Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on September 01, 2005, 07:15:09 pm
-
It's like a ****ing joke.
25,000+ in the superdome without food, water, restrooms, A/C, medicine, etc. and one woman they interviewed had been standing on the tarmac WITH HER BABY since 7:00 AM YESTERDAY. every time buses come, everyone fights their way to the buses, and she gets pushed back. they've got bodies just sitting on the seats with a sheet over them. helicopters are sent in to help, and after looters on the streets start shooting at them, they back off... no more supplies until they can guarantee a safe passage for the helicopters.
what would i do? those few people are ruining the chances of survival for 25k people who NEED the supplies. i say send the civilian helicopters in escorted by apaches. let the apaches respond to ANY attack in kind. take one of the carriers sitting in the gulf, swim it to new orleans, and have it launch F16s to sweep the city.
it's being handled like a 3rd world country. it's so sad. there will be 10k dead by the time this is over, watch.
“This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace,” he said. “FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can’t bail out the city of New Orleans.”
and it's so true. read it and weep. read it and ****ing weep.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
what would i do? those few people are ruining the chances of survival for 25k people who NEED the supplies. i say send the civilian helicopters in escorted by apaches. let the apaches respond to ANY attack in kind. take one of the carriers sitting in the gulf, swim it to new orleans, and have it launch F16s to sweep the city.
You're going to bring in F-16s against a civilian population? An an American one at that, in the middle of a city?
Right. OK. Cause Apaches and F-16s are really great against some pissed off homeless guy with a shotgun. And sending in an aircraft carrier is a completely reasonable and appropriate measure.
-
According to news reports here from the family of a Scots lad over there with his g.f, gangs are running the stadium with several rapes and a National Guard doing nothing but trying to appease everyone.
-
From what I've heard on the radio, that's about right. A bunch of foreigners including Aussies were evaced due to rampant anti foreignerism, near random stabbings and rape, basically anarchy. WTF kind of a situation is that for a so called first world nation? Stealth's right - it's a bloody disgrace, and if nothing's being done to stop it, doubly so.
-
Am I the only one who expects this kind of behavior from unregulated populations?
-
just shoot 'em. they torture those in need of help and hinder/halt and rescue/support efforts and endanger others with weapons, just shoot 'em, it'll make it easier for everyone.
-
Originally posted by vyper
According to news reports here from the family of a Scots lad over there with his g.f, gangs are running the stadium with several rapes and a National Guard doing nothing but trying to appease everyone.
Wrong. They are doing everything they can, there just isnt enough of them yet to really make an impact. 10k more are on the way, when they get there conditions will probably start to improve.
There are 65 N.O. refugees that are going to my school right now. they said the government is doing everything it can but things are just basically ****ed out of any possible control right now. Keep in mind that the people that remain in NO right now were the ones either too poor or too stupid to evacuate to begin with; that is why you see the massive amount of disorder present there right now.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Am I the only one who expects this kind of behavior from unregulated populations?
Am I the only one who expects it from Americans?
-
According to the news, armed mobs are attacking rescure operations. I don't care what the humane thing to do to criminals...if a person or group is stopping innocent people from living or being rescued, they deserve to be attacked. Any measures to stop the slaughter of the innocent must be taken. I don't care if these mobs are hungry...they should have looted Wal-mart for groceries instead of looting gun stores dry (I can't readily provide a source because it was on the tv news). They are attacking and hijacking rescue boats, hotels, etc. This is only serving to deter rescue operations, and isn't gaining them anything.
-
see, we don't just send out the tanks on the brown people, this is an American city, just about everyone calling for gunships to bring order here is an American, I want you to remember this next time one of us yahoos says something about leveling some Iraqi city.
for the record, I'm cool with the gunship escort.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
Am I the only one who expects it from Americans?
See, I believe in the equal slavery of all humans to the same instincts. Concepts of nationality are superficial to me.
-
It'd be somewhat ignorant not to drop it in the equation. After all, it is the one country where the government encourages such behaviour.
Naturally, generalising is idiotic, and saying that because the government is making you stupid therefore everyone is stupid would be wrong, but on average, there are more stupid people for sure.
-
I entirely disagree. These are people who have seen their environment literally shattered by forces entirely beyond their control. In a sense, their universe has collapsed. Put any population of human beings in such a situation, and I guarantee the same tendencies will manifest themselves. (Note: I am not defending-- simply analyzing.)
-
Wow. People taking advantage of the disorder and confusion in the aftermath of the hurricane? How surprising. :rolleyes:
Honestly, what did you guys expect? They're fairly isolated, there's not much to stop them, and they're armed. I'd expect the same in pretty much any nation, under those conditions.
Although the people shooting the Rescue coptors confuses me greatly. I mean, how stupid do you gotta be...
-
in a 3rd world country, things would be handled better because the people wouldnt lower themselves to the level that some have done in New Orlenes, which is act like theyre in an episode of MAD MAX!
for the record the louisnana governor has ASKED more times than i can remember for military support (which wont be given more than what we all have heared, which is a cple thousand to 10thousand at most), equipment such as heavy movers (only the national gaurd is doing it right now and they said they NEED MORE), and then u got these armed gangs actin the fool. your right its turned into some city out in the middle east on THE EDGE OF CHAOS. and bush running aorund playing politics isnt going to do anything to fix it. he needs to start JUST DISHING ORDERS, WHICH IS MOVE YOUR BLOODY *******S AND GET THOSE PEOPLE OUT OF THERE!
on the news ive seen SOOO MANY african americans down there its rediculous. lets this be a buncho (not to sound racist or anything) WHITE UPPERCLASS SNOBS (not that some of u arent cool) with control of the country, YOU BEST BELIEVE **** WOULDA BEEN DONE BY NOW!
what they gonna say huh? that they lacked the imagination for this to happen? THIS IS WORSE THAN 9/11 and worse than the Tsunami! The flood isnt going to kill people the most people, its the fuggin climate, disease, lack of water and food, everything else is going to ruin that part of the country for years on end............
this whole situation had me in school on some depressed notion and im here thinking to myself, gee, people are dying in stands, in the streets infront of children and babies and were in class worrying about graphic design. **** bush is having lunch while PEOPLE ARE DYING by the fuggin minute!
if this disaster happened a century ago, where as the military had MORE control to deploy, theyd woulda been out there already, the army and navy trying to evacuate people without the need for some president to tell them to! the governors woulda sent them in themselves.
hell it didnt take whatever president it was; long to decide send in the national guard to let african americans in the 50's in the south to go to school. theyre citizens, they can go to school whats the fuggin problem?!
theyre americans, why the hell is it taking so long almost 5 days to get anyone out there? BY AIR, BY SEA?! you need armed escort send in some god damned apache's in and if someone wants to play, the Apache pilots wont KID AROUND and wax the idiot who wants to revert into the primal human instinct of being a mad max fan.
-venting over.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I entirely disagree. These are people who have seen their environment literally shattered by forces entirely beyond their control. In a sense, their universe has collapsed. Put any population of human beings in such a situation, and I guarantee the same tendencies will manifest themselves. (Note: I am not defending-- simply analyzing.)
That is probably true, buy I can't help but wonder if that kind of a view is simply gained by inexperience in observing different cultures and ethnicities.
Surely, you would be doubtful of your own views if you were from the country in question?
But I digress, I know nothing of your experiences.
However, I would tend to still stick to my opinion, considering that I would imagine that the promotion of "fend for self" is enforced to a much higher degree in the US of A than anywhere else.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
see, we don't just send out the tanks on the brown people, this is an American city, just about everyone calling for gunships to bring order here is an American, I want you to remember this next time one of us yahoos says something about leveling some Iraqi city.
for the record, I'm cool with the gunship escort.
I SECOND THAT NOTION!
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Although the people shooting the Rescue coptors confuses me greatly. I mean, how stupid do you gotta be...
stupid enough not to run for you life when you live in a coastal city 20 feet below sea level and the mother fucker of all huricanes is bearing down right on you?
...maybe...?
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
That is probably true, buy I can't help but wonder if that kind of a view is simply gained by inexperience in observing different cultures and ethnicities.
Surely, you would be doubtful of your own views if you were from the country in question?
But I digress, I know nothing of your experiences.
