from Mike Adams:
The recent rise in Somali piracy confuses me. It confuses me because I cannot imagine entering waters near the coast of Africa without enough firepower to arm a small third-world nation. It confuses me as much as that home security commercial that features a burglar breaking into the home of a married couple. You know the one where the wife gets a call from another man at security headquarters who promises to send someone to help. Meanwhile the husband locks himself in a closet and hopes for the best.
When that husband eventually comes out of the closet he might as well have his genitals surgically removed. When his wife realizes he can’t defend her against an intruder she probably isn’t going to risk the possibility of procreation. Some genes just weren’t meant to survive.
I don’t fish as often as I did in the Texas Gulf Coast in the 1970s. But I do get an occasional invite to go deep sea fishing off the Carolina coast with three good friends. Two of these friends work in a national security capacity for the federal government (please pardon the pseudonyms). So it should go without saying that we have the hardware and skills to defeat a small (or large) band of pirates whenever we venture into the Atlantic Ocean. We don’t have any evidence of piracy off the Carolina coast. But we all subscribe to the belief that it is better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one.
How about a nice, simple notice to governments receiving food and medical aid:
"Our ships carrying the aid are armed. This may consist only of small arms for the crew or a security squad, or they may have something heavier. This is purely for defense against pirates. If you are so bothered by this that you will not allow them to make port in your country, then you do not get any aid."