You seem to be confused and just want to whine and impose your own morality on others.
You are complaining about the cost, or you wouldn't say in 428:
"It costs money to run the choppers ... And it just didn't have to be."
You do appear to be jealous that someone would want to enjoy their lives this way. And how dare they impose pain and suffering on their family and friends. Guess what, I would rather my loved one be out doing what he/she loves doing, and die doing it, than have them home miserable.
The left uses the same emotional argument about why we should not have our soldiers in harms way in the WOT. And yes, it is the same argument because all of the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq volunteered. They die, their families hurt. How dare they do that to their families and cost taxpayers money in doing so.
It says "I would rather lose a lover that love a loser."
A point missed by Jez.
The climbers could have at least carried locators to help the searchers find their bodies.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I truly am not jealous of these guys up on the mountain. I promise you I am not. I have no desire to be there, and I seriously doubt they are enjoying themselves, if they are alive. If you think some of us are wrong for not admiring them, then so be it.
It does cost taxpayer money to undertake this rescue. Why do you and others struggle so hard to deny that? I'm saying it didn't have to be because if they'd used better sense and stayed off the mountain during this time, others would not be risking their lives and the costs need not have been expended. That is a fact, like it or not. The cost is not that big of an issue to me, and I certainly don't want the mission to not be done because these guys were foolish and it is costing money, but the fact remains that it wouldn't be being expended had they chosen less dangerous conditions. If any survive, I think they should pay some compensation. It goes on all over the country on lakes and so forth where people take unwise risks, such as these ice fishermen. Sure, they're rescued, and I want them to be, but they are warned not to go on the ice when the conditions are bad and they go anyway. They are required to reimburse the rescue operation and their equipment, such as their snowmobiles and ATVs stay at the bottom of the lake unless and until the owner later fishes it out, not an easy task I would think.
Suppose there was a commercial plane crash nearby while this rescue is going on and there are limited assets in the area to conduct the rescue operation because these guys chose to go up there at this time? Airline travel is considered one of the safest forms of travel. Do we let them perish because the available assets are deployed to the climber rescue mission?
Our military volunteered to serve their country, not their own selfish need to take risks. That is a despicable comparison. It isn't even logical to claim they are costing the war expenditures because they were ORDERED there and congress authorized the money, so it's a ridiculous argument.
The lives of these two remaining men are of extreme importance to their loved ones and I hope they make it, so I do not begrudge the expense of the mission. One (hopefully) last time: It is NOT free, and that was my entire point. You, my friend, sound like the lefty here with your idea that all the stuff we have to undertake this rescue mission just falls out of the sky and costs nobody a dime. Repeat: It is NOT free! If we lose a chopper and crew up there, the taxpayers just lost a multi-million dollar aircraft and several families would likely lose a loved one, again for something that did NOT have to be. See how that works? WE paid for it, and these military people risking their lives are just as important to their families as the climbers are to theirs. But more realistically (than losing a chopper and crew), there are real-dollar personnel and equipment cost expenditures even if we don't lose anything. The Chinooks up there are NOT the private aircraft of the climbers.