Americans: Pay to flee

when I was running this morning, I passed one of those road side news stand things that has The Apartment Guide, Apartment Showcase, and all those other freebies in it.  There was also "The Guide to Lawyers."  Maybe they could work something out.

... should there be a free lunch as well.

Lebanon dangerous?  ... who knew?

I see no reason why the shouldn't pay. If they don't want to pay let them stay in Beirut until the airport gets fixed. They are the ones that made the choice to visit an unstable country and should have not that there is a certain risk to that.

The people that got caught in the hurricane that hit Cancun didn't have a free ride home from the Gov't. 

If you choose to go someplace dangerous, or anyplace for that matter, just because you're an American doesn't mean that you're special.  The only people that shouldn't have to pay, IMHO, are the Embassy staff.  They are asked to be there.

I completely agree. There are travel warnings to these countries, and they could have left anytime before.

I read that there were a couple of students there. My first thought was "I would NOT let my child go there. And if they fought me, well, its on them."

Wouldn't they be paying for a plane ticket home eventually anyway, even without the fighting?  Don't see why it's that big a deal.  After all, the State Department has been issuing travel warnings for Lebanon for quite some time. 

Mark 

No one is blaming them for visiting the country ... but asking them to take responsibility for a decision made to visit a country that has a long history of being unstable is not unrealistic.

Not to be contrary, but there has been two solid weeks of escalating violence + kidnappings (above the norm) with Isreal rattling their swords at the border ...

... which, I believe, is being done.  The question posed was whether the citizens ought to be bear some responsibility for the cost associated with being placed on a cruise ship or other methods to evacuate them.

Well, they *are* being evacuated.  Nobody is being turned away or asked to fork over money upfront or they get left ( at least from what I've seen reported ).

If you travel somewhere the US Gov't says "don't go, travel at your own risk, not safe for you", should you be surprised and outraged when it turns out those warnings should have been heeded after all?

I don't see a massive problem with asking people who've put themselves in a dangerous situation and need to be rescued to accept some of the burden of their rescue.

Several states have statutes that permit the recovery of rescue costs for people who ignore hazzards and warnings and other avoidable situations and then require rescue.  Example, hikers who ignore 'closed' signs on an unsafe trail, and end up requiring helicopter extraction due to their action.   I don't see this as being much different.

And besides most of them are being taken to the ship by helicopter. A cruise and helicopter sight seeing ride for $200 bucks, thats a damn good deal. 

Ding.  You have the benefits (whatever they might have been) of a life in Lebanon, but there are costs too.  This is one of 'em.

And FWIW, no one's paying to evacute me out of Detroit. 

Hijack and Gripe:

Following Katrina, certain media pundits were making inferences about the groups of people on TV asking for help.  No such inferences were made about the people stranded by Rita who also appeared on TV asking for help.

That being said, evacuation insurance would not be an unreasonable investment for someone bound for a country that is so frequently in turmoil...

IMHO...it has nothing to do with the people in Lebanon and their plight, it has everything to do with 'what does it do for the congresswonks' and their partisan agenda.  I think it was driven by three things...

1) It's a relatively cheap way of buying votes on a visible, emotional subject

2) it allows the republicans to break the string of really solid press they've been getting lately by doing something benevolent for the oppressed, and

3) it corners the Democrats, as they'll likely have to agree with this (I'm surprised there wasn't baby-kissin' involved), so both sides can claim on the front page of the NYT that they're really non-partisan and cooperating smoothly at all levels of government.

They roll like that.

Ding ding ding ding...we have a winner! We were looking for "pandering", but we'll accept that.