Join Date: Aug 2008
Thanked 192 Times in 184 Posts
Rep Power: 0
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.
Though on the one hand you're right - that all the various thoughts of having the long, honorable tradition of providing assistance to anyone who needs it withdrawn under certain circumstances is a slippery slope - you also have to see the other side of it.
As Abby S's case clearly showed, there is a line somewhere at which point the honor in that tradition can be taken advantage of.
Last edited by smackdaddy; 07-28-2010 at 11:00 AM.