However, I would tend to still stick to my opinion, considering that I would imagine that the promotion of "fend for self" is enforced to a much higher degree in the US of A than anywhere else.
Well, I put my trust in what I have learned about history, government, and behavioral science when I conclude that cultural "differences" are really superficial variations on the same patterns. I certainly believe that there are societies in the world that are better organized than that of the US, (Sweden being one of those), but my point is that no level of organization will succeed in bottling the human animal once circumstances reach a sufficent level of catastrophe.
-
for those of you saying this chaos is because there americans (nice sentement by the way) keep in mind that what you have here is the destilled, purest, most refined stupid that this city had to offer.
-
I personally think the looting ordeal is fine, as long as their just taking foodstuffs and water that they need to survive. But this stupid ****e of people stealing pants and other useless goods is just ****ing ignorance.
Originally posted by Bobboau
for those of you saying this chaos is because there americans (nice sentement by the way) keep in mind that what you have here is the destilled, purest, most refined stupid that this city had to offer.
Hicks?
Wait no I'm one of those, must be some higher level of stupidity
-
well, the stuff will probly get ruined before anything gets fixed, I realy doubt any of the stuff getting looted would ever be recoverable, so who cares? honestly, if I was there, I'm telling you, I would be looting, my first priority would be to get food water, then a gun (probly make sure I had one before the storm hit actualy), then some place dry(that was likely to stay that way), then hit the local best buy.
-
Swantz, I'm refering mostly to the fact that they stayed in the city with the storm comeing, ok, granted, it was also the poor, but still, I would have walked if I had to.
-
1 - This should not have happened.
2 - The US Military can deploy almost anywhere in the world within 48 hours. Why can't they deploy in massive numbers in their own country?
3 - Could it be something to do with the huge budget spend on Iraq?
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
for the record the louisnana governor has ASKED more times than i can remember for military support (which wont be given more than what we all have heared, which is a cple thousand to 10thousand at most), equipment such as heavy movers (only the national gaurd is doing it right now and they said they NEED MORE), and then u got these armed gangs actin the fool. your right its turned into some city out in the middle east on THE EDGE OF CHAOS. and bush running aorund playing politics isnt going to do anything to fix it. he needs to start JUST DISHING ORDERS, WHICH IS MOVE YOUR BLOODY *******S AND GET THOSE PEOPLE OUT OF THERE!
Which is exactly what he is doing. As I said earlier, they are doing all that they can possibly do at the moment. The problem isnt solved but simply 'sending in more troops'. You have got to realize that what they have down there right now is a logisical nightmare. Transportation is impaired albeit nonexistant due to 20ft floodwaters, electricity is out, fresh water is impossible to come by, people are rioting and they need to be evacuated. The problems solution isnt as simple as it may seem to you.
-
1 - This should not have happened.
What? Stop a hurricane? Impossible!
2 - The US Military can deploy almost anywhere in the world within 48 hours. Why can't they deploy in massive numbers in their own country?
And you dont consider the 10k troops that they are deploying right now a sufficient amount? As I said earlier, numbers arent necessarily the answer.
3 - Could it be something to do with the huge budget spend on Iraq?
No. How would it? Its isnt like the US government cant scrape up a few extra dollars every now and then when there is a crisis.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Well, I put my trust in what I have learned about history, government, and behavioral science when I conclude that cultural "differences" are really superficial variations on the same patterns. I certainly believe that there are societies in the world that are better organized than that of the US, (Sweden being one of those), but my point is that no level of organization will succeed in bottling the human animal once circumstances reach a sufficent level of catastrophe.
And I will agree to a point, but a society based on Greed will get there sufficiently faster IMO. In any case, a notable difference in at least, expectation of what will happen, can be seen.
Again, maybe just me.
Originally posted by Bobboau
for those of you saying this chaos is because there americans (nice sentement by the way) keep in mind that what you have here is the destilled, purest, most refined stupid that this city had to offer.
Yeah, you don't count in my thesis, already explained that.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
What? Stop a hurricane? Impossible!
BAH! we could have nuked it, that would have solved everything!
-
1 - Proper evacuation
2 - 10,000 troops obviously isn't enough and consider FEMA spend their lives planning for these things you'd think there would be contingencies in place that would involve massive amounts of man-power and relief.
3 - Remember that when I say budget spend I include the use of resources like men and machinery. Besides which the US government is in a lot more debt that it likes to talk about.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Which is exactly what he is doing. As I said earlier, they are doing all that they can possibly do at the moment. The problem isnt solved but simply 'sending in more troops'. You have got to realize that what they have down there right now is a logisical nightmare. Transportation is impaired albeit nonexistant due to 20ft floodwaters, electricity is out, fresh water is impossible to come by, people are rioting and they need to be evacuated. The problems solution isnt as simple as it may seem to you.
Finally, someone with an intelligent comment here. Are the rest of you even listening to yourselves? New Orleans is a practical Hiroshima right now, with feet of water covering just about everything. Like MP said, you can send the entire US Army down there, but with almost no way of getting around, and no place to house anyone in the first place, there isn't much else that can be done. This is a disaster just about beyond anything this country has ever seen; it's going to take a long time to even solve a few of the problems down there. The most crucial steps are getting people out of the city and plugging up the holes in the levees. After the floodwaters start to drop a little bit, and supplies are able to get to the city with somewhat more ease, that's when the massive recovery effort can really begin, and that's when all of those National Guardsmen will come in handy. For anyone to suggest that the people down there aren't doing everything in their power to help the city is not only callous, it's downright stupid. And for anyone using what's going on to push your own political agenda against the Iraq war, please, get a life. This is the last thing that needs to be thought of at this time.
I'm also inclined to agree with Ford Prefect's assessment of the looters down there. While it is true that most of the people who stayed in the city were the poor and homeless, and while I absolutely abhor the violence that people have been exhibiting against those trying to help them, I can almost understand it. Picture, if you will, everything that you know, your whole life, suddenly vanishing before your eyes. Picture being forced to live in a hot, humid, cramped, smelly, and downright unsanitary building for several days. Add that whole mix to the best of people, and the results are going to be ugly. Thinking along these lines doesn't excuse what's gone on down there, but it does help to understand why it's happening.
Edit: Take a look at things like this (http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_312_4517,00.html) and then tell me that there aren't people down there doing what needs to be done. These guys managed to set up a shelter for tens of thousands of people in just a few hours. If the other people down there are half as dedicated as these volunteers, they'll manage to get people through this mess.
-
While I'm not sure it has come to that yet, the next logical step is the declaration of martial law for N.O. and/or the Gulf Coast. Without that declaration, regular army troops CANNOT BY LAW act as law enforcement agents, which includes confrontations with armed gangs. Plus, we are talking about only three days after the event has occured. Military ships are in transit, the Guard is ammassing and getting organized in Baton Rouge, the Army Corps of Engineers is on location and has been for a couple of days now trying to repair damage to the flood control systems, and available regular troops are en route. I don't really see what else can be done within reason. And, N.O. is only one devestated area out of many. Disgraceful, yes. Unexpected? I sure hoped that people would not be so selfish, as previous experience in hurricane-devestated areas points toward fostering community bonds rather than ripping them appart. But unavoidable. Plus, the logistics of raising the Guard, which is the organization that is supposed to handle this type of crisis, is not a simple order to go somewhere; these are part-time soldiers who on a normal basis work a job like everyone else so the fact that there are supposed to be 30k there this weekend, given the condition of transportation to the area, is an accomplishment that not many nations on earth would be able to equal. Enough of the anti-American crap though, as this really isn't the place or time.
-
yes I just got back from the Astrodome. It's like something right out of a movie. Right out of "War of the Worlds" or something similar... it made me want to just cry out of helplessness for these people.
Second, let me respond to the idiot who posted this:
Right. OK. Cause Apaches and F-16s are really great against some pissed off homeless guy with a shotgun. And sending in an aircraft carrier is a completely reasonable and appropriate measure.
Before you start making comments like that, know what you're talking about. The people shooting at civilian aircraft are not "homeless" guys with shotguns. They're gangs ruling the streets. This may come as a shock to you, but New Orleans is one of the worst (violent) places in the USA. With everyone leaving, 99% of the looting and shooting are gangs.
