This Pirate stuff is getting old...

[BruceB83]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_af/piracy

One thing kind of OT I noticed in this story...

"I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region and to achieve that goal, we're going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks," Obama told reporters Monday.

Note that the writers of that story changed a direct quote from Obama to fix his mistake. If that would have been Bush, or any republican for that matter, I seriously doubt they would have corrected him.

Anyways, back to the real topic...what is frustrating to me is the fact that these "pirates" (who really aren't like the old fashioned REAL treasure seeking-burying pirates) are not scared to board a ship flying the US flag. They should be scared out of their minds to even come within 1 mile of a US ship. Kill them all. That should be a clear message. "If we see you approaching us, you will die." End of story.

What, are we scared that the country of Somalia will retaliate? Yes, lets be afraid of the country basically run by a bunch of fatherless thugs! This time we'll go in without the UN.

[Jester99]

Honestly I don't understand why this is such a big deal at all. There are way more relevant, important and topical issues to be covered. I could care less about pirates. The captain and crew were rescued...great. Can we move on now?

[matt6669]

yeah but the problem is, they are now stating that any American that they capture they are immediately killing due to us killing 3 of their men while they tried to board our ships.

I totally agree, this whole new era of America and being soft is leading us down a road that is almost impossible if not impossible to get out of. Everyone knows that America has gone soft and will not use deadly force and now people are taking advantage of that. And with Obama in office, you definitely arn't going to see heavy force used in the next 4 yeras I can guarantee that.

[fscrig75]

What did they change?

[beakie]

outsiders opinion here,

1. "you definitely arn't going to see heavy force used in the next 4 yeras I can guarantee that"
3 'pirates' were killed, thats deadly force, what is considered "heavy force"?

2. "This time we'll go in without the UN"
It seems many could care less, but comments like that are part of the reason the perception of the USA is of a war mongering nation. I tend to defend the US when I see people bad mouth you, hoping that not everyone wants to 'invade' or 'correct' whatever THEY see as wrong with the world... but from an outside point of view, well its not that best attitude.

3. "There are way more relevant, important and topical issues to be covered. I could care less about pirates. The captain and crew were rescued...great. Can we move on now?"
I understand THIS situation is over, but there will be more. Either way not dwelling on it is better than wanting to 'kill them all'

[Darky]

I'd institute a zero tolerance policy for pirates. If a naval vessel sees them, it sinks them. Our freighters ought to be armed. As in guns and proper training for the crews. When it comes to defending our interests and people, I don't see where the UN should have a say. Now if we were talking about invading Somalia itself, then yes, we ought to get backing for that, unless it is a matter of extreme urgency.

[matt6669]

[quote=beakie;244356755]outsiders opinion here,

1. "you definitely arn't going to see heavy force used in the next 4 yeras I can guarantee that"
3 'pirates' were killed, thats deadly force, what is considered "heavy force"?

3 pirates being killed because they tried to board an american ship does not constitute deadly force to me. That is part of the navy seals jobs or more along the lines of the coast guard as well. I compare this to cops on an everyday basis. They try to diffuse the situation but if they can't deadly force is then used.

What I'm stating about is the lack of force that we are showing throughout our current war right now. If this was 30 years ago, this war would of been over already but all were doing is putting our men on the ground to act as a presence were really not doing anything to end the war thats the problem.

The problem is, sometimes innocent bystanders need to perish in the name of war. That comes with the territory thats why its war. But for some reason the new idea is instead lets put our men on the ground, and let these extremist keep killing our service men while we stand around and do nothing.

I could argue the point all day, its not going to change the way our govt is run, and its not going to change the opinion of people that don't agree with me. But the fact that the enemy knows that America is not going to retaliate with deadly force on a larger scale is whats turning this country to crap

Flame cap on

[IslanderOffRoad]

I'm proud of Obama for ordering the kill shot. There. I said it. And I hate the guy.

[x2elite]

I think its just plain ridiculous that the crews of commercial boats that travel in international waters cannot be armed. It is just ludacris to me. I think all of the countries that are having ships hijacked should band together in the UN to pass a resolution allowing them to arm their merchant ships.

[fscrig75]

I'm proud of Obama for ordering the kill shot. There. I said it. And I hate the guy.

