Canadian citizen hostage in Iraq

[Black Dog]

It is not a question of the State ignoring its citizens. If the Canadian government could save one guy in Iraq and that's all, then I'd say fine. But it can't. The Canadian government has just sent out the message that it will help extricate kidnapped people travelling voluntarily to war-torn countries. Think of what message that implies

You make it sound like the people who head to these areas are actuially hoping they get kidnapped or something, just to waste tax dollars and piss you off.

Fact is, there's a lot of good being done in this world by people who leave their safe and cushy lives here to make a difference somewhere else, even if that means putting their own lives on the line. Now imagine if these individuals knew that if they got into trouble, their government would not help them out. How many would stay home and how many good works would be undone as a result?

[MapleLeafMerc]

Some people here think that there is no limit to government resources. If you believe that every dollar you and I earn really belongs to the government, then that may be so. I guess we should be thankful that the tax rate isn't 100%. For the rest of us, we see gov't spending as making choices as to how to best use scarce resources.

So I think August has a point. A heart operation for a child at Sick Kids, or rescue an adult that went to Iraq of his own free will? The choice is easy.

Besides, with all this altruism going around, I'm sure you guys would have no problem raising the rescue/ransom money yourselves.

[Black Dog]

So I think August has a point. A heart operation for a child at Sick Kids, or rescue an adult that went to Iraq of his own free will? The choice is easy

It's not a zero-sum game fellas. It's not like anyone's saying no to a heart operation in favor of rescuing a citizen in a far off land.

I also find it interesting that many of the peopkle suddenly so concerned with the well-being of sick kids and homeless people would bristle at the suggesstion of raising taxes so that the government has the means to look after the needs of all citizens.

[August1991]

It's not a zero-sum game fellas. It's not like anyone's saying no to a heart operation in favor of rescuing a citizen in a far off land.

The government budget is a zero-sum game.

A child has no choice; an adult travelling abroad does. This leads to another result.

Children are unlikely to change their behaviour because of what the government does; adults do that all the time.

[Black Dog]

The government budget is a zero-sum game.

Not in the way you mean. If you can demonstrate the relationship between Foreign Affairs' budget and the amount of money spent on children, fine. But you can't.

It's a false dichotomy.

[August1991]

If you can demonstrate the relationship between Foreign Affairs' budget and the amount of money spent on children, fine.

One dollar more for the Ambassador's reception means one dollar less for development assistance - or left in a taxpayer's pocket to buy a candy bar for a son or daughter.

[Black Dog]

One dollar more for the Ambassador's reception means one dollar less for development assistance - or left in a taxpayer's pocket to buy a candy bar for a son or daughter.

One dollar more for the Canadian Forces is one dollar less for the kiddies too, but I don't hear you calling for cuts to the military to fund social programs.

We're one of the richest societies in the world living in a time of unprecedented wealth. There's no reason we can't have a government that helps all its citizens at home and abroad.

[August1991]

One dollar more for the Canadian Forces is one dollar less for the kiddies

True.

There's no reason we can't have a government that helps all its citizens at home and abroad.

False.

You choose, BD, between an adult who decides to go off to Iraq (despite explicit warnings not to) and a hungry kid someplace. Keep in mind that your choice might encourage more people to line up for your largesse.

[Black Dog]

False

Why? Explain.

I refuse to play into your emotionally loaded false dichotomy.

[August1991]

Why? Explain.

I refuse to play into your emotionally loaded false dichotomy.

I imagine by "false dichotomy" you mean that it is not black and white; it can be in between. Absolutely. This is a question of degree - as anyone who has ever worked on a committee fixing a budget knows.

But it is a zero sum game. There's only so much money on the table and at a certain point, the committee has to make priorities and choose.

Emotionally loaded? PM PM has clearly let the CBC media and public opinion decide the priorities. They help the Iraqi kidnap guy. Not the hungry kid.

And watch when the CBC media types get all surprised because there are suddenly more of these Iraqi kidnap types! Duh.

[Black Dog]

First, you've yet to show that

a) There aren't actually enough resources to go around (hint: "it's a matter of priorities").

that there is any direct correlation between money spent aiding Canadian citizens abroad (as oppossed to any other use of taxpayer funds) and declining social services at home. After all, the government funds amateur athletes and tons of other seemingly superfilous things: why all this anger at helping someone who was trying to do some good in this world? Besides: did the release of the fellow in question even cost us a dime?

And watch when the CBC media types get all surprised because there are suddenly more of these Iraqi kidnap types!

Yeah I know I'm all over going to Iraq now. I can't wait! I hope I get kidnapped and the government has to spend money getting me back. What's a little terror and a few beatings when I could be off sticking it to the man! </sarcasm>

Finally, I'm really quite surprised at your sudden concern for the downtrodden in this country. When can we in the NDP expect your membership contribution?

[August1991]

a) There aren't actually enough resources to go around (hint: "it's a matter of priorities").

A David Suzuki moment. Get out the camera.

I'm really quite surprised at your sudden concern for the downtrodden in this country. When can we in the NDP expect your membership contribution?

I've always considered myself left wing - in the sense that the State should steal from the rich and give to certain poor people under certain special conditions. From what I saw of Bob Rae, we would probably not agree on the conditions.

[Black Dog]

So you've nothing to add? Then I guess we can put this one to bed.

[vroom]

I know I know... I'm late to the party!

However, I find it hard to believe my eyes as I read this thread. Traditionally, the government of any real country takes an interest in the treatment of its citizens by the countries that they visit.

Certainly, some places are riskier than others, but to imply the goverment can suddenly ignore its duties and just let its own citizens be killed when it could step and and save them simply by making sure it is known they are Canadians and tourists or aid workers or whatnot, that is incredibly heartless.

Wars can start when one country treats the citizens of another country poorly. This is a serious thing. At the same time, nobody has once suggested that Canada has been negotiating with other parties in order to get our guy back. If this were the case or if payment was made I'd be incensed, but I have heard nothing of the sort except within this thread.

Anyway, I hope I'm able to find more intelligent and mature conversation than rants concerning Canada's willingness to demonstrate an appropriate level of care for its own citizens. How silly.