I Found This Upsetting!, pay to be evacuated???

Part of the heavy military participation has been to ensure as good an "escort" as possible through territory that's totally destabilized and potentially infested with Hezballah and whatever sympathetic Lebanese there might be to their action. It goes without saying that kidnapping, ransom, ultimata, and executions publicized all over the internet have been on the increase for quite a while, and if they can get their hands on a whole bunch of American civilian hostages in the confusion, it's a real bonus. It's worth a lot to this administration to avoid this, because the public reaction to the government saying "you chose to be there, you're on your own, even if they cut your head off" would be extreme and negative. Even if the government didn't give a damn about our citizens being in danger (and I don't actually think that's true, I'm not that cynical) -- it would be too expensive in terms of public approval ratings and the like, with elections coming up. So -- what I think about Dubya now? I think he's got an anxious eye on the polls and has some sense of self-preservation -- sometimes.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you would find this policy fantastic. First, I'll answer your biased questions.

As to how many Americans warrants the use of our military to protect american citizens? One.

I don't know which administration set up the policy.

I still don't think much of W, although I have respect for his decision to go in and help American citizens in danger. Just because someone does one thing right or agreeable doesn't make them %100 different.

No civilians shoud receive government paid funerals. Only those who served the people (military, firemen, policemen,etc) should receive government paid funerals. As for medical care, I am all for socialized medicine.

I don't understand the "any peril and American can put themselves in" argument. We pay taxes that in turn pay police, firefighters, coast guard, and military. Those agencies are there to protect us and help us when we find ourselves in dangerous situations. We could of course get rid of systems. But honestly, they are important parts of our lives. To say that people in danger of war in another country shouldn't be helped by the military is to say that those who are murdered shouldn't be investigated by the police. Or fires should be put out by whoever is around and available rather than trained fire fighters. We pay for these civil protections so that whe situations like this occur there is trained professional help when needed.

As for your accusation of the democrats wanting parental government, I'm sick of hearing this bull. It isn't simply the democrats that want governmental controls, both of the main parties want that. It just depends on the issue. Republicans want the government to control the vices (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.), they want the government to control abortion, they want the government to control taxation, they want the government to be associated with the Christian church, controls over privacy (phone conversations, library records, pretty much everything we individuals do put under a microscope to make sure we aren't being bad), etc. Democrats tend to be for welfare, socialized medicine, gun control, environmental controls, etc. I'm tired of the high and mighty republicans saying they stand for less government when really it depends on the issue at hand which side wants less government and which wants more. This is why I tire of the same old us vs thm griping.

You don't want the military to be used to pull american civilians out of war, you want to stand behind a policy of my taxes don't go there? Fine. Leave the country then and go live somewhere else so YOUR tax money doesn't have to go towards helping anyone else.

Frankly, I see no problem with american citizens who pay taxes that go towards the military getting some direct benefit from them. Because remember, yes YOUR tax money pays for the military, but so does THERE'S.

I'll not even bother addressing your inane remarks about what I want done with our military forces, or how I feel about any extractions. Frankly, if you don't understand plain English, then further explanations will not help you.

By the way, you do get direct benefit from our military all the time. It may not be in the form of a tank battalion escort to the grocer, but they are there, all the time, securing your safety. Speaking for veterans like myself everywhere, it's nice of you to be so grateful. I wonder, if a private company who had trained individuals that are well armed would go to Lebanon and pull out any Americans wishing to leave, would you also want them to do it at no charge? And what part of "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" obligates the military to extract a few hundred Americans from a foreign war zone? Just what is the purpose of the military?

So then, if hostilities erupt in Japan, North Korea, The Philippines, Africa, Portugal, and so on, we should send out troops and equipment to extract any and all Americans, free of charge? What if they are living in these countries, but maintain their US citizenship. If they do not have a home in the US, should we also then house them, clothe them, feed them, find them work, provide every need? How about we just have a branch of the military that constantly roams the globe, monitoring each country and the safety of each American in them?

Thanks for answering my questions. I also don't know who set up the "pay for your own extraction" policy, nor do I care. The important thing is you think we should deploy our military to extract just one person, and to do so without any recompense from the rescued. I find this frightening, but then again if a person is in favor of socialized anything, what else is to be expected? However, I didn't ask you about your utopian view of the country, but rather the system we have in place now. The questions about the motorcyclist and other perils was for you, or anyone else, to expound on this train of thought wherein our good citizens receive governmental services without obligation.