Now that's all good and fine, they can get arrested when more troops get here... BUT if what they're doing is impeding SUPPLIES getting to the 25,000 INNOCENT HUMAN CIVILIANS in the superdome, that are DYING... then i say show no mercy to them. Let's see the street gangs try to shoot down three apaches. i want to see them ****ing try.
If they've declared Martial Law, then they need to ACT like it's martial law, and that means not making any exceptions. If someone shoots are an official, or a convoy that's on its way to bring relief to the survivors, then shoot them down, and show no mercy.
It's a shame; that people are too afraid (and are refusing) to fly supplies to people that NEED THEM, and are DYING, because some street gangs are shooting civilian craft. I swear, if i was Bush right now, I'd tell them to send everything they have into New Orleans. send the marines (drop them off wherever there's land)... let them secure the city. send in F16s, apaches, etc. and order them to shoot down ANYTHING that fires at them. make an example of the lowest scum of the earth that are making it harder to get supplies to people that need it.
This whole thing is a damn joke. Times like this I wonder if i'm dreaming or something. I'm watching this country fall to pieces over a RELATIVELY SMALL EVENT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS. The conditions people are facing in the superdome and other parts of New Orleans are unbelievable. they say the streets smell of urine. there are bodies floating along the streets right outside the superdome. that people are seperated from their families, and without food, water, restrooms, plumbing, A/C, etc for DAYS, and who knows how much longer they'll be there for.
One of the hospitals downtown... apparently since they have no power, the generators can only provide enough to power vital life support systems of patients. there's no A/C... it's extremely hot and humid, and the windows of the hospital WERE DESIGNED TO NOT BE OPENED... they're TRAPPED in the hospital, with the first two or three floors underwater. The last message one of the doctors sent today said something to the effect of "Please help. no food, no water. very very sick".... a text message, the last 'communication' to come from A ****ING HOSPITAL
Someone brought out that most of the people left are African-American. Well I don't want to offend anyone by saying this, but in New Orleans most of the poor, poverty-level population, are African-American, as they are in most other cities across the nation. All the rich and "well-off" that could, got out of the city. They drove, they own cars. The poor that don't have a car, had no choice BUT to stay and wait it out. that's why they're at one of the former "shelters" ===> the superdome... and they'd be STUPID to try to "walk" out of the city, when there's a hurricane not 12 hours behind them. Houston is 350 miles from new orleans, and that's WEEKS of walking. granted there were other cities, but none within walking distance that were predicted to be safe from the hurricane.
-
I simply refuse to believe, flat out literally refuse, that extensive looting and organized criminal activity could be going on under such circumstances, in the middle of the United States, with the government standing idly by. Not out of any ethical reasons mind you, but because if they can muster a squad of CIA agents every time the guy at the falafel place looks shifty, they sure as hell can deal with what appear to be shotgun totting yahoos, especially with several hundred thousand armed men at the ready.
Prove it to me, and I still won't believe it. We're not talking about Nigeria here. Generally, when people fire on aid workers or anyone else for that matter, they don't tend to live very long. The notion that the "criminal elements" have somehow taken over the city and are hijacking all the aid just isn't believeable.
But that's just me.
edit: In my own way, I take it as a silver lining. It means that if "they" can't handle a simple thing like a hurricane, a sitaution which they've had decades to prepare for, then they're likely not competent enough to do all the scary shi that people simply assume is within their power, like making people disappear and stealing your socks from the dryer.
-
just out of curiosity, how much media coverage is this cluster **** getting around the world?
-
Rictor: it's called posse commitatus. Look it up. Instructive.
Tarawa's arrving in the area tomorrow, and the LHD already there never ceased flight or boat ops despite the fact the civilians refuse to enter the area anymore.
I suppose we're not being entirely fair to the civilian flight crews; their helos aren't made to take damage, they can be disabled by a few lucky pistol shots, and losing one of them screws over not just the crew but anybody the helo could have evacuated or brought in supplies for. If they lose a helo that's several hundred people whose evacuation is delayed, or several dozen who might starve.
I imagine they'll be using Tarawa's SeaCobras for spotting and scare-tactic escort, since they can't help with evacuation directly like the Seaknights. They may not be armed, yet (although the word is that martial law decree is coming), but they look damn scary. We'll see how long people keep shooting at flights into the area then.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
In my own way, I take it as a silver lining. It means that if "they" can't handle a simple thing like a hurricane, a sitaution which they've had decades to prepare for, then they're likely not competent enough to do all the scary shi that people simply assume is within their power, like making people disappear and stealing your socks from the dryer.
I've been trying to convince you of this for a while, our government isn't evil, it's just awe inspireingly incompetent.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
just out of curiosity, how much media coverage is this cluster **** getting around the world?
This much. ("http://www.dose.ca/toronto/news/story.html?s_id=vE3%2fW26D%2b6L0Azq%2bB9sqt7fvXuC54Vr1bwJgaQQN4ex2mkJUuGnrrw%3d%3d#")
-
I'm serius, the fact that we can't even deal with this is just down right embarising.
I guess I could aways just say 'it's the south, that's not realy my country', but in my heart I know that's a copout.
-
no offence, but its their fault for the remaining ppl who stay behind, cause some say that their house survive some cat. 2 or 3 hurricaine, and this came in, flatten most the gulf......and another thing is why the hell is the ppl down there are shooting at national guards and others trying to get the ppl out, its just not right........
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
on the news ive seen SOOO MANY african americans down there its rediculous. lets this be a buncho (not to sound racist or anything) WHITE UPPERCLASS SNOBS (not that some of u arent cool) with control of the country, YOU BEST BELIEVE **** WOULDA BEEN DONE BY NOW!
Dude this has nothing to do with race or class. Rich and poor who decided to wait out the storm are suffering the consequences. And the majority race is do mostly to the make up of the population. The problem lies in the cities almost complete lack of preperation for the worst. They should have had National Guardsmen placed throughout the area before havok broke loose. Ultimately this is the Governer's responsibility.
-
Reasons this **** is going down
1) (knowingly and directly.. see my other thread) pulled funding for the Army Corp of Engineer's project that would have shored up the levis to a point where they would have been strong enough to not have failed
2) People were arrogant/morons and didn't evacuate [or some poor bastards couldn;t]
3) the city was not build below sea level it subsided because we drained wetlands to build subdivisons - this lowered the water table causing subsidance, restoring these wetlands will stop [and could minorly reverse] the subsidance. (several FEMA officials have said they want to ban reconstruction in the wetlands area - to restore them because this and the fact they would act as "Sponges" for torrential rains and reduce flooding)
-
in answer to bob's question, this is the first i've heard of the rioting. i vaguely remember hearing sth about some random hurricane destined for america's shores like a week ago but that was about it. maybe i just live w my head down a hole, but seriously none of the radio stations or tv updates have said v much about it. (this is in newcastle, australia, btw)
-
thank god!
-
?? why?
-
because there are third world countrys that could...would... no, have handled situations like this far better than we have.
it's a major American city, left lawless, broken, stinking of waist and decaying human bodies, and otherwise utterly destroyed, overnight. you don't see why I might be releaved that it isn't getting much atention?
-
Because 1) while devestating, this is nothing that the US shouldn't be able to handle, and 2) because Bob is of the opinion that our government is making a mockery of crisis management. I'm of a slightly differing opinion on point 2, and while I don't want to downplay the extent of human suffering, even in this country there are only a finite number of resources available to do the job.
-
it's a bit weird, tho, ain't it, that stuff associated w terrorists and Middle Eastern politics and that was splashed all over our news (as in 9/11), but sth like this, which prob will end up w an equal death toll @ least (will it? someone check statistics) and which is quite terrible in terns of human suffering and so forth is not... ? seems like politics really makes e difference in what we get told.
-
What's really weird in that regard is the stampede in Iraq that killed close to a thousand people. It was both middle-eastern and to a certain extent terror-related, but it's gotten relatively little (read: basically no) news coverage in the states. Admittedly, this hurricane business is much closer to home, and will more directly impact more people worldwide, but still.
-
well there's no one to blame, it's no fun if you can't point fingers.
