Login/Sign Up




should the U.S. put more ships in the pirate-infested waters?
Politics

believeit
Apr 14, 2009
5 votes
8 debaters
2
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


vancam
Apr 14, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
I know it sounds awful, but I am slightly relieved that the Captain got kidnapped. This problem has been going on for a long time and only now has it finally become mainstream news.

Here's a few of the debates that I created over the last 10 months (all with attached news artcles) for anyone wanting to bring themselves up to speed on the topic:

http://convinceme.net/search?term=somalia

It's noticeable that none of them have more than a few posts in. Hopefully now people will start to engage with the issues facing Somalia more.

And here's a very useful country profile from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

 
muzzerfooka
Apr 15, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
in a large scope of sea, it establishes a greater propensity of hostile activities from the somali pirates to exercise when there are only 4 navy ships. How would it work? It would motivate the somali pirates to attack even more when they are aware that the security in the entire sea scope isn't intact and fortified. Putting up more navy ships wouldn't only help in the defense against unwanted somali pirates but it would also inflict fear against them which would lead to a great propensity for the somali pirates to back off.

 
believeit
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The U.S. has one of the strongest navies in the World. We have a total of 366 military ships in commision as we speak. We have a total of 4 military ships in the area that are in danger of pirate attacks. These dangerous water cover THOUSANDS of nautical miles. So can a mere 4 ships protect this huge expanse of sea? Not effectively. So why can't the most powerful navy in the world spare a few more ships to protect the trade routes and countries around this area? Or would we rather keep the 4 ships there and hope that no more ships get hijacked? I prefer the first option.

I mean, hundreds of ships peacefully pass through the dangerous waters each day, some with the intentions to provide aid to third world countries. Is it truly politically correct to allow trade routes to be dangerous and hostile? Nope.

 
frankiej4189
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

If the world's strongest Navy has the power to solve some of these problems and could potentially help the people that are really hurt by these problems and it wouldnt cost too much for the world's stongest Navy to solve these problems then why shouldnt the world's strongest Navy solve these problems?

Also, why should i conform to the proper grammatical sentence structure when i love run-ons so much?

 
pinky23
Apr 24, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
f**k pirates they steal sh*t for a living, go america

 
melonchollylife
Sep 24, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Only because the U.S.A. is the police force of the world.
Someone should also put ships out there with us, like the UK, or whoever has the second top number or war ships.

 
+ Add Argument

1
No


thethinker
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Being the strongest navy doesn't denote the responsibility to solve the world's problems.

 
snakedoctor
Apr 17, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
i don't think the USA should put more ships in the water near somalian pirates because there could be a mass genocide if they captured lots of navy men

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong