Originally Posted by dhays
Wow... I disagree. He didn't say that he wished for her to need rescue. He didn't say that if she did need rescue that she shouldn't be rescued. He didn't say that if she needed rescue new NZ that she shouldn't be rescued. He simply said that IF she needed rescue that it occurred within a taxing district that he wasn't a part of.
I think we can clearly infer that if it was up to him he wouldn't do it. He doesn't want to be a part of funding the rescue, and without funding the helicopters don't get off the ground and the rescue ships don't leave port. That's fine if that's his opinion, but my opinion is that it's a piss-poor attitude. To pick and choose who gets help when in distress based on whether or not he agrees with them? No, I stand by what I said. Piss-poor.
What's so distasteful to me is the concept that withholding assistance should be an option or a discussion point in the first place. Or that we should carve out some special-case exception to make them bear the cost of rescue. It's as though they aren't getting their way by keeping her in port, so as a spiteful parting shot they try to withhold emergency assistance if needed.