[edit]hey, what do you know, that adressed both of your posts![/edit]
and the death toll could easily be 10,000, I'm not kidding when I say 'the stench of bodys rotting in the 8 feet of water that was once a street'. the sheer number of dead people is, as I understand it, inumerable (thought this may just be sensational jornalism).
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Dude this has nothing to do with race or class. Rich and poor who decided to wait out the storm are suffering the consequences. And the majority race is do mostly to the make up of the population. The problem lies in the cities almost complete lack of preperation for the worst. They should have had National Guardsmen placed throughout the area before havok broke loose. Ultimately this is the Governer's responsibility.
sorry for the rant its just that its sad to see that many people of one minority, and the truth is, MOSTLY THAT one minority, stuck down there as the majority who is going to suffer the most from all this. those who cant afford cars, or the means to get out when they had a chance had no choice but to hunker down and try to wait it out.... the poverty level just went from worse to the 5th ring of hell!
beyond that your right at anyrate.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and the death toll could easily be 10,000, I'm not kidding when I say 'the stench of bodys rotting in the 8 feet of water that was once a street'. the sheer number of dead people is, as I understand it, inumerable (thought this may just be sensational jornalism).
Depends on your source Bob.
The flooding sounds an awful lot like the tsunami from last year. I hope they pay attention to that. The response does seem a little delayed. Anyone know where the National Guard is coming from? Maybe they had to wait for the hurricane to dissipate if it was in the way.
I don't understand why anyone would shoot a helicopter, other than that they've completely lost their minds due to pre-existing conditions and/or from the conditions: lack of food and water, intense heat, etc. That will drive most people delirious.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
I'm watching this country fall to pieces over a RELATIVELY SMALL EVENT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS.
That's funny, everything seems to be fine where I am. Gas prices are up but that's practically normal nowadays. Matter of fact it's so nice here I'm going to play Battlefield 2 for most of the night (no work tomorrow, WOOHOO!)!
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Because 1) while devestating, this is nothing that the US shouldn't be able to handle, and 2) because Bob is of the opinion that our government is making a mockery of crisis management. I'm of a slightly differing opinion on point 2, and while I don't want to downplay the extent of human suffering, even in this country there are only a finite number of resources available to do the job.
the sad thing is that its not that the government is intentionally making a mockery of this (last thing bush and his conservies wanted to do was tap the oil reserve), but its a matter of fact that the current leaders of THIS COUNTRY are so fuc-kin behind the reality of things that "most of our lawmakers are still on vacation and may come back to work a 'lil' bit early than usual". this is coming STRAIGHT from the white house. this is pathetic man. the president doesnt get a break, the lawmakers do, prez may take a vacation when he feels like it (cause truth is, when bush isnt planning middle east nonsense, half the time his function is meetings, debreifings, and signing laws/documents), but its not like he cant do a fidel castro and snap his fingers and make things happen.
maybe any other person in his shoes might make the same slow responces, but jesus christ not EVERYONE in our government is ->THIS SLOW!<
truth is if he wanted to he'd tell the other states to lend national gauards men to the areas affected, extra army personel, have the navy out there assisting in evacuations, there are so many things that arent directly government resource but that all he'd have to do is say GO, and they would go cause people want to help. on 9/11 there was no looting, none. no wild shooters looking for arabs to get revenge on and whatnot, everyone including myself was down there in the thick of it and we all helped as much as we could until the national guard came in. Our govenor (as much as i dont like pataki) and guliani was able to procure national guardsmen, airforce, and sea based assistance in far less time. and were talking about a man made disaster compared to a natural disaster which is 5x worse than 9/11 and maybe double the capacity of the Asian Tsunami.
the Tenesse gov asked the gov'ment to get cruise ships to the docks down there (mind u carnival offered), the government said NO. "money issues". seriously. were talkin bout ships that can take 5000 people at a time out of the areas into texas and florida and surounding areas and that can support that many people at sea and provide shelter for a certain amount of time. gov said no, too much money.
the govenor (and the old one) pleaded for 40,000 national guardsmen to help evacuate and maintain lawenforcement, only now theyre getting it. theyve even asked for army support heli's to put pressure on armed groups to intimidate them, Military said no, so the reservists (who asked also), cant support themselves anymore than the police can.
The military isnt even deploying assets down there to make things happen at an excelerated pace.
and yes its quite interesting how with 9/11 because its political based, Land, Air and Sea asets were in NEW YORK airspace @ 11am ready to kick ass, and yet a week later, grey hound, GREY HOUND is doing a better job at helping out than the people that STATE ELECTED INTO OFFICE! :hopping: !!!! people were cleanin that area the second it got owned by the collapses.... (pardon l33t).
things need to get done. the leveys need fixing and the army corps of engineers should have apaches protecting them. or atleast skiff boats the military used in vietnam or in hawaii... u know anything to allow them to get things done.
had this been an attack on the US, u best believe our governments responce woulda probrably been just as slow.
"again, no more ranting for me today. I fully understand that if i can do better, then i should run for Bushes job...."
-
Originally posted by vyper
1 - Proper evacuation
2 - 10,000 troops obviously isn't enough and consider FEMA spend their lives planning for these things you'd think there would be contingencies in place that would involve massive amounts of man-power and relief.
3 - Remember that when I say budget spend I include the use of resources like men and machinery. Besides which the US government is in a lot more debt that it likes to talk about.
LETS ALL REMEMBER THAT THIS IS THE AGENCY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHOM THE 9/11 PANEL DEEMED, "LACKED THE IMAGINATION TO SEE and did not realize the GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION!!!!!!"
and by the way i can see it now 2 months/years later, the Katrina Comission, finding out why the government failed again for the 5th time since Pearl Harbor.... and the reason again was...
omfg! LACK OF IMAGINATION AND DIDNT REALIZE THE GRAVITY OF THINGS....
u gotta love white house speach writers emphasis on trying to dumb down the sentance, which means in plain old ENGLISH....
"WE F-U*CK-ED UP Because we were not taking the word of the national weather advisory service."
-
One comment from the logistical issues. I believe the US does possess Navy boats and other equipment that can navigate through rivers, estuaries and stuff, and would be suitable for this sort of a situation, providing essential logistical at the very least, to escort and defensive services against armed bandits at the very most. I also believe the US military has Marines and other units dedicated to working in such environments with little or no support and to accomplish as much as possible. Simply sending in an armed escort for dissauding, if not actual response would be more suitable than just sending civlian Helis in. The same holds true for many military helicopters that can supply aid and resources to front lines; again in situations of significant logistics difficulty.
It is extremely surprising that despite possesing such advanced technology and resources, it has taken so long for deployment (if at all) in such a situation......
-
You know, it's the repeated use of this type of statement that I'm having trouble stomaching: "maybe double the capacity of the Asian Tsunami"
I'm sorry, but no. This is not a quarter-of-a-million+ death toll occurance. It's nothing remotely that high. It's devestating to the regions affected, yes. It's creating a serious negative economic impact at least nation-wide and perhaps worldwide, and I don't deny that either. But it is nowhere near the order of magnitude of death and destruction that the 12/04 Asian tsunami was. It is, however, bigger and fundamentally different from 9/11 in more ways than I have the time or patience to go in to here. One difference that I will at least put out there though is that the entire region is completely unable to function, unlike 9/11 New York which was simply unwilling to function due to panic.
Also, anyone pretending this is resticted to New Orleans is completely overlooking the fact that this is only one devestated city out of a hundred miles of coastline, and in fact is only becoming a problem because of damage inflicted after the storm in a way that no one predicted. Topping the levys was expected. But the water would have stopped rising as soon as the storm passed. The rupture of the levys was a completely different scenario and nothing could have been done to prepare for that in the few days notice the storm could possibly have given (not to discount their poor overall state, but that was a long-term fault not really pertenent to the relief/rescue/recovery efforts). The civil disorder, too, is not something that could be properly addressed until it started happening, as declaring martial law and putting troops into the city for security without the context of "urban warfare" would be stupid on many levels.
EDIT: And unless something has changed recently, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't in need of protection. They're working on a portion of the city that is - literally - completely inaccessable by anyone without specialized equipment and they aren't doing anything that anyone could concievably get any advantage out of disrupting. It's general lawlessness that is the issue here. And it's not like the military is sitting on its ass with rescue and recovery ops either, it's just that you're hearing more about the civilian end of things for reasons that should be obvious.
