waters are being over fished by other countries? (Not the US)

Is it true that most Somalian's support pirates, not for the kidnapping of innocents, but for their attacks on those vessels that steal fish and dump trash? (Not the US)

Is it true that some Somalian pirates take innocent vessels traveling through in order to provide aid, conduct trade, and do other business that is innocent and respectable?


Do the pirates who attack the vessels attempting to trade or deliver aid deserve to die? I think yes. If those vessels are piloted, manned, or US in origin... do I support using US assets to secure our trade vessels, aid delivery vessels and citizens engaged in respectable business? Yes.

Do I support the US (supposeing all above is true) defending scum and bottom suckers who take advantage of a government less country to rid themselves of wastes or over fish a region? No.

Where am I wrong in this? *note honest question. Please don't belittle me or attack my person. Just correct my views where they are in error.*

Boats 04-17-2009 08:46 AM

Siabaa - you gotta chill a little
 
I don't disagree - but Nations and Locals have to police their own - in order to stop pollution. Water resources are always subject to pollution in every country. People have no respect or think of the long term ramifications of this until - everyone is sick. Your anger is correct but those nations have to step up and ensure the public health - to correct this wrong doing.

The pirate issue - shoot'em all - once they know this will happen many will not put to sea - knowing if they attempt to pirate a vessel their lives will become fish food. Now that's more pollution but what the hell.

Todays issues are our kids issues and their kids and soforth. It's not going to get any better until those people "we" put in office stop taking backish (under the table monies) and do what they were elected to do.

You youngsters have more addrenulin then I do now at my age. But believe me many of us know where your coming from. We beat the bushes in our day and now you guys have to beat the bushes in our place. Don't misunderstand my words. We who are the older generation are exhausted - by trying to make things better. The system is such that it overwhelming how little we can really change without a major overhaul.

I appreicate your recognition of the facts but Nations have to stand up to the people's issues and react not wait until the world is at war or our population is suffering from lack of good food and drinking water.

Go forward young man and take your lumps like the rest of us. These battles go on and on and little changes - so the frustration sets in and the anger builds up. We know.

locksly 04-17-2009 04:54 PM

I think I know one way that's sure to work.......But what do I know?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515986,00.html
_________________________

[quote=Dilligaf].50 BMG

'Nuff said.

Originally Posted By: MUP
Originally Posted By: Locksley
Originally Posted By: JCDEERMAN
"gunpowder and lead" - that's all you need



Originally Posted By: rdl65
A well placed round from a .50cal should do the trick.




Originally Posted By: iowavf
That's like hunting bear with a 22, all you're going to do is rile him up.







Originally Posted By: Hogbear
Nothing against the fine crew of the USS Bainbridge, but the pirates in their small fast boats using satellite comm can hit and run before a destroyer can get there to help. The Navy needs to send an LHA or LHD or two over to the region if they can't spare a big carrier. A few harriers and cobras launched off the amphib assault ships would be able to quickly get on station and deal with pirates. Would love to see what a GAU-12 gun or maverick missile would do to a boat full of pirates...




The answer is simple and is sitting empty right now. The conventionally powered aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk is sitting in the mothball fleet right now and there is nothing wrong with it.They just recently placed it there . The Kitty Hawk carried helicopters in the Iraq invashion and in the Desert Shild/Desert storm operation also. The carrier is not being used by navy avation so use it for Army helicopters and or Marine helicoptors and shoot every Pirate ship in the area with gun ship fire. Oh by the way the conventionally powered aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk is as fast as any nuclear ship as it has supperheater steam going to its turbines. This would cost a lot less than building any new ships and the Army and Marine reserve and National Guard units would get plenty of training this way, and it would be a good place to have navy Seals waiting at. The Navy and Army need to be made to operate together more so as to build a better military.
Locksley
Locksley


As they say, ding ding ding! We have a winner! Excellent strategy Locksley!


The Japanese were maintaining the Kitty Hawk in there yards for years and with all this stuff happening now I bet they would be glad to do the maintenance on her again . The Japanese have no carriers and can not have any by law so this would give them a chance to send hellicoptors to this trouble spot for the entire world and do their duty . Two AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN THAT FAR EAST AREA ARE BETTER THAN ONE , KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Locksley
Locksley
_________________________
Retirement

The USS Kitty Hawk in port at Pearl Harbor after participating in RIMPAC exercises in place of the damaged George Washington.On 1 December 2005, the United States Navy announced that USS George Washington would replace Kitty Hawk in 2008 as the forward-deployed carrier in Japan and it would also assume host carrier duties for forward deployed Carrier Air Wing 5.[16]

In March 2007, the Navy announced that Captain Todd Zecchin, the captain responsible during the decommissioning of the USS John F. Kennedy, had been tasked with overseeing the decommissioning of Kitty Hawk.[17]

The Kitty Hawk left Yokosuka on 28 May 2008 to begin the decommissioning process. [18]. However on 22 May, a fire seriously damaged George Washington, causing the ship to go to San Diego, California for repairs. The Kitty Hawk participated in the RIMPAC exercise near Hawaii in George Washington's place. The turnover between the two carriers was postponed and took place in August.[19] After the turnover, Kitty Hawk arrived at Bremerton, Washington in September and was informally retired on 31 January 2009.[20] The ship has not yet been decommissioned.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV-63)


USS KITTY HAWK (CV 63)
(ex-CVA 63)
MULTI-PURPOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIER
UIC: 03363
Class: CV 63 Fleet: Pacific
Status: Active, in commission Homeport: BREMERTON, WA
Date status changed: 04/29/1961 Berth:
Maintenance Category:
Force: Battle Force MARAD Type:

Builder: NEW YORK SB CORP
Delivery Date: 04/01/1961
Award Date: 10/01/1955 Age (since delivery): 48.0 years
Keel Date: 12/27/1956 Commission Date: 04/29/1961
Launch Date: 05/21/1960 Inactivation Date:
Age (since launch) 48.9 years Decommission Date:
Years from Commission to Decommission:

Stricken Date:

Overall Length: 1069 ft Waterline Length: 990 ft
Extreme Beam: 282 ft Waterline Beam: 130 ft
Maximum Navigational Draft: 38 ft Draft Limit: 38 ft
Light Displacement: 60933 tons Full Displacement: 81780 tons
Dead Weight: 20847 tons
Hull Material: Steel hull, steel superstructure.
Number of Propellers: 4
Propulsion Type: Steam Turbines
Accommodations: Officers: 578 Enlisted: 5046


Remarks: KITTY HAWK, CV 63 HELD A LEGACY DECOMMISSIONING CERMONY ON 31 JAN 09.









Custodian: US NAVY Ships Program Manager:
Planning Yard:
_________________________
The unmaned aircraft can use the carrier also and they can hang around all day and all night without endangering a man , and can kill anything .

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...ue#Post1292386

39mto39g 04-18-2009 04:14 PM

The bigest bear taken in recorded history was taken with a 22.
The congress is just acting like that bear, "Take me if you can"
Well, here it comes.

Ron

1CAVCCO15MED 04-19-2009 12:31 PM

Are you advocating shooting members of Congress? That is treason.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.