Oh yes, I do love the answer about the funerals. It's oh so typical. "Hey Mr. Jones, just sit back and relax, your cancer treatment will not cost you one penny!"

Six months later.....

"I'm sorry you feel this way, Mrs. Jones. I realize we paid for your husband's medical expenses. We here at the DNC understand what a burden it is for Americans to pay to keep themselves healthy. However, your husband is dead, and there is nothing more we can do for him. Here is $250 to help with the funeral, and we will be expecting a check for the estate tax within 90 days, or we'll have to auction off your home."

Now how do you suppose this looks? It looks like you are in favor of providing for people's needs, whether it be health matters, or to be pulled out of a war zone the person mindlessly placed themselves in, but only if they have enough decency to stay alive. Dying, then, must be a form of rebellion for which no good can come, or any more votes for that matter.

To address your thoughts on my comments towards government paid funerals. I believe that money spent by teh government is better spent trying to keep people alive than to make sure their dead body is cared for. It's my opinion, and if you think it's hypocritical to care for someone in life but not in death, fine.

You are making two assumptions about my views on the military extracting victims. The first is that the victims don't have to pay anything for being saved. Now, if they are living in the country then no, they wouldn't be paying for their rescue at all. However, if they pay taxes to the federal governement then they have already paid for the services the military provides. If extraction from a hostile country is part of that, then it's simply part of what they have already paid for.

Should hostilities arise in any of thsoe countries you mentioned and american citizens were no longer safe, then I would see nothing wrong with the american government going to those peoples' aid.

Now I want to address your sarcastic remarks about my gratitude towards our armed forces. I did not say that they do nothing the majority of the time, and I did not mean to imply so with any of my statements. I am grateful to the armed forces for every action they take, even in times of peace. I would be grteful to them simply in maintain a state of prepardness INCASE something bad happened that needed their attention. I do not feel that civilian extraction is more important or less important that any of the militaries other duties, however I see nothing wrong with it.

Besides, lots of civil protections we enjoy are not always used by everyone equally. I might never call on the police to help me in my life. Does that mean I shouldn't pay taxes to support them? Should everything in this country be based on need alone? Go ahead and call the police, but make sure you can pay them when they show up. That's not a road I would like to see this country go down.

You don't have to agree with me. I don't expect you too. But please don't wrongly accuse me of ingratitude towards the military.

There's the problem. Extraction from foreign countries is not a "service the military provides." This was the thing that started the discussion. Some people got a burr in their underwear because those poor folks in Lebanon might have to pay for this service.

Neither do I. The difference is, I'm willing to have people be financially responsible for their actions. This includes extraction from war-torn countries. I do not believe the US government or our military should serve as a global safety net for people who place themselves in danger.

No, what you said was "Frankly, I see no problem with american citizens who pay taxes that go towards the military getting some direct benefit from them." Maybe you need to reword this, because it sounds like you feel the US citizens in Lebanon that need extraction will only get direct benefit from the armed forces if they are extracted by the military, and that it is done free of charge. This is a logical conclusion when the comment is taken in context of the rest of your posts.

I'm still curious about what you think the purpose of the military is.

I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of our armed forces. I feel like you have some sense that our service men and women are supposed to be standing by, waiting for some need to arise, so they can bravely go in and save the day. Am I wrong? The purpose of the military is to fight and win war. The problems between Israel and Lebanon are just that, between Israel and Lebanon. Not our war. Those Americans who venture into Lebanon do it at great risk. So, if we do send troops there to extract them, we are using the military for a purpose for which it is not intended. Having the rescued pay for this is highly reasonable. Of course this may be a moot point, but we were discussing the ethical implications of such a policy.

When I first heard they were charging Americans to leave Lebanon I thought to myself - wow! now that is the American Way! The capitol kingdom of the world! Glad to hear they are waiving it!

Hola a todos,

I don't have a lot of time to write anymore, but do try from time to time to read over the posts here. I read through this one the other day and started to reply, then decided I really didn't have anything to say and then found that throughout the weekend my mind kept turning this subject over.

My position on this is somewhat influenced by my own circumstance of being an expatriated American citizen. I suppose one of the reasons I decided to go on and respond to this is that there were some arguments made in the discussion of this topic which would probably have been formulated differently if the writers would have had a bit more information. (Ie: if the authors of those remarks actually knew what the hell they were talking about for instance. )

I would like to point out that the U.S. State Dept. issues all kinds of information from Current Travel Warnings (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/t...tw/tw_1764.html), to Consular Information (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/c...is/cis_994.html). Travel warnings are issued concerning perceived threats in specific countries and the consular information is issued concerning, well, things of interest to Americans abroad for just about anywhere. Despite the fact that it seems to be handy to use as the butt of jokes concerning foreign info, the Consular Information is really pretty accurate and an up to date source of general information and warnings.