EDIT2: What I am dissapointed with is the delay in getting the people who actually rode the storm out in shelters out of the city, now that the magnitude of the damage has been properly assessed. THAT should have been in planning before the storm even hit, as the understanding that these people would be stranded for more than a week was a given if the storm made a direct hit on the city.
-
ok well then i think since we have reached an impass, we'll wait till we actually get a rough figure on how many people possibly died....
One thing is official, and ig ot this off weather.com and some other site and cnn news channel... the wave was higher than the Tsunami's. almost 10 feet higher, and blowing in originally at the huricanes minimum to top speeds...
-
Which is absolutely irrelivant to New Orleans because the city is not, in fact, on the coastline. Nevermind the fact that you're convoluting data here; first of all, the Tsunami waves were as high as 30m, which you will absolutely not get as a shore wave during a hurricane. Ocean swells of that hight maybe, but those are surface waves that do not carry well onto land. The storm surge, which is what I suspect you're quoting, was 30ft high at the most in certain parts of Mississippi (Billoxi (sp?)). Secondly, you're confusing waves with storm surge; storm surge is not a single wave but rather something akin to water piling up in certain regions due to pressure from the wind. Storm surges are like beachfront floods; they don't come crashing in (though their current can be very strong) but rather act more like a quick-rising extremely high tide. Waves can travel on top of them, but their arrival is not as sudden as that of a Tsunami, nor are their speeds, in fact, as high. But as I said, when talking about New Orleans this is irrelivant because the city is not on the ocean but rather between a VERY protected inlet and a river. Anyway, while there may be thousands of casualties from this storm, that would still account for maybe 1% of the loss suffered from the Tsunami. It may be worse, but even at worst case scenario, we're still only talking about maybe 5% as many casualties. The magnitudes are simply different.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4207202.stm
US troops, armed with a shoot-to-kill policy, are being sent to New Orleans to quell growing lawlessness, four days after Hurricane Katrina hit.
I wonder how this will turn out.
As stated in the article, these soldiers are being sent from Iraq, or have atleast previously been there, so they should know what they are doing.
-
I couldn't believe the reports of people shooting at the Relief choppers.
-
@StratComm: Good to see someone actually giving the facts, reading the thread just got me a little pissed off by people saying this was 'equal to' or 'worse than the Tsunami'...but, then again, this is the US we 're talking about here, and as the rest of the World should know, American lives are just worth a damn sight more than everyone else's... :doubt:
...Now, in terms of what's going to occur after the evacuations have been completed (if they're ever completed), there are going to be major problems in repairing the City and making it livable again, and I mean to a degree that it might just be too far gone to save.
Ordinarily, after a flood has gone down in a few days, one can simply move back into one's house, clear out the mud, repaint, and replace the furnature etc. No real harm done (yes, I realise i'm simplifying to the nth degree, just gimme a minute).
In N.O., not only are the flood waters likely to be there for something like three damn weeks, but in that water, is a considerably high level of debris; wood, metal, animal (including Human) carcasses, etc. That's not really the problem, as this is usually the case after a disaster of this magnitude. What i'm talking about here, is the industrial waste and massive levels of chemicals and such that are in the water from the local Industrial sites gutted by Floods, meaning that this **** is bloody near Toxic.
This is going to be a major, major problem that the US is going to face when the evacuation debacle is over. Most of the city is devestated in, as one of you so elloquently phrased before, a Hiroshima-style fashion (only a month or two after the 60th Anniversary...oh the ****ing irony of it all), so we're talking a near complete reconstruction...frankly, the US Government was and still is struggling with debt (I believe the Japanese has several Trillion loaned to them at the moment for example), and with the reconstruction of Iraq, the global troubles with Oil and such, and now this Disaster...well, to coin a phrase; 'something's gotta give'...
Originally posted by Roanoke
I couldn't believe the reports of people shooting at the Relief choppers.
Believe it mate, this is Human Nature at its best. It doesn't matter whether you live in a Mansion in the hills above LA, or a Wooden shack on the streets of Mogadishu, at heart, we're all a bunch of ****ing savages at heart, ready to do anything - namely murder - to make sure we survive...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
because there are third world countrys that could...would... no, have handled situations like this far better than we have.
it's a major American city, left lawless, broken, stinking of waist and decaying human bodies, and otherwise utterly destroyed, overnight. you don't see why I might be releaved that it isn't getting much atention?
Hell the asian Tsumani affected an enormously bigger area, caused more devestation and was dealt with far better by every country involved. Look at India for instance. They actually refused international aid and helped out their neighbours.
As for coverage in the rest of the world this is going to become more famous as time passes.
Originally posted by deep_eyes
and maybe double the capacity of the Asian Tsunami.
You're having a f**king laugh if you think that the Asian Tsunami was a lesser disaster than this one in ANY terms except the reactions of people involved. Tsunami's are completely different animals from storm surges and as StratComm put it that isn't even the issue affecting New Orleans.
-
Well, there were still atrocities taking pl;ace after the Asian Tsunami, including multiple rapes of girls who had been washed up on the shore etc. But however, yes, the attitude displayed at New Orleans is of a people who can no longer tell the difference between not being able to eat and not being able to catch their favourite TV program.
Theres a lesson to be learnt there, about learning what is really important.
-
I'm really surprised how slow the US government reacts to this catastrophe.
Maybe 'surprised' is not the right word - I can't belive it.
They spend millions on missle defense systems, which probably won't be needed anyway, but they refuse to help when people really need it?
Other nations offered help, but G.W. Bush refused, cause the "USA are able to handle it on their own"...
They probably are, but why didn't they do anything noticeable?
@Bob Here in germany we hear and read a lot about the New Orleans disaster.
-
the tsunami coment that has everyone bent out of shape, yeah, obviusly 250,000 people dead is worse than 10,000 people dead, I think the comment was more along the lines of, were it hit it was worse than were the tsunami hit, and thought this was also wrong, you do have to consiter the fact that the tsunami hit, did it's damage, and was over with in a few minutes, and people could come in with stuff right away, in NO, the water is still riseing, in the areas affected it's more desperate than the areas affected by the tsunami, even though the area is miniscule incomparison to that of the tsunami.
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Other nations offered help, but G.W. Bush refused, cause the "USA are able to handle it on their own"...
Huh? I know for a fact that Australia's offer for Aid has been made and accepted by the US - or at least, we're sending it anyway - but then, it's not exactly a massive amount of aid, something around Aus$ 20 Million... what? We're not exactly the biggest country in the world... We could send more, we just don't want to... Give us a break already...!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I simply refuse to believe, flat out literally refuse, that extensive looting and organized criminal activity could be going on under such circumstances, in the middle of the United States, with the government standing idly by.
believe it. that's what most of america can't believe either.
-
Originally posted by Zuljin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4207202.stm
I wonder how this will turn out.
As stated in the article, these soldiers are being sent from Iraq, or have atleast previously been there, so they should know what they are doing.
Ok, that is NOT what the aricle said. it says "They have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Kathleen Blanco said. Secondly, I don't think that national gaurdmans will be willing to shoot on civilians. There would have to be a great deal of provocation involved.
-
Originally posted by Depth_Charge
no offence, but its their fault for the remaining ppl who stay behind, cause some say that their house survive some cat. 2 or 3 hurricaine, and this came in, flatten most the gulf......and another thing is why the hell is the ppl down there are shooting at national guards and others trying to get the ppl out, its just not right........
everyone that COULD leave, DID leave except very few. the poor that don't have a car, couldn't leave, and thus made their way to the "relief" centers before the hurricane hit, such as the superdome...
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Ok, that is NOT what the aricle said. it says "They have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Kathleen Blanco said. Secondly, I don't think that national gaurdmans will be willing to shoot on civilians. There would have to be a great deal of provocation involved.
Then they better become willing, or this situation will spiral further out of government control and into the hands of common thugs.
-
oh I am sure they will. That is what they are train for. However, don't get the idea that they are trigger happy.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Ok, that is NOT what the aricle said. it says "They have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Kathleen Blanco said. Secondly, I don't think that national gaurdmans will be willing to shoot on civilians. There would have to be a great deal of provocation involved.
