The US Politics |OT|

[Baalzamon]

EricHiggin said:

Baalzamon said:

The problem with your scenario is this wouldn't be helping the friend who got kidnapped with the ransom.

In your situation, what the US did was lend money to the person, then like 3 days later, took it all back and said sorry, you actually need to deal with this on your own.

I don't think you're following. I'm not saying what would be right or wrong, just presenting another way to look at it.

To help or not to help a new friend afterwards, even though you helped in the first place in another scenario, which benefited you to some degree.

Based on what was being argued, was that the new friend should go out of their way, to find a way, to get the ransom paid in this new scenario and not give up, while also having all the blame put on them, because the blame isn't to be shared with anyone else involved, or who could help, who also felt someone should do something.

*Think I see where you got confused. The very last line maybe should have ended with, 'decided to help a little bit in the first place'. That seemed apparent to me at the time since I was referencing a prior line, but looking at it another way, I can see why it may have been confusing.

No. You are wrong.

Your scenario suggests you help a friend by borrowing them money. The friend then gets kidnapped. While they are kidnapped, you continue helping them by letting them still borrow the initial money, but help EVEN FURTHER by also paying the ransom for their kidnapping. You are now currently out the initial money you borrowed them AS WELL as the ransom money. Two separate instances of help.

In the case of the Kurd scenario. This would be us providing troops (instance 1 of help). Then, once things get worse, us providing even more yet troops and support beyond the initial troops already there to help (instance 2).

What the US did is quite literally pull the money away that was just borrowed to the friend in the first place.