Stupid is as Stupid Does »
When did people get so dependent that they actually expect to get pulled out of whatever mess that they've gotten themselves into? I realize that it makes me sound completely heartless, and perhaps I just am completely heartless, but come on. This family is in Lebanon and they're upset that they are unable to get out.
Among their comments, things like "They (presumably Israel, but I'm not certain) did not even drop leaflets to tell them (a family who was killed) that they (Israel again, I guess) were going to bomb (prior to dropping said bombs)...". You're in a war zone people. If you get hit by a bomb, it makes it all right if someone dropped leaflets first?
Then we get "I am scared they (meaning the US, I think) are never going to get us out...". I can buy this one, to some degree, until "All the Americans here feel like we have been abandoned and slapped in the face." Gee, maybe you shouldn't have gone to someplace where they have the potential to erupt in wars. Have you not heard that there is unrest in the Middle East, and it's been like that for, oh a couple thousand years? I'm sorry that your husband is from Lebanon and all, but why is that our problem?
But wait, it gets better because everyone complained that it might cost a couple hundred dollars per person, and to this family it may cost as much as $4000. So naturally, the State Department dropped the plan to charge anything at all. That's right, now it's someone else's problem entirely. What is wrong with the world?
I am sorry that you're in a war zone, and I do hope that nothing happens to you. But if you don't want to get killed, perhaps you shouldn't have gone there in the first place! I feel better now.
Comments (12)
Although you certainly make a point I don't think that abandoning those in hostile countries is sound policy.
Namely if people realize that they won't be aided at all by their native country then they are completely at risk when attempting to provide aid to foreign countries.
I am not intimately aware of the details of this particular family but I would certainly be disappointed if aid workers attempting to prevent war and aid the innocent were unaided when hostilities broke out between rival nations.
Certainly there is a risk when doing these things, but I don't think the government should effectively ignore the need of its citizens just because they chose a dangerous profession, especially for such noble causes like aid work.
I'm not thrilled that the US might have to float the bill for them leaving either, but I'd rather that then just leave them there with a 'tough luck' excuse.
But that is just me.
Posted by rob | July 19, 2006 12:16 PM
Yes, you are heartless. And rather ignorant, as well. Why do we have consulates and embassies in these countries if not to help our citizens abroad? In today's world, violence could breakout almost anywhere. Should we all stay home where we're safe (like the folks in New Orleans were!)?
Posted by susan | July 19, 2006 12:33 PM
Amen Brother! You are NOT heartless. You are being realistic!! Let's face it, many of those Americans living abroad were doing so with their job and they took that RISK because they were well compensated to take that RISK. Whatever it costs THEM to get out of this mess is the same type of cost that those living in a hurricane region, tornado region, flood region, earthquake region or anyone other potential nightmare take on when they LIVE in those situations.
I AM sympathetic to their situation and to everyone else - not just Americans living in the Middle East, however, my momma taught me - "you got yourself into this mess, you'll have to cowboy up and get yourself out of it!" Maybe they should try that point.
FYI - most of the countries that were running quickly to the aid of their countrymen had far fewer citizens there and were in much closer proximity.
Also, as another FYI to your readers, it might not be a good a idea to move to North Korea right now either . . .
Posted by Melissa | July 19, 2006 1:07 PM
Perfect example, Susan - or did you not read the amounts of money wasted on Hurricane Katrina aid that went to iPods and the like, while actual aid items that were purchased have now turned up missing (I guess that means that they haven't turned up at all).
The point isn't to not help people. The point is to illustrate that our society has gotten to a point where we have come to depend on handouts, rather than to be glad that help comes. That's a huge difference.
Posted by Chad Everett | July 19, 2006 4:20 PM
Amen Chad! I don't think the 25,000+ Americans in Lebanon are all there in a humanitarian capacity, more likely they enjoy living well for pennies on the dollar and having servants, etc. Personally, the thought that my TAX DOLLARS are going to be spent getting them out makes me cringe. Stupid is as stupid does--whey do they expect (demand?) that somebody else rescue them. (Ditto for folk without insurance when a natural disaster hits.)
No tears being shed from this reader.
Posted by Valerie | July 19, 2006 10:11 PM
I have enjoyed your blog -- just wanted to let you know that the family is now home.
Posted by JenW | July 22, 2006 11:50 AM
I totally agree with you!
Posted by Kim | July 24, 2006 10:24 PM
Yes it is much better to spend a billion dollars a week in Iraq to make Dick Cheney richer. He's gonna have a hell of a pay off coming from Haliburton when he's out of office.
Now I hear they will be rebuilding Lebanon.
Posted by teresa | July 24, 2006 11:12 PM
OK, I guess I understand the US helping it's own citizens out but what is really burning me up is that there is talk of a lawsuit against the government for taking too long to get everyone out (I'm with you on the fact that these people knew the risk when they traveled to an area that has been almost at war for quite sometime), and they want the US to demand a cease fire.
Posted by jt | July 25, 2006 2:20 PM
A thing I thought was interesting is on how for the people who couldn't pay to get themselves out have to sign an IOU contract. I see a way out of that contract. When a contract is signed under duress it is not legit.
I don't agree with them making a lawsuit. That sounds too much like, "Hey, great way to get rich fast".
I got an e-mail that described how Texas wound up wasting money on Katrina victems. They put together a job convention. The people complained that they had no way get to it. So Texas provided the transportation. Only one went. And still didn't get a job.
But don't get too upset over the little people. Don't forget that the higher ups spent tax dollars to declare that the tomato is a fruit.
Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2006 11:06 AM
Current law explicitly states that the State Department *must* charge people the current going rate for airfare, plus $1. What these people are asking the government to do is break its own laws. Charging them money is not heartless, it's the law.
Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi was one of the most vocal critics of the State Department throughout this whole time. She voted *yes* to the law requiring the State Department to charge money.
Posted by Jason | August 1, 2006 4:59 PM
That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that they could get themselves out of the contract if they get themselves a clever lawayer. I didn't say that it was the right thing to do.
If one thinks about it, how did they plan on getting back in the first place? Right back to my previous statment only it get's changed to, "Hey, free money."
Posted by Jennifer | August 1, 2006 10:34 PM