HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Because some people went and visit their family members. I have a lot of friends who are born in Lebanon who have family stuck there. There are 50 000 Canadians stuck there at the moment. 725494[/snapback] That's fine, the US Government warned them not to travel there. They chose to ignore that warning. Don't complain to the Government when the stuff hits the fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 This guy needs to be re-educated. 725492[/snapback] Wow. I mean. Wow. I say we send Mr. Cohen over there to try to broker that "deal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 It couldn't be that any of these people are Scientists, Researchers, Media, Family Members, and other such people, eh? Nah, couldn't be. Anyone over in the Middle East is a bunch of America-hating bastards that need to be blown up. 725497[/snapback] That's exactly what I said huh? That all the Americans over there need to be blown up? I know you must be smart enough to realize that is not what I wrote. Then again maybe I'm giving you too much credit. (that doesn't mean I want you blown up by the way) I don't care what they were doing there, they knew of the danger in traveling to that country and accepted the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 That's exactly what I said huh? That all the Americans over there need to be blown up? I know you must be smart enough to realize that is not what I wrote. Then again maybe I'm giving you too much credit. (that doesn't mean I want you blown up by the way) I don't care what they were doing there, they knew of the danger in traveling to that country and accepted the risk. 725537[/snapback] That 2nd part was added as an exaggeration that I added to try to make a point about what you said in this sentence: I would be willing to bet a lot of these people are huge critics of the Government...but demand the most help from it. It seems as what you are saying is that people who are critics of the current people in power shouldn't receive any help from it, which is an entirely authoritarian line of thinking. Most of the time the biggest critics ARE the people who get/demand the most help from it, because they're the ones who are the most directly effected by the program. To somehow imply that they receive less treatment then other individuals doesn't fall in line with Democratic ideals. My other point is that it is necessary for some people to go, its not just that these people just picked up and decided to ignore the government's warnings one day instead of doing an alternative. Our government has researchers and what not over there too. To just say that these people knew the risks, and decided to go anyway, so whatever happens to them happens is rather lame. If I was stuck over there, and I felt that my complaining would get me noticed and rescued quicker, I sure as hell would start bitching too. The media loves it because its very emotional and sells a good story. The government would hate it because it makes them look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 That 2nd part was added as an exaggeration that I added to try to make a point about what you said in this sentence:It seems as what you are saying is that people who are critics of the current people in power shouldn't receive any help from it, which is an entirely authoritarian line of thinking. Most of the time the biggest critics ARE the people who get/demand the most help from it, because they're the ones who are the most directly effected by the program. To somehow imply that they receive less treatment then other individuals doesn't fall in line with Democratic ideals. My other point is that it is necessary for some people to go, its not just that these people just picked up and decided to ignore the government's warnings one day instead of doing an alternative. Our government has researchers and what not over there too. To just say that these people knew the risks, and decided to go anyway, so whatever happens to them happens is rather lame. If I was stuck over there, and I felt that my complaining would get me noticed and rescued quicker, I sure as hell would start bitching too. The media loves it because its very emotional and sells a good story. The government would hate it because it makes them look bad. 725545[/snapback] Probably wouldn't change the government's reaction, though. There's this very fundamental aspect of reality - namely, reality - that dictates what you can and can't do in a situation regardless of how much people whine and B word and cry and moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Probably wouldn't change the government's reaction, though. There's this very fundamental aspect of reality - namely, reality - that dictates what you can and can't do in a situation regardless of how much people whine and B word and cry and moan. 725548[/snapback] Oh yeah, I agree with you there, the logistics of this whole thing are crazy. Still though, I don't find any fault at them for complaining and bitching, its what most anyone would do if they were in that situation too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 That 2nd part was added as an exaggeration that I added to try to make a point about what you said in this sentence:It seems as what you are saying is that people who are critics of the current people in power shouldn't receive any help from it, which is an entirely authoritarian line of thinking. Most of the time the biggest critics ARE the people who get/demand the most help from it, because they're the ones who are the most directly effected by the program. To somehow imply that they receive less treatment then other individuals doesn't fall in line with Democratic ideals. My other point is that it is necessary for some people to go, its not just that these people just picked up and decided to ignore the government's warnings one day instead of doing an alternative. Our government has researchers and what not over there too. To just say that these people knew the risks, and decided to go anyway, so whatever happens to them happens is rather lame. If I was stuck over there, and I felt that my complaining would get me noticed and rescued quicker, I sure as hell would start bitching too. The media loves it because its very emotional and sells a good story. The government would hate it because it makes them look bad. 725545[/snapback] I'll pay attention to all the complaining people interviewed by the media and see if most of them are "required" to be there or if they are there by choice. The first one I saw went there to have their baby baptized. I will bet that any government scientists or researchers won't be the ones raising hell. They probably understand the danger involved in their work. If you agree to work in Lebanon, you are no different than any other person who does a dangerous job. Firemen don't start complaining to the government when the fire gets too close to them. (none that I know of anyway). I'm certainly not saying we should abandon the Americans in Lebanon, I just think it is outrageous to complain about the US Government not saving you quick enough after they told you not to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Oh yeah, I agree with you there, the logistics of this whole thing are crazy. Still though, I don't find any fault at them for complaining and bitching, its what most anyone would do if they were in that situation too. 725552[/snapback] Most anyone would avoid going to Lebanon unless absolutely necessary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I'll pay attention to all the complaining people interviewed by the media and see if most of them are "required" to be there or if they are there by choice. The first one I saw went there to have their baby baptized. I will bet that any government scientists or researchers won't be the ones raising hell. They probably understand the danger involved in their work. If you agree to work in Lebanon, you are no different than any other person who does a dangerous job. Firemen don't start complaining to the government when the fire gets too close to them. (none that I know of anyway). I'm certainly not saying we should abandon the Americans in Lebanon, I just think it is outrageous to complain about the US Government not saving you quick enough after they told you not to go there. 725556[/snapback] Or, rather, the people who are covered by the media are the people who would make the best sensationalist story, which is what you're going to find, because it sells. I don't feel that having a baby baptized in Lebanon is a necesity, but what is a necesity is relative in this case. As for your firemen analogy, firemen have tools to put out fires, American's over there don't have the tools to put out a conflict between two countries. Quite a difference. If a fireman gets trapped, and dies, without being able to do anything about it, I'd bet you he'd be yelling for someone to help him right up to his death, and wondering why they weren't helping him sooner, especially if other firemen from other units were trapped, and were saved by their friends quicker. Most anyone would avoid going to Lebanon unless absolutely necessary! 725557[/snapback] Really? Wow, I never thought of that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 Or, rather, the people who are covered by the media are the people who would make the best sensationalist story, which is what you're going to find, because it sells. I don't feel that having a baby baptized in Lebanon is a necesity, but what is a necesity is relative in this case. As for your firemen analogy, firemen have tools to put out fires, American's over there don't have the tools to put out a conflict between two countries. Quite a difference. If a fireman gets trapped, and dies, without being able to do anything about it, I'd bet you he'd be yelling for someone to help him right up to his death, and wondering why they weren't helping him sooner, especially if other firemen from other units were trapped, and were saved by their friends quicker. Really? Wow, I never thought of that! 725568[/snapback] They absolutely have the tools to avoid the conflict over there...It's called a plane ticket out when the Government told them to get out long before the conflict started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 They absolutely have the tools to avoid the conflict over there...It's called a plane ticket out when the Government told them to get out long before the conflict started! 725694[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 The Rochester DEMOCRAT & Chronicle runs Richard Cohen articles. He is truly an idiot! 725525[/snapback] huh huh huh, Beavis, you misspelled "Dummycrat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 huh huh huh, Beavis, you misspelled "Dummycrat." 726307[/snapback] Tell me you don't think that Cohen is a racist. Well, at least an idiot. Go ahead. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Tell me you don't think that Cohen is a racist. Well, at least an idiot. Go ahead. I'll wait. 726845[/snapback] A racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Most anyone would avoid going to Lebanon unless absolutely necessary! 725557[/snapback] I would disagree with that. Lebanon is one of the most attractive places to go in the Middle East; historically it was one of the most diverse, tolerant, and western. Prior to the civil war, Beirut was the financial capital and jewel of the region. You've said several times that people have been warned against traveling there. Are you refering to Lebanon specifically, or to any Middle East or Muslim country? Are you saying that the State Department knew the Israelis would bomb? I was unaware of any travel advisories - do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 As soon as the Hisballa terrorists started sending missles into Israel, I would have gotten my ass out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I would disagree with that. Lebanon is one of the most attractive places to go in the Middle East; historically it was one of the most diverse, tolerant, and western. Prior to the civil war, Beirut was the financial capital and jewel of the region. You've said several times that people have been warned against traveling there. Are you refering to Lebanon specifically, or to any Middle East or Muslim country? Are you saying that the State Department knew the Israelis would bomb? I was unaware of any travel advisories - do you have a link? 727518[/snapback] Before the current incident began, the most recent travel warning issued for Lebanon was dated May 2 2006, superseding the one dated November 7 2005. (And judging from a quick Google search, this warning has been around in some form since at least 1997 -- and probably a long time before that.) From last November's update: Recent events in Lebanon underscore the need for caution and sound personal security precautions. Former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was assassinated February 14, 2005, in a car bomb attack in which 22 people were killed and many others seriously wounded; the potential for violence remains. Since March, there have been 13 separate bombings in Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of nine people and injuries to more than 78 others. Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the past. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act. American citizens should thus keep a low profile, varying times and routes for all required travel. Americans should also pay close attention to their personal security at locations where Westerners are generally known to congregate, and should avoid demonstrations and large gatherings. On April 8, 2005 U.S. Embassy officials visiting Hermel in the northern Bekaa Valley encountered a violent protest. The U.S. Government considers the potential threat to U.S. Government personnel assigned to Beirut sufficiently serious to require them to live and work under a strict security regime. This limits, and may occasionally prevent, the movement of U.S. Embassy officials in certain areas of the country. These factors, plus limited staffing, may hinder timely assistance to Americans in Lebanon. Unofficial travel to Lebanon by U.S. Government employees and their family members requires prior approval by the Department of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts