HG131 said:
1) Put into the system to help those the Salvation Army says in its mission statement its bound to help (i.e. the needy, but thats a general term and encompasses a lot of people).
2) Spent it on himself. he had a lot of it in a few bank accounts, and was indulging in caligula like fantasies of wealth and spoilment.
this isnt my name said:
Thats an oppinion. Lets use an example say there is another person with a gun about to shoot someone, say you have the power to stop it, would you ?
Either way someone will die, either through your actions or refusal to act.
I disagree sometimes ending lives can be for the greater good, hell look at WW2 we killed LOTS of people, all to save lives.
Allthough I dont understand in this situation how the guy is saving lives, so I dont really see it as relavent.
Would depend on the person I suppose, though I dont need to stop someone by killing them. I may break him, but I wouldnt need to kill him.
However, put in the situation, and with no prior knowledge, I dont act. I dont know if I'ms aving the next Ghandi or the next Hitler, and I'll bare it on my conscious and in the courts that I didnt help. Its not my place to if I have to kill one person to do it.
And its all well and good to say that we were just and saying we were saving lives, but the US couldnt give two shits about the camps until they actually started stumbling on them. We were in the European Theatre cause Japan pulled us in the Pacific Theatre, and we had already been supplying Britain with guns and supplies to help our allies (all in secrecy). If the US had actually been bothered to save mopre lives, we would have jumped in sooner, instead of sitting behind our isolationist beliefs.