In today's world people are fully aware of the dangers of traveling to certain countries. Why should we foot the bill to bring them home when things go badly in places where terrorism has become common place? Why should we have to risk our soldier's lives and pay to send ships and supplies to evacuate those who could have very easily stayed home?
2006-07-18 09:21:20 · 11 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
When a woman from Corpus Christi, Texas was asked if she knew it was risky to go there with her two children, she refused to answer. Instead she complained that the government was taking to long to come and get her. The government didn't make her travel there. Why take your children into the face of danger then complain?
2006-07-18 09:23:57 · update #1
It costs taxpayers to send the ships, pay the military, etc. So why should I pay for stupidity? Shouldn't all Americans then have the right to ask for the money back? I don't put myself in situations that require such extreme help, so gimme my money back folks.
2006-07-18 09:36:11 · update #2
i think the american government should also charge illegal aliens for a ride home too. fair is fair!
2006-07-18 09:26:27 · answer #1 · answered by evanlah 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I was the head of your government these people would be getting a bill where by it would take them five years just to pay back the cost of this outrageous evacuation, can you imagine the cost of sending those war ships and planes to the middle east, now your media will take hold of this and seek out all your bleeding hearts to yell foul about how much cost and how long it took to get the job done, In Canada we have the same problem only up here the bleeding hearts lobby the hell out of our politic ions, what is sad is the dummies listen to them, and our media up here well we will have to listen to all the government bashing and sensationalizing now for the next month or more what these stupid stupid people have caused is absolutely unacceptable, but guess what, we will pay pay pay for all those dummies.
2006-07-18 10:02:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To the final of my know-how human beings are being charged a flat value for evacuation, despite if in the event that they are actually unable to pay they are nonetheless evacuated and could be dealt with later. a pair foundations and charity businesses alongside with some government charities are choosing up the tab for the evacuees. no longer undesirable. A advertisement deliver with a US destroyer escort or protection stress helicopter isn't a foul thank you to shuttle, so a techniques as risk-free practices is going
2016-11-02 07:19:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should foot the bill, because that's what being a citizen of a country is all about - especially America. Citizens have that support they need should something happen while they are overseas. And when it comes to America, that's the basis of our whole country - supporting our fellow man. When we are needed, we are there for each other, especially if it means saving an American's life. 9/11 really proved this if there were ever any doubts.
2006-07-18 09:27:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the 2,500 people there could pay the whole cost; seriously we're talking millions of dollars. And those who want to complain about it not happening for them the way they want it - tough darn luck - our government didn't pay you to go there or order you too then you shouldn't complain.
The media is going to make this a New Orleans thing and government failure all over again....watch. And like I've said about New Orleans its the individuals responsibility to protect themselves not the governments.
Yes I think they should pay a fee - probably $1000 a person or something like that - but its probably going to cost 10's of millions to get them all out.
2006-07-18 09:26:20 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From what I understand, they're only getting evacuated to Cyprus (an island nation very close), after that, people are on their own to get home from there.
Oh, and before a week ago, Lebanon was a fairly stable and safe place, relatively speaking for the middle-east.
2006-07-18 09:27:20 · answer #6 · answered by Nate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We didn't pay to send them there Why would we pay to get them out. The only ones who shouldn't have to pay are those there working for the government. Anyone else chose to go there and should be responsible for there own way home.
2006-07-18 10:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are we worrying about this now????
Thats like saying..."Well ma'am....your house is burning down with your kids inside. We can get em out. But we're going to need to see a valid credit card and two forms of ID"
Give me a break.
Well sweetie....next time you get hit by a car...I really don't want my tax money to pay for any police officers or firemen that might rescue you. I mean you shouldn't be putting yourself in that risky going outside situation anyways.
2006-07-18 09:29:43 · answer #8 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES, if one is ridiculous enough to go to a war zone, then they need to pay the price to get themselves out. The govt cant handle what's in the US. How are they expected to handle the rest of the world. Big Brother is only wanted when assistance is needed.
2006-07-18 09:26:44 · answer #9 · answered by iyamacog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. It was their choice to go there. Unless they work for the government.
2006-07-18 09:26:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