My bad, I found the norwegian translation of the article and apparently they seem to have some.. "difficulties" in translating things properly.
I just copy pasted the source link and based it on what I read earlier.
Which was folish enough from my side.
So just ignore the last part of my previous post, the first part remains true however..
-
And here we've got the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario involving the deployment of troops to restore order. It obviously has to be done, but as soon as they hit the streets people start complaining about a percieved threat to their own safety.
Also, the number of people needing evacuation is much higher than those that actually went to the shelters like they were told to. Most of the people you see or hear about looting or shooting are people who, for whatever reason, decided to ride the storm out in their own homes. Even if these people were unable to leave the city, they still chose not to take shelter at a designated facility. It makes relatively little difference, I'll admit, but it is a difference just the same.
-
What's Bush up to while this is all going on? I've not seen him mentioned during the news broadcasts.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What's Bush up to while this is all going on?
"Now watch this drive!"
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What's Bush up to while this is all going on? I've not seen him mentioned during the news broadcasts.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/02/D8CC5RGO0.html
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/01/MTFH46447_2005-09-01_20-33-54_DIT140857.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/01/D8CBM4AG5.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/01/D8CBGP7G1.html
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050901/2005-09-01T130142Z_01_DIT140857_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-WEATHER-BUSH-DC.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050901/D8CBFFMO1.html
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/08/31/20050831_204000_flash3ba1.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050831/pl_afp/usweatherbush_050831185122&printer=1;_ylt=ArXFxfJRKQu1nHQ6gDpWAu.tOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/30/D8CA9UQG0.html
-
Glad to see he's actually doing something apart from releasing oil then. I haven't watched the news much recently but all I'd heard was about him visiting the affected area (Something most politicans seem to do even though it generally about as useful for the people in the area as a chocolate teapot).
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What's Bush up to while this is all going on? I've not seen him mentioned during the news broadcasts.
The day the hurricane hit he didn't cancel his 'appointments'... just like he did on 9/11.
Then, this morning he gets on the news and says "Please don't buy gas unless you need it"... as if we all have a habit of going out and buying gasoline for the heck of it.
Two nights ago, i walked into a restaurant, and gas was $2.71. when i came out, both gas stations across the street were at $3.40. this wasn't even two hours later. I saw another gas station with $3.05, so i went to that station...... they were out of gas. first time i've ever seen a large gas station out of gas in my life. and city-wide people are paying in the mid $3s. granted this morning it dropped back down a lot... like $2.89, but still really close to $3.00... and they say within a month there are going to be lines a mile long for gasoline. this is Houston, our gasoline consumption is probably top 3 of all the USA.
I bet Bush when he flies over is looking out the wrong side of the plane. "Mr. President... New Orleans is THAT side... you're looking at the lake"
-
This is the same reaction we saw after 9/11
-
The irony is Marine 1 probably burns more fuel in one trip like this than any car user would in a week.
-
but 9/11 was an isolated incident. around the disaster site, life went on. there were no refineries destroyed, no oil rigs ripped from their locations and washed ashore on the coast of louisiana... that's not the case with New orleans
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Hell the asian Tsumani affected an enormously bigger area, caused more devestation and was dealt with far better by every country involved. Look at India for instance. They actually refused international aid and helped out their neighbours.
As for coverage in the rest of the world this is going to become more famous as time passes.
You're having a f**king laugh if you think that the Asian Tsunami was a lesser disaster than this one in ANY terms except the reactions of people involved. Tsunami's are completely different animals from storm surges and as StratComm put it that isn't even the issue affecting New Orleans.
HENSE THE WORD MAYBE. If we want to getinto specifics, we;d be on hlp floadin the threads all day. to be honest with you this issue is havin an effect on people because it hit close to home, so yes expect many here to react as if it was worse than the asian tsunami. and when i mentioned hieght of the waves and storm surges, i was mearly going on what the news said because theyre were people from the previous tsunami saying that it was worse based on facts and data they collected about the hurricane when it hit the main cities down there. i wish i could quote who it was specifically, or show a vid but i cant, so dont lash at me for "incorrect" data.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the tsunami coment that has everyone bent out of shape, yeah, obviusly 250,000 people dead is worse than 10,000 people dead, I think the comment was more along the lines of, were it hit it was worse than were the tsunami hit, and thought this was also wrong, you do have to consiter the fact that the tsunami hit, did it's damage, and was over with in a few minutes, and people could come in with stuff right away, in NO, the water is still riseing, in the areas affected it's more desperate than the areas affected by the tsunami, even though the area is miniscule incomparison to that of the tsunami.
exactly what i was trying to say. in the short term the tsunami flooding receeded quickly. within a couple of hours to a few days. i had co workers going out there because they wanted to lend help (was with red cross). this i can verify as truth, it was easier to get assets into the tsunami areas cause the water reeceded faster. in N.O. u have a city thats mostly under sealevel my default. the water has no where to go once its in the city, its not gonna flood back into the river in which it came, the river is ABOVE the city! the long term effects of the flooding is the problem and is whats going to make this a defining diffrence in how many people will die out there in general, to be honest with you the city is practically lost. People are dying in the Superdome, there is no supplies, people are dying in the streets in and around the super dome, on roof's, in attics, on highways. its just horrible all togeather. both sides of the story. at any rate this is still a horrid situation and to a degree the only thing that appals me more is the responce of our leaders to this situation.
-
Please go to the http://www.cnn.com/ CNN WEBPAGE and scrowl a bit down till u see this:
"New Orleans mayor lashes out"
the watch button opens a player that has the major of NO expressing his anger and lack of responce. had the cnn newsman cryin!
-
I agree 100% with what he said.
-
Same here. He really cares.
I heard the whole interview and I fell pretty bad now.
It's to damn wrong to ignore these people. I can stand it!
-
I was looking at the news and it looks to me like the people who are suffering are mostly black.
I don't really see rich white people giving a damn.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
I was looking at the news and it looks to me like the people who are suffering are mostly black.
I don't really see rich white people giving a damn.
Quite possibly because they all left when they were told to.
-
or more importantly, they left because they were able to... the poorer (mostly black) people made their way to relief centers, such as superdome, etc. those are the ones that are in trouble, not the people that are still walking the streets
-
I'm quite sure White Supremacists are havinga field day with all the footage of black people looting stores.
-
You know, if that's the only angle you can look at it from then you really need to turn off your TV and get out more. It's been said repeatedly (as soon as the race card comes up one way or another) that every dispicable human trait that has reared its head in New Orleans in the last few days has done so in members of every race and creed. If any white supremacist is stupid enough to push their agenda through this, well, the deserve the condemnation that they will inevatibly get. My personal opinion is that anyone who tries to draw such parallels should be sent directly to an affected area and either be forced to live under those conditions or to do something to help. I'm not sure which of those would do more good though.
-
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/paradigm750/necessities_only.jpg)
Necessities only.
However, that link Sandwich posted of that guy's blog... he said that there are WHITES, BLACKS, and HISPANICS (he also said for some reason he hasn't seen a single asian) looting.
-
Retards. What the **** do they intend to do with all of that crap? I know this represents the poor trying to get things that they'd never normally get (and in reality, the shop would probably have had to pitch most of it anyway) but honestly. Take what you can actually wear, not 10 ****ing copies of the exact same thing. Please note, this is a comment on basic behavior of surviving poor/desperate survivors in general, and is completely irrespective of race. The fact that this picture portrays only people of African descent only shows that of the remaining population most are black, not that it's some inherent behavior or some crap like that.
Out of curiosity, how many asians actually live in New Orleans?
-
Incidentally, I only see black people in the media.
Much like in that photo.
-
because black people in New Orleans society are the poor (for the most part), and couldn't leave cause they had no transportation. that, or they're in gangs, and didn't leave intentionally.
typical in that picture though. like a circus if you ask me. look at the guy on the right "holding his pants up". and the guy in the blue shirt... *shakes head* makes me wonder sometimes
-
It's surprising to me, because I thought this was rectified at the turn of the century.
I mean, over here across the ocean, we don't have that kind of a racial financial gap _anywhere_. Even in the country where we were all poor, we were _all_ poor.
It's just suprising, that's all.