Barry didn't order the shot. The WH can spin it anyway they want but the CPT of the Bainbridge(?) gave the order.

RichP is probably the Navy expert around here, but when I was on the boat, the squids made it seem like the CPT has authority to do almost anything.



...UN to pass a resolution allowing them to arm their merchant ships

When has the UN done anything? They didn't do anything for Bosnia for 4 years and damn near the same for Kosovo.

[IslanderOffRoad]

Barry didn't order the shot. The WH can spin it anyway they want but the CPT of the Bainbridge(?) gave the order.



No, but he did have to give the go-ahead for them to use deadly force at some point.

Considering we are not at war with Somalia the captain could not have done a damn thing without the order from above.

[fscrig75]

No, but he did have to give the go-ahead for them to use deadly force at some point.

Considering we are not at war with Somalia the captain could not have done a damn thing without the order from above.

I do agree with you about the first part, but he didn't give the order for the kill shot, that call resides with the on site commander.

It doesn't matter if we are or are not at war with Somalia, it has nothing to do with that country. These guys are Pirates they do not belong to a specific country, they sail under no flag. And no I can't give you any specific Regulations but I'm pretty sure the CPT of the USN boat has some far reaching authority when it comes to weapons release on his boat. Espically when it comes to defending American citizens, in international waters.

[Ronbo]

Considering we are not at war with Somalia the captain could not have done a damn thing without the order from above.

Needless to say, that is not true. Had the pirates pointed a weapon at the ship, there is no approval required. If the Captain viewed possible harm to an American citizen, the same applies. The 'President approved' aspect of the story is probably related to the deployment of warships into that region in the first place. It's happened before(destroying potential threats at sea), but seems to draw more attention today.

[muddyrocks]

pirates took 4 more ships today so far.

[RichP]

If you are going to fight pirates you have to fight them totally, no unarmed ship will be safe, the trick is to suck as many into the water as you can. Specially armed Q ships would help but they would have to blend in as close as possible and be changed after every encounter. Container ships would be a good base to set them up on, the containers could be self contained boxes with whatever you needed, sneak a company of Marines on board as well as weapons systems.
You don't publicize it, they go out to rob and never return which means no survivors unless they can swim 200 to 300 miles which also means ship killer weapons to take the mother ships out with. Half dozen exocet launchers would do the trick. Short of sinking everything that comes off the coast thats about the only thing I could see doing.

[igotanxj]

Does the 2nd amendment right not apply in a US ship in international waters? It would seem like you would at least have the right to protect yourself and your crew if things start to get hairy.

[bigalpha]

If you are going to fight pirates you have to fight them totally, no unarmed ship will be safe, the trick is to suck as many into the water as you can. Specially armed Q ships would help but they would have to blend in as close as possible and be changed after every encounter. Container ships would be a good base to set them up on, the containers could be self contained boxes with whatever you needed, sneak a company of Marines on board as well as weapons systems.
You don't publicize it, they go out to rob and never return which means no survivors unless they can swim 200 to 300 miles which also means ship killer weapons to take the mother ships out with. Half dozen exocet launchers would do the trick. Short of sinking everything that comes off the coast thats about the only thing I could see doing.

:thumbup:

I'm voting you for CiC.

[tbburg]

Does the 2nd amendment right not apply in a US ship in international waters? It would seem like you would at least have the right to protect yourself and your crew if things start to get hairy.No national law, and definitely anything written in our constitution, does not apply outside the United States. You go to another country, you operate under their laws.
There is no law denying the right to arm sailors in international waters. The main problem is, most countries don't allow the guns in their waters or ports. You sail out of US waters on a boat, packing all the guns you can carry, no problems. You've broken no law. Sail into Mexican or Canadian waters, and you're guilty of illegally importing arms. Same is true throughout most of Europe. Bring the boat back into US waters and get boarded by the CG, or let customs find out you have guns on board. You'd better be able to prove you previously owned the guns here, or you'll never see them again.

