What debate? You're getting near-unanimous support here.
I haven't addressed your "proposals" because I just find them so ludicrous. They are basically different variations of "kill 'em all!"
Get over it.
Frankly, I really wouldn't know where to begin. Do I talk about past US support for one of Africa's worst regimes or the counter-productiveness of aid shipments or the illegal fishing trawlers depleting the country's primary fishing zones and preventing fishermen from making a living or how about toxic and even
nuclear waste being dumped in their coastal waters causing a major health crisis?
Simple answer: give Somali fishermen the means to sustain themselves and their families. Piracy dies down.
Considering that Western countries are the primary culprits behind Somalia's present state, I'd say that's a small price to pay for eliminating the piracy annoyance.
Problem is, that won't happen and the military option is quite obviously favoured by the US (the greatest culprit) because it has strategic interests in the region.
What I find amusing is that you make all this fuss over a few Yanks that decide to sail into what are world-renowned dangerous waters and get themselves killed, yet the fact that Somalis have a disaster zone for a country that easily rivals the most devastated parts of Africa and the world doesn't garner the slightest mention in your little display of outrage.
I don't need to imagine them. The specific causes are quite clear and information on the topic is readily available.
Hence dependency on fish that are now being depleted by foreigners. That would be Cause #1 btw.
Here's a TIME magazine article that explains it in nice conservative terms that should suit you:
How Somalia's Fishermen Became Pirates - TIME
You say they are without functioning government and yet, in the same sentence, given what you already know about the country, you say they are not on the brink (of total disaster). You're talking nonsense...which seems to be the dominant trend in this thread.