-
Hmm, poor black people get hit by hurricane. Republican govt. belly flops on the relief efforts.
Didn't see that one coming. ;)
-
Why do you bild such crappy homes in the US anyway?
Every time a stronger strom comes troguh thousands of houses are completely destroyed..And when you look in the new they're all out of some crappy materials (wood, cardboard).
Sure they are cheap, but they break easily.
Where I live we occasionally (several times each year) have high winds that can uproot trees and fling cars and practicyl no one ever dies and the damage is allway minimal. Why?
We have stone houses built like bunkers :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Hmm, poor black people get hit by hurricane. Republican govt. belly flops on the relief efforts.
Didn't see that one coming. ;)
i bet you 5 dollars that they loose the next election based on the disaster alone.
-
I think they would loose even without this disaster.
-
the polititians there are notoriusly corupt, louisiana and NO in particular are probly the most corupt place in the country, and elections are assumed to be rigged.
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
I think they would loose even without this disaster.
The approval ratings before the disaster agree
you know what's funny? it's hurricane andrew that largely scuttled bush I
-
I know, I know. Tasteless. (http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/93/11257122955761ds.jpg)
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
i bet you 5 dollars that they loose the next election based on the disaster alone.
I'll see that 5 Dollars, and raise it another 5 that they'll just rig te election again...*sigh*
-
All right, enough is enough. What the hell is with some of you trying to make a political/racism case out of this? Don't you get it? Thousands of people are dead, and hundreds of thousands are homeless. A major city is almost completely underwater and will take years to get back to where it was (and you can believe me that it will). None of that other **** matters at all. Honestly, I'm so sick and tired of all the "blame Bush" bull**** that's been flying around. Yeah, as if Kerry had won the last election, he'd have somehow magically teleported every last person out of the region, turned the hurricane around, and even had time to hand-deliver care packages to all those affected. :rolleyes: This is not anyone's fault. This is something that happened, and all of the federal/state/local/private people down there are trying to do the best they can in one of the worst situations this country has ever seen. Katrina strengthened so quickly that, by the time we knew what it was capable of, it was too late to do much more than make calls for evacuations and set up places like the Superdome for those who couldn't. I seriously cannot fathom how people are describing the mobilization of tens of thousands of National Guardsmen/relief agencies over the course of a few days into a region that not only has hundreds of miles of decimated coastline, but also tens of thousands of square miles of affected regions inland, "unbelievably slow." Tell you what: if the rest of you think you can do a better job than what's going on, let's just ship the next Cat. 5 storm to wherever you live. Then we'll see how things go. And for all of you accusing the US of rejecting foreign aid, I haven't seen a single documented case of that, just heresy. In fact, all of the reports I've seen have been about foreign aid being accepted. You can bet that, if it was rejected, it'd be front-page news on every news site. I'm not trying to single anyone out here, but seeing people carry on like this after what just happened completely pisses me off.
-
Woah, woah, mate! What everyone is throwing around here is that the situation could have been handled much much better, both before and after Katrina hit. Look in every Newspaper you can find, across the Globe - especially those still in the disaster zone - are saying how badly this is being handled.
Bush is the dumbass face of the Government handling it so badly, so of course he's going to be bashed, and while I accept your criticism of the people doing the Bush-Bashing (myself included to a degree :doubt: ), you can't look past the fact that the blame for this debacle is going to be put squarely upon the shoulders of the Administration. There ain't no foreigners to blame this time...
...And c'mon, sure it's a tragic event, but this thread is about the hypocrisy and downright shoddy handling of the crisis, hence the length! If this were a thread simply for posting condolences and mourning, it wouldn't be as long and sure as hell wouldn't be as entertaining...*points to Dove's sadly hilarious picture* :p
-
meustae don't waste your brea... erg keystrokes on Mongoose - he has drank so much of the kool-aid that his brain will never recover
-
Kazan, what the hell are you talking about?
Mefustae, the whole point of my post was that I don't think that the situation was as mishandled as everyone claims. Of course many things could have been done so much better than they were...that's been the case in every disaster in human history. People are seemingly forgetting the old adage that "hindsight is 20/20." As I said above, this storm went from barely category 1 to a monster of a category 5 in a few days. Most earlier forecasts didn't even expect it to survive its crossing of Florida at hurricane strength. Given the fact that there were only a few days before the storm hit to make preparations, and given the massive devastation not only in the city proper, but throughout the entire Gulf Coast region, I can't see how things could have gone much better than this, even in the best of circumstances. One thing I don't think a lot of people are thinking of is how confusing the forecasts were as the storm was making landfall. The initial reports called for catastrophic flooding in New Orleans, but as the storm actually came ashore, the flooding didn't immediately materialize. It wasn't until that night that the levees broke and the serious flooding began. With all of the confusion as to how serious the storm was going to be, with the massive damage that it caused, with the logistics of organizing such a massive relief effort, I'm asking everyone this: do you honestly think that things could have gone any better? If you were in the shoes of the mayor of New Orleans a few days before Katrina hit, knowing no more than he did at the time, what specifically would you have done differently? I see a lot of people *****ing about how things were mishandled, but I've seen very few specific responses not based on hindsight that detail what should have been done differently.
-
If I were the mayor of New Orleans, I would've f***ing tried harder to sure up the levees, which would have made this Disaster a mere Three Mile Island...now, this is hardly the fault of the Mayor, as stipulated in rather interesting article posted by Kazan in another thread;
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1001051313
You see, it was the runaway Government hell bent on showing their s**t to the other nations of the world that pulled all available funding to pump into their inept war-machine, meaning that (among other things) the Orleans Levee banks were in such a condition that they would not have been able to stand up to Hurricane half the size of Katrina. The fact of the matter is, the current US Administration f***ed up royal, nothing can change the fact that people are dead, and the relief effort is being criticised by nations all over the world...
...Yes, I agree that they've finally got their collective arses in gear and the effort has been stepped up to save the many people still in the affected areas, an act that I for one am glad to see happening. But the inescapable fact is that the Levees were insufficient to begin with, and had the CoE project's funding not been pulled, those Levees would have been sured up the flooding that is still on the rise would not be there...
...as for your challenge, if I was indeed the Mayor of New Orleans, I would not have been able to do much in the days leading up to the Hurricane, but again, that's niether here nor there...:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
This is not anyone's fault.
You keep believing that. You keep believing that this whole thing isn't the fault of the federal government for refusing to fund improvements in the levees that broke and caused the flooding despite being warned that those levees wouldn't stand up to a hurricane.
The rest of us prefer to not stick our heads in the sand.
-
After seeing a picture of a helicopter with a couple of lather largish sandbags hanging from a rope above a broke levee, I can't help but wonder why the rescue services aren't making use of HOVERCRAFTS for pete's sake!
Hovercrafts are funny creatures, they can travel over deep waters, shallow waters, and dry land with equal ease.
The larger they are (thus the larger the cushion of air they sit on is), the more efficient they are at load-bearing vs. fuel expended.
Many models can carry literally hundreds of passengers in comfort, I'd guess that capacity for carrying evacuees would be considerably higher.
They don't fall out of the sky if they're hit by bullets.
Why hasn't anyone else thought of using these wonderful machines??
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
After seeing a picture of a helicopter with a couple of lather largish sandbags hanging from a rope above a broke levee, I can't help but wonder why the rescue services aren't making use of HOVERCRAFTS for pete's sake!
Hovercrafts are funny creatures, they can travel over deep waters, shallow waters, and dry land with equal ease.
The larger they are (thus the larger the cushion of air they sit on is), the more efficient they are at load-bearing vs. fuel expended.
Many models can carry literally hundreds of passengers in comfort, I'd guess that capacity for carrying evacuees would be considerably higher.
They don't fall out of the sky if they're hit by bullets.
Why hasn't anyone else thought of using these wonderful machines??
Usage wouldn't be recommended in a submerged city area, since the narrow roads would be a problem (not to mention any number of sharp objects are floating around), plus usage in the surrounding area risks deflation of the air bag via trees that aren't totally underwater, since it isn't that efficient in controlling it's movement.