People expatriate for a variety of reasons, work, school, adventure, retirement, and many more reasons but they are still U. S. citizens entitled to vote etc, although it is not as clear-cut and simple as many people seem to think. The paying taxes argument is always interesting, because it always seems to be those folks who earn less then the taxable amount who are so quick to pull it out and wave it around. However, it is worth pointing out a couple of things concerning the paying taxes business. Still, a working person living abroad can earn up to USD 80,000 a year without paying taxes on it in the U. S.. This does not count on retirement income though so those retired fogeys need to keep on paying in.

Now, back to the point of this which has to do with evacuating U. S. citizens from a dangerous foreign land. As previously mentioned, the U.S. government does go to lengths to maintain current threat information available. Of course they cannot insure that every single citizen sees it, but it is there if anyone is inclined to look. Citizens have the option of registering with the embassy (providing them with a method of contacting them) so that if there is some dire threat or emergency, they can at least be warned if a warning is possible. Having been in some rather odd situations myself, I find remarks insinuating or saying that the government “knew” things were about to happen sort of naïve. I personally have seen one situation (in a place other then where I now live) change overnight. We literally went to bed one Sunday night to wake up on Monday morning with a complete change in the local government including a very rapidly deteriorating military situation which included local regional military and police commanders suddenly using the men under their command as private armies. This came as a complete surprise, and at that particular time we were very well informed concerning our threat levels. In short, sometimes things happen which are completely unexpected and are nasty.

Now, do I think the U.S. should send in troops etc. to extract its citizens. Well, for the most part I do. However, I can see the sense in considering the overall risk situation as well, and if someone who never had the sense to come in out of the cold (so to speak) gets left behind, well, sorry. I suppose (trying to clarify what I really think here) that if one has a chance to see the situation going bad and one has the desire to leave, then one should do everything in his own power to get out. If the situation has already gone south, then that’s a bit different and it’s really not unreasonable in that instance to hope like hell the next thing you see flying in is big, green and says U.S. Marines on the side of it.


Leo

Herrerano my I say amen your remarks where right on. I to have held back saying anything but after reading your post I must put in my two cents worthy for it worthy. Having serviced overseas I cansee the need to be informed and awere of where you are what is happening but thingss can and do change in the blink of an eye. It is our part to help our own citezen when a sitiuion changes so fast as leave them where hurm can be fall them. there places and times we were told not to go in some area do to the rise of treats and portests. Begin overseas one must beaware for rights and liburty are not gaturteeted or a right in most other lalands.

Is it just my imagination or does common sense increase the farther south you live? (In Herrano's case he's about as far south as you can get and still be north of the equator)

You're going to have a hard time flying that one in Sutherland, Ross-shire, Lewis, Harris and the Orkneys and Shetlands. But you will get to discover definitively what's under a kilt, because you will be stomped to death by highlanders and all you'll have to do is look up for once.

Gee, I took MacE's comment as a compliment, it made me feel good to know someone else appreciated my point of view.


stoirmeil Posted on 27-Jul-2006, 11:57 AM

This one just sort of impresses me as stingy. Both for myself and for friends and fellows from the aforementioned northern counties (although you forgot to mention Caithness). Most of them that I know are a bit bigger in heart then that.

Leo

Oh, and by the way, do they wear something different under their kilts then I wear under mine?

I certainly did not mean to take any compliment away from you. I might point out that MacE's comment is divisive and gadfly-ish, making a complimentary generalization on the good sense of your opinion, based on where you live, that also manages to squeeze in a deliberate slight to northerners. It's a running game that's getting old.

You can add beautiful viking Caithness, by all means. It was only a sampling of territories I listed. And yes, the highland heart is as big as all outdoors, but so is their pride. So -- the Stamping Grounds, I think Cape Wrath would be a good site. Or maybe the little sea-stack that's right off the point.

Ok, now I understand a whole lot better.

Personally I think a good arm wrestling match followed by much boasting would serve just as well.



But, at any rate, please bring beer to chase the whisky with once it's all over.

Oh yeah, try and have something to munch on please. Kippers go good with pain and heavy drinking.

Leo