JohnK Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I cant see how you can compare a low risk activity that thousands of people partake in every day in this free country where the risk to those that would have to rescue us if things do go wrong is very very low to interfereing in a war zone where said rescuers are all to a man risking life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 What all these 'do-gooders' fail to mention is the amount of money involved in the process of helping the helpless and easing the pain of the wounded and displaced. Lots of money. All in 'expenses' of 'charitable' and 'non-profit' organisations of course They would like you to believe that they risk their lives for Karma, eternal salvation, what have you. Sadly, noble motives are not the prime mover though. That's why there is a long queue of people desperate to go and 'help' altrouistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 What all these 'do-gooders' fail to mention is the amount of money involved in the process of helping the helpless and easing the pain of the wounded and displaced. Lots of money. All in 'expenses' of 'charitable' and 'non-profit' organisations of course They would like you to believe that they risk their lives for Karma, eternal salvation, what have you. Sadly, noble motives are not the prime mover though. That's why there is a long queue of people desperate to go and 'help' altrouistically. I take that as "shouldnt bloody be there" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 When the locals take up arms and try to defend the resources of their own land, we call them 'insurgents' and shoot the crap out of them. Legally. (According to the laws of another land) When uninvited citizens of another country force themselves there, they should somehow be 'respected'. Cherished perhaps, because they *mean* good. If they are armed they are somehow 'legit', proper soldiers who are not there to occupy, but to defend their land (10K miles away lol) Something's not right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 He sould be taken to court in this country for endangering the lives of those that rescued him. He sould never have been there. sorry have to disagree with you, but its your view taken to court?................. hmm thats not exactly a logical statement, what law did he exactly break to be taken to court? those brave men are paid to do this from time to time, and they may or may not think they have accomplished something good in rescuing him as for him not meant to be there, you can never tell a human being what to do, he went there on his own free will to help others in need, a very basic human emotion, yes i agree you have to question why he done it when other have fallen victim to kidnappers, but he also has to be aplauded for risking everything to help, i know i wouldn't be able to do it. its all about opinions at the end of the day everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doughie Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 When the locals take up arms and try to defend the resources of their own land, we call them 'insurgents' and shoot the crap out of them. Legally. (According to the laws of another land) When uninvited citizens of another country force themselves there, they should somehow be 'respected'. Cherished perhaps, because they *mean* good. If they are armed they are somehow 'legit', proper soldiers who are not there to occupy, but to defend their land (10K miles away lol) Something's not right here. Very well said. I'm pretty tired of hearing the word "insurgents". It's all Western propaganda (mainly Bush's propaganda). Why don't the Americans do a nice survey of 1000 Iraqi civilians and ask them if they still want the Americans to be there ? Oh hang on - a British newspaper already did that fairly recently and, by memory, the results were that about 82% of Iraqi civilians wanted the Americans (+allies) OUT NOW. And i think about 50% of them said that they thought it was ok for civilians to attack allied soldiers. So that shows how popular the American military is in Iraq. Whole situation is disgusting and almost unsalvageable now. Bush's Vietnam. He just said yesterday i think that (paraphrased) when soldiers would be withdrawn "would be a question for Future Presidents". So in saying that he just effectively signed the death-warrants of another 2,000 American soldiers. At least 3 more years of full occupation, lot of dead WEstern soldiers, lot of dead Iraqi civvies, all cos Bush wanted to finish what his daddy started. - Worst American President ever, responsbile for death of 39,000 people in Iraq alone, - an awful lot of completely unnecessary blood on his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 It's not personal. These things never are. Bush did what he had to do, the decisions are taken and he has to go through the motions. Saddam knew very well what he was starting when he decided to start trading oil in anything else than USD. He gambled and lost, apparently the agreements 'in principle' he had with his buyers were not enforced as he had hoped they'd be. Now everyone still knows who's the boss. Life goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I cant see how you can compare a low risk activity that thousands of people partake in every day in this free country where the risk to those that would have to rescue us if things do go wrong is very very low to interfereing in a war zone where said rescuers are all to a man risking life. So you are out in your Soop one Sunday and have a bump involving another car.. On the way to help you the ambulance has an accident which kills one of the crew. So how do you factor that as low risk? Driving fast in an unstable vehicle can never be classed as low risk. It was a maximum and final risk for that one particular ambulanceman..... And how are you going to calculate thae difference between risks to reach the cutoff point where you do/don't prosecute someone for endangering another?