You know what, yea that was below the belt. My attempt at levity obviously failed. Sorry Brenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
Printable View
You know what, yea that was below the belt. My attempt at levity obviously failed. Sorry Brenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
SuckaLot asks,In the situation you describe, I might be able to prevent the robbery by pulling the gun. And I may even do it. But let’s look at the negatives that weigh into the decision.Quote:
trish, your putting it like would you give your TV for your life. If someone had a gun on me, then they could have the TV. Think of it this way though. If someone came to rob you with a knife, but you had a gun and people around the corner. Wouldn't you say, "are you crazy?" pull the gun and call your people over?
1. Remember, the hypothetical I postulated was such that I was not in danger of physical harm, or at least that was my hypothetical judgment. By pulling the gun, I change that. By threatening harm to the robbers, I escalated the situation. The situation is now officially dangerous to my life and limb.
2. By introducing the gun, I introduce the possibility that I may be overpowered, perhaps by a robber I didn’t see. Now they have a gun as well as a knife.
3. Suppose they’re stupid. They grab the TV and run. I’m still not going to shoot them, the TV’s not worth a human life, because I wouldn’t give my life for a TV.
4. Suppose they're stupid and attack me. Now my life and limb are in danger and I have to shoot. I took a situation in which no one had to die and made [it] into one in which someone may die and die by my hand!
So once again my maxim is: If it's not worth your life, it's not worth another's.
That’s right. And when they’re messing with me, they’re messing with a reasonable person who respects life and has her values in place.Quote:
People need to be let known who they're messing with.
Don’t let that prefix “super” go to your head. In this case it merely means that at this moment in history we have the most atomic weapons, and still a relatively strong economy.Quote:
After all we are the worlds superpower.
Now here I gather you switched gears on me and are talking about Somalia and not home invasion. We do not give Somalia plenty of aid. Somali families are starving. Moreover, I think it’s a bit trite to characterize piracy as holding hostages for TV sets.Quote:
We give those people plenty of help and aid. They should be grateful we help feed their families, not holding hostages for television sets.
[edits in square brackets]
they say Brenda's got a baby, but Brenda's barely got a brain. A damn shame, the girl could hardly spell her name.
trish- : P ...just shutup, we're arguing semantics here.
Oh really? You'd rather argue syntax? If it's just semantics, why does it upset you so?
put a few a these on each ship and there will be no more pirates. They will be running in there little fishing boats
http://www.16ops.com/camerapics/BazookaTest_01_lar.jpg
http://www.amazing-planet.net/slike/...el_bazooka.jpg
http://imagecache.allposters.com/ima...MZ-Posters.jpg
Yeah, we could put a few helmets on each ship, but I don't see how that'll help :)
It's precisely this attitude that has caused the US moral standing to plummet internationally. President Obama has stessed that bridges need to be rebuilt through negotiation and genuine openness. Countries around the world (including old friends) are thankful that the "you're either with us or against us" attitude has been replaced by diplomacy. Being the words superpower gives the US a responsibility to use it's power wisely. Similarly, diplomacy and dealing with the bigger picture is required to eliminate piracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suckalot1
Those who make personal sacrifices to help others do so generously and with good intent, however the reality is that the poor provide more aid to the rich that the other way round.Quote:
You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We give those people plenty of help and aid. They should be grateful we help feed their families, not holding hostages for television sets.
There are 4 major problems with "aid" from the US:
1. The US is both the most generous and stingiest when it comes to foreign aid. http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html
2. More funds are moving from poor countries to rich countries than the other way round. http://www.europaworld.org/week151/d...unds311003.htm Work led by Gordon Brown to write off debt in a few African countries will help, but debt recovery payments made by poor countries to IMF and others still exceeds foreign aid.
3. Foreign aid is a critical part of foreign policy rather than targetted at the needy. That is why 25% of US foreign aid is provided to Israel, a country with similar per capita income to Europe, which other major recipients are Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Those in the world's poorest countries receive nothing, unless their strategically important.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/...aid-assistance
4. REAL aid involves empowering developing economies to grow rather than simply maintain minimum income (feeding families). It is through empowering these families to feed themselves that real progress will be achieved.
OK, maybe deviated from the OP, but let's be clear about the way foreign aid has been used by the US and other countries for political rather than altruistic reasons.
BTW, if someone broke into my house wielding a knife and looking to steal the TV I'd get the hell out and call the police. I'm not planning to "drop" anyone.
Well Trish, I don't know why you'd hesitate to take on a crew emptying your house. You seem to be comfortable taking on this whole place.
I understand the perturbation with the rah rah shoot-em-up crowd, & I get the whole deprivation theory of criminology, but I think there's more to all of this.
If you've got the wherewithal to go after ships 200 miles out to sea, you've got the wherewithal to do something else. These ships are being ransomed for millions of dollars each. Where's the money? One would think that after a ship or 2, the whole deprivation theory would go right out the window. But this windfall doesn't seem to be making it's way to the mainland of Somalia. The pirates are rich by Somali standards (not much), but not like they should be if they were getting the cash. These jackings seem to be organized, but the guys who did this were basically kids & were neither smart or sophisticated. Something's wrong with this picture.
Another thing I have a problem with is all this shrieking about Somalia as if the Somali coast the big hotbed of piracy in the world. Not so. That dubious distinction belongs to the South China Sea & has for decades, if not a century or more. Piracy is going on all around Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania, the Mediteranian, & the Caribbean. It's a huge business, & it's lucrative because everybody pays the extortion. There's a problem, & nobody's talking about it. Why?
Thanks for highlighting this.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
So an impoverished nation is being robbed of it's mineral resources by use of a UN-appointed government (TFG), special negotiator - with vested interests and a deadline that no other county faces.
They may wear suits but who are the pirates?
http://blog.norway.com/tag/transitio...mali-republic/