[BobDog]

I agree w/ RichP....why not just clean em out. One nice air strike on the bases and then just kill em all....promise to do it again if just 1 US ship even gets looked at by pirates...too much time and money being spent. I would think other countries wouldn't mind after all their loses.:flame:

[tbburg]

I've been reading about this piracy thing for the last 3 or 4 years. It only raised to national news(front page, anyway) when a US flagged ship was boarded. So, the defined problem seems to be the boarding of US ships, not ships in general. The French seem to be taking care of their own, and most other countries don't seem to care. So it's a numbers game. I read somewhere that there are only about 200 or so US flagged merchant vessels on the planet. Odds are, most of them are not in the danger area, or we'd hear about this kind of crap more often.

There are all sorts of technical solutions to the problem. How about this:
Every time a US flagged vessel comes within, say 400 miles of the horn of Africa, we put up a pair of Predator type drones, one "armed" with sensor/detection equipment, the other carrying a pair of laser guided 250lb gravity bombs fused with radar-proximity fuses. Anything with an IR signature comes close to the ship, drone 1 paints it with a laser, drone 2 drops a bomb. Everything within about 50 yards sinks. No need for a press announcement. Wouldn't take long for 'em to figure out that certain ships should be left alone.

Terminal guidance packages for the bombs are kind of expensive, but probably cheaper then private security, or any ship armament scheme. Loiter times for the drones are pretty long, but we'd still need a base to operate from. 'Could probably set up one of those helicopter carriers the marines use for drone operation, and not spend much more money then it takes to keep a guided missile cruiser on station, which is what we're doing now.

'Only problem I see is, no credit for politicians to take.

[BobDog]

yeah credit for the politicians would be a problem :laugh:

[muddyrocks]

Listen to the whiney little libs... I think the next thing outta their mouths will be a resolution offering to pay for not pirating our ships. Puke.

[Boatwrench]

"I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region and to achieve that goal, we're going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks," Obama told reporters Monday.

Note that the writers of that story changed a direct quote from Obama to fix his mistake. If that would have been Bush, or any republican for that matter, I seriously doubt they would have corrected him.



What did the unchanged version state?

[BruceB83]

Honestly I don't understand why this is such a big deal at all. There are way more relevant, important and topical issues to be covered. I could care less about pirates. The captain and crew were rescued...great. Can we move on now?

Why is it such a big deal? Well let's see...do we want to spend every day having to deal with these bozo pirates and risking lives of the freighter ship workers because we just wanted to move on? No. Do we want people to stop wanting to pilot and man these ships because of this bs? No. This captain and crew were rescued...the next ones may not be so lucky. I could go on but those are strong points so I'll stop.

outsiders opinion here,...
2. "This time we'll go in without the UN"
It seems many could care less, but comments like that are part of the reason the perception of the USA is of a war mongering nation. I tend to defend the US when I see people bad mouth you, hoping that not everyone wants to 'invade' or 'correct' whatever THEY see as wrong with the world... but from an outside point of view, well its not that best attitude.

...

First, so because I said let's go in without the UN, people would perceive me as a war monger? 90% of the time, the UN is a waste of time and they create more hassle than good (like the ACLU and such). Do you even know WHY I said that? Read up a little about what happened in the 90's with the USA, the UN, and Somalia then get back to me. We (the USA) primarily withdrew troops 2 years before the UN did because it was a clusterfudge.

Second, it's not that we want to "invade" or "correct" what we think is wrong. There is an obvious problem that needs to be fixed...lets freaking fix it and I don't think these pirates are willing to sit down and talk it out over some hot tea so what other options do you propose? This is the problem with today's world....that should be said in front of the UN but we don't have anyone with the stones that will say it. So do you not see a problem with this pirate situation?

[BruceB83]

If you are going to fight pirates you have to fight them totally, no unarmed ship will be safe, the trick is to suck as many into the water as you can. Specially armed Q ships would help but they would have to blend in as close as possible and be changed after every encounter. Container ships would be a good base to set them up on, the containers could be self contained boxes with whatever you needed, sneak a company of Marines on board as well as weapons systems.
You don't publicize it, they go out to rob and never return which means no survivors unless they can swim 200 to 300 miles which also means ship killer weapons to take the mother ships out with. Half dozen exocet launchers would do the trick. Short of sinking everything that comes off the coast thats about the only thing I could see doing.

I agree...except I think we would reach a point where these pirates would stop either because they all died or they realized it was a lost cause.

