Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep seeing News Stories like these, quite often, and I have to wonder what the heck these people are thinking. Why do people think its the responsibility of our Government, or Obama, in some cases, to be responsible for finding these people who go abroad, for causes or cash, get their butts in a pickle, and then want the US to bail them out. One set of Parents where bad mouthing Obama, saying he did not call them even. Why would, or should anyone call them? Its not like they where in the Military and under orders. These folks are aware of what the Dangers are, and choose to ignore them, so by my reckoning, its on them. If I went to Syria and found ISIS to do a Story on, and got shot, who would be responsible? Should the President be required to call my family? Should the US be looking for this guy, or anyone that goes there with free will for a personal agenda, like a big salary for being in a war zone?
"The parents of freelance photographer Austin Tice, who's presumably been held hostage in Syria for more than two years, said Wednesday that they've been stonewalled by the White House and have no idea whether the U.S. has made any progress in finding their son."
It's called personal responsibility, you are free to do as you please within the limits of the law as long as you alone bear the consequences of your actions.
You can extrapolate that to cover most anything else with regards to life decisions.
Back in the mid-1980's some reporter was captured in Lebanon. There were calls to extricate him. My friend described a decision to work or travel in these areas as "dancing in the middle of a three-lane highway." Not a bad analogy.
Particularly in a part of the world where, dating back further than Marco Polo, travel was always dangerous because of the locals.
Yeah if you get kidnapped over there it was your own stupid fault. Government isn't responsible for any decisions anyone makes that doesn't belong to the government ever.
Yeah if you get kidnapped over there it was your own stupid fault. Government isn't responsible for any decisions anyone makes that doesn't belong to the government ever.
Exactly! These people go over there for money or for their Religious beliefs, of their own free will, and need to be responsible for their own consequences. Our Soldiers should not have to risk their lives to save some one who should not have been there in the first place. Nor should tax payer money be used. If their parents and relatives are so concerned, let them hire Mercenaries like Blackwater to do the rescue, and pay for it out of their own pockets.
Unfortunately, there are those Bleeding Hearts that are "outraged" and think that we should go to war at the drop of a hat, and save everyone that makes stupid mistakes, or puts themselves in a hazardous environment. Its not our job to save everyone or avenge everyone. No need to be "outraged." Its different when people like ISIS threaten and kill masses of innocent people who did not put themselves in conflict, and I can see doing what we can, within reason, to prevent mass killings, but we can't do it all.
People put themselves in harm's way all the time. Mountain climbers do it. Skiers and Bungie jumpers do it. Inexperienced people who attempt to sail around the world do it. Should we not make an attempt to rescue them when they get into trouble? Is it any different than trying to rescue people who travel abroad and end up being made a captive?
I don't know. I'm just asking. I honestly can't stand people that travel to the foreign places of unrest and then start crying because they get in trouble. But it isn't about me.
Unfortunately, there are those Bleeding Hearts that are "outraged" and think that we should go to war at the drop of a hat...
Apparently there's a different kind of "Bleeding Hearts" along the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Around here, "Bleeding Hearts" are pacifists. They wouldn't consider going to war...
People put themselves in harm's way all the time. Mountain climbers do it. Skiers and Bungie jumpers do it. Inexperienced people who attempt to sail around the world do it. Should we not make an attempt to rescue them when they get into trouble? Is it any different than trying to rescue people who travel abroad and end up being made a captive?
I don't know. I'm just asking. I honestly can't stand people that travel to the foreign places of unrest and then start crying because they get in trouble. But it isn't about me.
Yes, and they should have to pay for all expenses incurred to rescue/save their dumb a**es, even if it takes the rest of their lives. As for people putting their selves in a war zone to 'help the people', or be the first to get the story....no. In many cases, there's not much we can do to save them anyway whether we want to or not. People need to think about what they're doing before hand, but perhaps that's asking too much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