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 So you are out in your Soop one Sunday and have a bump involving another car.. On the way to help you the ambulance has an accident which kills one of the crew. So how do you factor that as low risk? Driving fast in an unstable vehicle can never be classed as low risk. It was a maximum and final risk for that one particular ambulanceman..... And how are you going to calculate thae difference between risks to reach the cutoff point where you do/don't prosecute someone for endangering another?.... as JohnA already pointed out, everything has a price - these guys went there - got paid $$$$$ but things didnt work out... In principal, johnk is right... going into a war zone and getting kidnapped and going to a holiday report and getting kidnapped are not one of the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Dying is the same anywhere......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 This thread has become retarded...you cannot compare driving everyday with flying to a war zone full of civil unrest, getting kidknapped and then wasting Allied forces time, money and potentially lives because you thought it would be a "good idea" to try to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 This thread has become retarded...you cannot compare driving everyday with flying to a war zone full of civil unrest, getting kidknapped and then wasting Allied forces time, money and potentially lives because you thought it would be a "good idea" to try to help. Alex, this discussion started because of the following statements "He sould be taken to court in this country for endangering the lives of those that rescued him. He sould never have been there." JohnK says he should be prosecuted for endangering people because he shouldn't have been there... So where do we go from there? Do we prosecute the parents of kids who get stuck half way up the cliffs at Beachy Head (who "should'nt have been there"), who are "wasting (rescuers) time, money and potentially lives?" The degree is different, but the principle is the same........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Its a war zone where the even the locals pose a great danger to most forigeners. When you add in they make pains to point out they are a christian help group this is just asking for trouble. I cannot see how you can compare an accident to knowingly putting yourself in great danger. I am aware there is no law against this but there damm well should be. His do gooding attitude luckily didnt cost any lives but plenty of time and money, and who pays for this? US. The was also the possibilty of reprisals had our forces had killed anyone in the rescue. Its a hard enough job as it is without stirring up any more trouble with the locals on unnessesary rescue missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 John, I don't patricularly like do-gooders either, but to each his own, whatever helps you sleep at night...it's part of what we call liberty and freedom, the choice to get yourself in trouble and be bailed out by your countrymen/brothers etc... I don't like snakes either, but they do a good job nevertheless, or rats, spiders, ditto... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Im not going to qoute anyone from this thread...but its really odd when everyone falls into the left camp or the right camp...typical human mentality and reflects the way that we are conditioned by what we read in the rags or see on the box! (im guilty of that too) However, This man along with others actually climbed into his TV set (Mr Ben Stylee) to experience for himself first hand and and take part in a peaceful human mission on a more or less personal basis. He had as much right if not more right to be there than the hundreds and thousands of journalists hungry for ratings and better career prospects, he certainly was'nt there to get paid a handsome buck repairing telephone lines. He didn't go there to kill anyone either or have tea and biscuits, or convert Muslims to Christianity, he wasn't a spy either otherwise Bruce Kent (Former CND leader) wouldn't be having tea and biscuits with him. People like him travel to dangerous countries all the time, a lot of them get kidnapped its part and parcel of the risks involved...wether it be Columbia, or the former USSR...its just that anything from Iraq is going to be at the top of everyones interactive (press the red button) media menu right now. There are people like him kidnapped all the time. There are many volentary groups in iraq helping with all kinds of charitable work ranging from medical to more social affairs. Im sure his reasons for being there were valid, certainly more so than the enourmous numbers of journalists, some of whom are there for propaganda reasons..but many of them have been kidnapped too...and we dont turn around and say..'oh wtf were they doing there' no of course we don't because the stories in the paper or the telly are reported in a way that protects them from this sort of unnesasary ridicule so no journalist is going to say 'They shouldn't be there' despite the fact that its a complete media circus out there and half of them dont actually need to be there. He had more right than most to be there...and Im glad hes alive and well. The armed forces there wouldn't have been risking their life any more than they do driving an armoured people carrier down a road! everything they do holds a huge risk out there, so i dont believe Norman Kember and his associates put these men and women in any more danger than they are used to, if anything they are doing the intelligence services a favour (unintentionally Im sure lol) I wouldn't go there (but then I wouldn't drive South of the River either:p )...but i respect anyone who does for a worthwhile reason:innocent: Edited..(coz i played truant since I left skool) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now