[RichP]

I agree...except I think we would reach a point where these pirates would stop either because they all died or they realized it was a lost cause.

Pirating has been going on for many years, it happens weekly on the coasts of every US shoreline, you just don't hear about it much, it's off the media radar and not something they want publicized. From first hand knowledge, someone my family new, they had a 40 ft Haterus cruiser they kept in south Jersey, they never took it out, well very rarely, it was more a vacation home than anything. One week it pulled out and that was the last anyone saw of the family of 5. The boat showed up a couple of weeks later. Coast guard said it had more than likely been used to make a drug pickup off the coast, the boat had a range of over 1000 miles. Family never appeared again. I worked in a sporting goods store, gun dept, we had a run on 12ga stainless shotguns and pistols once the CG put the word out and they relaxed their prudish attitude towards guns on private boats. This is pretty common in Florida, TX and LA and has been moving up the coast further every year since the 70's. Big ships off shore drop their drugs and then head into port, the boats pick them up, when the 50 mile limit was moved to 100 they needed boats with more range hence the bigger and more legitimate cruisers, the live families only sweeten the pot as they wave back to the CG hours before they are killed and dumped overboard.
My father in law, Mobil Oil, ships captain, ran Mobils fleet, his major problem was crews getting robbed and beaten in the Malacca straights, kidnapped to but he never would talk about it, even the super tankers only have 12-18 man crews, no lookouts, trying to spot a 16ft speed boat is almost impossible and when you are going 5-10 knots to keep in the channels, make turns that take a couple of miles you just don't have the time to look. Those wood boats don't show up on radar either. They for sure don't want any shooting going on when the tanker is full and when it is full the deck rails are only a few feet above the water. More than a few of those pirates are some small countries coast guard or security company making money on the side.
For you swabbies reading this wait till your first westpac, or indian diego garcia run what a frigging eye opener that is.
Kill em or buy em, thats the choice. I already know my choice but then I'm one of those who to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US would see no problem with poisoning the percentage we do seize and then letting it go thru, kill a few hundred or thousand users I tend to think the market might slow down a bit once people started dropping in the streets, board rooms, congress and Senate and maybe higher up than that.

[beakie]

First, so because I said let's go in without the UN, people would perceive me as a war monger? 90% of the time, the UN is a waste of time and they create more hassle than good (like the ACLU and such). Do you even know WHY I said that? Read up a little about what happened in the 90's with the USA, the UN, and Somalia then get back to me. We (the USA) primarily withdrew troops 2 years before the UN did because it was a clusterfudge.

Second, it's not that we want to "invade" or "correct" what we think is wrong. There is an obvious problem that needs to be fixed...lets freaking fix it and I don't think these pirates are willing to sit down and talk it out over some hot tea so what other options do you propose? This is the problem with today's world....that should be said in front of the UN but we don't have anyone with the stones that will say it. So do you not see a problem with this pirate situation?

I understand the UN comment, the UN has become a civilian run (and consequently handcuffed) entity, which I don't have much faith in anymore. I have read a bit on the subject, but I am not going to argue it with you, to each his own. I wasn't trying to label you, just giving my opinion.

I don't understand the acceptance of 'air marshals' yet not being able to arm ocean liner crews, or atleast have a proper "crew" for just such an occasion. The problem is there no doubt, but like RichP has said, there is a good way of fixing this.

[BruceB83]

I agree Rich. I know this stuff goes on every year on our own coastlines but I think the difference here is that it's an obvious organized effort almost seemingly backed by a country whereas the stuff that happens on our coast is random crime. It may usually be drug related but it's probably mostly random. No different from random murders that happen every day throughout America. If we started having large organized groups going around for the pure sake of murdering unless they get money, we'd probably put together a large effort to find their "home-base" and destroy them.

Beakie - I know you weren't labeling me...I should have said "so because the USA said let's go in without the UN, people would perceive us as a war monger?". I don't think bypassing the UN has anything to do with being a war monger especially when, like you said, they have become a civilian run entity.


I wonder if all this is going to negatively affect the recent "pirates are cool" trend (mainly retail driven) in the US? :scottm:

[tbburg]

The French(of all people) didn't bother consulting the UN to rescue French citizens in international waters, why should we?

[BobDog]

The French(of all people) didn't bother consulting the UN to rescue French citizens in international waters, why should we?

Yeah! So there you French bashers. :cool:

[techno1154]

In addition to the comments about the UN as being a useless organization who live of the backs of the poor the Somali's hate Americans.

Two very strong comments;...

The UN should be evicted from the US and finantial support ceased.

The US should have nothing to do with the people of Somilia except to kill them if and when they try get on board one of the US flagged ships.

Why do I feel that way? I worked in Somalia for three months in 1998. During that time, I spent plenty of evenings at the UN building in the Putland area. All the UN reps there were from Europe. None the less, I saw first hand what was going on there and it aint pretty.

[DeftwillP]

It's a hotlink but I'm too lazy to save it to my own account:
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h118/intrepidtwanks/sealsniper.gif

[BruceB83]

The French(of all people) didn't bother consulting the UN to rescue French citizens in international waters, why should we?

Because haven't you heard??? We're the evil, war monger country of America who likes to only see problems as we see them instead of seeing them as everyone else sees them. :doh:

[REVROK]

Yeah! So there you French bashers. :cool:

I cannot resist!


French Military History in a Nutshell Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.
War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".
French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos. War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

[BobDog]

I cannot resist!


French Military History in a Nutshell Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.
War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".
French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos. War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

Hehehehe....yeah all just doesn't counts when you look at the other stuff.
They drink lots of great wine.
They work less hours a week.
They have great food.
they have mistresses and their wives don't bother them about it
They live longer then we do....
They sit on sidewalks and drink and eat in the afternoon and evening.
They have an accent that women will kill for.
Their women look great.
Less stress.
They drink lots of great wine. :clap:

[RichP]

Hehehehe....yeah all just doesn't counts when you look at the other stuff.
They drink lots of great wine.
They work less hours a week.
They have great food.
they have mistresses and their wives don't bother them about it
They live longer then we do....
They sit on sidewalks and drink and eat in the afternoon and evening.
They have an accent that women will kill for.
Their women look great.
Less stress.
They drink lots of great wine. :clap:

They also pack wine in their field rations....

[8Mud]

In France they call a bathtub a Bidet and a shower a douche.

[BobDog]

They also pack wine in their field rations....

did I mention they have more sex then we do even later in life and their 'Viagra' sales are way below ours? :yelclap:

[fscrig75]

Hehehehe....yeah all just doesn't counts when you look at the other stuff.
They drink lots of great wine.
They work less hours a week.
They have great food.
they have mistresses and their wives don't bother them about it
They live longer then we do....
They sit on sidewalks and drink and eat in the afternoon and evening.
They have an accent that women will kill for.
Their women look great.
Less stress.
They drink lots of great wine. :clap:

You can have the French, I'll take the Germans.

Beer is better than wine.
They are hard workers.
They have great food.
Who needs another nagging woman? German's have great red-light districts!
Who wants to live forever?
Some beer is considered food, and they always drink.
Have you seen Heidi Klum?

[muddyrocks]

Is it any wonder that fry and toast are synonymous with losing?

[8Mud]

At least the French are detaining the Pirates. The Canadians and the Dutch just caught, disarmed and released a bunch. The Dutch even caught them with 20 hostages and then released the pirates after freeing the hostages. This touchy feely approach is just going to encourage them.

I say at the very least they could adjust their attitudes a little before release.

http://i43.tinypic.com/20tm238.png

[tharlanjr]

hahaha, nice shot, I just watched that movie last night!

[Boatwrench]

Check out this real Pirate Map! (http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=visualization&controller=visualization.googlemap&Itemid=219)

[BobDog]

So evidently Somalia doesn't care cause they make big bucks supplying the crews who hold the ships, they even cater the events (everyone has to eat).
Suppliers also help out w/ corrupt gov. officials. the average take is 1 mill. US and a ship cost 20-30 mill to replace + cargo. Your regular pirate dude takes home 10 - 20K while his countrymen only make $500 a year. The insurance companies put out about 12 mill. this year, but put a surcharge on all ships passing near pirates. That charge added up to approx. 88 mill. extra cash. Do I smell huge profit for insurance company? :D Greed wins again.