Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarycrusader | Hacker News Reader

So instead of $35 a month, they're paying them $350 a month? They'll be rich the rest of their lives! But seriously, that's not the point of the article.

It shouldn't matter how much or how little the US Government is paying them, the point is that if the US was willing to trust them in sensitive situations, they should also trust them to enough to grant them a Visa.

It also doesn't matter if the US is alone in exercising poor judgment; that doesn't make it right.

Some of these people helped the US/others with the belief that their country would be a better place after they left. Not worse.

View on HN

> It shouldn't matter how much or how little the US Government is paying them, the point is that if the US was willing to trust them in sensitive situations, they should also trust them to enough to grant them a Visa.

You state this as if its a fact. It's not.

Just because A is true does not indicate that B is true.

Quoting raw dollar values is completely meaningless if you do not also consider the price index in the country where that money will be spent (hence why I quoted the factor to average pay).

We pay soldiers hazard pay, and I don't think it's 10 times the base pay.

I don't understand the implication between "hiring people in a foreing country" and "giving them unlimited visas into your country". Does not compute.

Well, then they should have hedged their bet.

> "We pay soldiers hazard pay, and I don't think it's 10 times the base pay."

Right, and we pay soldiers extra to be in hazardous situations - yet when push comes to shove we're still responsible for getting them out.

We don't leave people to die because we paid them and they knew the risks. We don't leave firefighters in burning buildings and we don't leave miners underground, either.

> "Well, then they should have hedged their bet."

I am not sure what mentality would inspire someone to look at a person facing torture, abuse, and eventual beheading, and say "welp, shoulda hedged your bets".

It only sounds that way because the original proposition is ridiculous. You become a traitor to your country for monetary gain and expect the invading force to change the peoples' sentiment? That has never worked, as far as I can tell.

Instead, these people take the money and use it to relocate to a nicer place. If the country is still falling apart after the invasion, even more so.

I would rather take the view that if you were brave enough to oppose the Taliban you are a patriot considering what the Taliban want for your country.

Who's the traitor?

Calling them a traitor is pretty preposterous. Your argument also seems to indicate that monetary gain is the only motivation for these folks doing what they do. It is possible that they are true patriots for their country fighting injustice at the cost of their own homes.

wow, you sound like a real charmer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com