-
Methinks a note of Sarcasm has just gone undetected...:p
-
Actually it's not that bad an idea. Given the strength of modern hovercraft skirts, etc, it would be possible. Then again the army trucks seem to be getting through no bother anyway.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You keep believing that. You keep believing that this whole thing isn't the fault of the federal government for refusing to fund improvements in the levees that broke and caused the flooding despite being warned that those levees wouldn't stand up to a hurricane.
The rest of us prefer to not stick our heads in the sand.
It is not the federal goverments job to sure up up those levies. I fail to see why I, living in Virginia, should have to pay for levies in New Orleans, Louisiana. Even if they were re-enforced can you or anyone guarantee they would have stood the hurricaine? Also, why didn't the STATE GOVERNMENT of Louisiana get those people out of the New Orleans much less reinforce the levies themselves? Why didn't the CITY GOVERNMENT of new Orleans get the people out of there prior to the hurricaine?
-
Originally posted by Singh
Usage wouldn't be recommended in a submerged city area, since the narrow roads would be a problem (not to mention any number of sharp objects are floating around), plus usage in the surrounding area risks deflation of the air bag via trees that aren't totally underwater, since it isn't that efficient in controlling it's movement.
Uhm. Air bag? Hovercrafts don't have air bags. They have flexible skirts that hang down around their sides. They'd rip about as easily as you'd be able to poke a hole in a shower curtain with a knife.
-
I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about Hovercraft, but wouldn't...uh..."bad things happen" if the Skirt was raked with small arms fire? I mean, these roaming gangs must have at least Tec9's and Semi-Automatic rifles on them, so doesn't that pose a serious threat to a craft suspended on what is effectively an industrial size balloon of air...? (and yes, I know the two are completely different with almost no similarities whatsoever, but i'd like to see you find an appropriate analogy at 12:30am! :p)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It is not the federal goverments job to sure up up those levies. I fail to see why I, living in Virginia, should have to pay for levies in New Orleans, Louisiana. Even if they were re-enforced can you or anyone guarantee they would have stood the hurricaine? Also, why didn't the STATE GOVERNMENT of Louisiana get those people out of the New Orleans much less reinforce the levies themselves? Why didn't the CITY GOVERNMENT of new Orleans get the people out of there prior to the hurricaine?
I'm not saying that the Federal government is the only agency to blame for this but even your comments point to Mongoose being wrong that it wasn't anybody's fault.
If you start getting into "Why should I pay for x when I don't live in y" arguments you end up with all kinds of stupidity. The money that was earmarked to rebuild the levies was redirected to Iraq (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313). Wanna start explaining to the people of New Orleans why they should be paying for that instead of getting their levies fixed? It's a stupid argument. Especially considering that the same government chose to give federal aid to several state projects that wouldn't save thousands of lives.
As for why the state government didn't do those things I'm puzzled too. I'm sure they'll be plenty of blame to go around over this one. I just don't think you can start absolving the federal government of all blame in the matter.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It is not the federal goverments job to sure up up those levies. I fail to see why I, living in Virginia, should have to pay for levies in New Orleans, Louisiana. Even if they were re-enforced can you or anyone guarantee they would have stood the hurricaine? Also, why didn't the STATE GOVERNMENT of Louisiana get those people out of the New Orleans much less reinforce the levies themselves? Why didn't the CITY GOVERNMENT of new Orleans get the people out of there prior to the hurricaine?
Verily, sir, you are a true gentleman.
-
The issue with New Orleans's levees being in real danger has been known since well before that 2001 budget cut. If you're blaming the Bush administration, you might as well also blame Clinton, Bush Sr., and every administration going back at least 30 years. You're also acting like nothing has been done in the past. The levees had already been improved enough to stand up to a Cat. 3 storm surge, and while there were plans in place to create a system capable of standing up to a Cat. 5 storm (I'm not sure if that was related to the 2001 cuts, since the above link is dead), such a massive project would take many years to complete. I can guarantee you'll see such a project now.
My main source of grief with everyone is that you're all saying, "This should have been done years ago," but I didn't see all of you complaining about the levee system and the potential for disaster two weeks ago. This has never happened to New Orleans before, even though the potential was always there. As a result, as I also said above, it almost becomes human nature for people to create a false sense of security for themselves. It usually takes a disaster of these proportions for true change to be enacted. It's a sad but true fact. You may blame the federal government in this instance, but I know for a fact that every last one of us has done the same thing in our lives. Playing the blame game is all well and good, but all of that wasted hot air would be much better served in getting help to those people. I hardly call that a "head in the sand" philosophy.
P.S. I also think that redmenace brings up an interesting point that ties into the whole concept of federalism. Should tax money from the entire country really be used to fund projects that affect only one small area? I don't have a definitive answer to that, but I think it's worth some discussion at some point in the future.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It is not the federal goverments job to sure up up those levies.
Actually it is
Originally posted by redmenace
I fail to see why I, living in Virginia, should have to pay for levies in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Then you will fail to see why they, living in New Orleans, pay for projects in Virginia -
You know what's even funnier - all the blue states are net contributors to the federal budget and the red states are net debtors - meaning all the people who ***** and whine about "I fail to see why I, living in X, should have to pay for Y located in Z" - when The People in [Blue States] are Paying for stuff in [Your Red State] - TO YOUR BENEFIT
Basically this statement is myoptic selfishness without any aforethought into what would happen if everyone thought this and suddenly your house in virginia was destroyed by a hurricane
I propose that redmenace doesn't EVER receive ANY federal assistance of disasters since he doesn't think it's the governments job to help out municipalities when they cannot afford to protect their citizens - and their ciritically important comercial operations in the grain shipment and energy transport industries
Originally posted by redmenace
Even if they were re-enforced can you or anyone guarantee they would have stood the hurricaine?
YES the Army Corp of Engineers projects that were defunded would have singificantly reinforced the Levis and raised them by now a sufficient ammount that there is a significant change that they WOULD NOT have breached and we wouldn't be dealinth with [probably]THOUSANDS DEAD, The ECONOMY IN THE REGION CRIPPLED and the NATIONAL ECONOMY POTENTIALLY STALLING DUE TO ENERGY SHORTAGE
Originally posted by redmenace
Also, why didn't the STATE GOVERNMENT of Louisiana get those people out of the New Orleans much less reinforce the levies themselves?
A) Because some people COULDN'T EVACUATE even after the mandatory evacuation order
B) Because the STATE cannot afford everything the federal government can and part of the responsibility of the federal government is protecting it's citizens: THAT INCLUDES PROTECTING THEM FROM NATURAL DISASTERS VIA PREEMPTIVE MEANS
Originally posted by redmenace
Why didn't the CITY GOVERNMENT of new Orleans get the people out of there prior to the hurricaine?
It's not like they ordered a mandatory evacuation or anything.. oops - they did.
Could the city have done more? yes
Does this excuse the Feds from their responsibilities to Citizens of the United States? NO
Yet again this is an example of redmenace's myoptic selfishness and lack of understanding for basic economics and sociology
-
well red, aren't you glad we didn't spend the 250 million now that we have lost the city and it'll take god knows how many billions to fix, wich your going to pay for in the form of higher gas prices, higher insurince rates, and undoubtably, higher taxes.
arent you glad your 50 cents of money went to that bridge to that uninhabited island, rather to levies in NO that would have saved you thousands of dolars personaly?
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
P.S. I also think that redmenace brings up an interesting point that ties into the whole concept of federalism. Should tax money from the entire country really be used to fund projects that affect only one small area? I don't have a definitive answer to that, but I think it's worth some discussion at some point in the future.
Yes: Averaged over time federal tax money eventually gets spent equally on all regions of the states.
-
point is this disaster was handled worse than a 3rd world country. i blame a lot of factors and people, particularly Bush, because i think he didn't handle it like he should have. if you listen to that interview with the mayor, it's powerful
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It is not the federal goverments job to sure up up those levies. I fail to see why I, living in Virginia, should have to pay for levies in New Orleans, Louisiana. Even if they were re-enforced can you or anyone guarantee they would have stood the hurricaine? Also, why didn't the STATE GOVERNMENT of Louisiana get those people out of the New Orleans much less reinforce the levies themselves? Why didn't the CITY GOVERNMENT of new Orleans get the people out of there prior to the hurricaine?
Actually, each government had responsiblity in strengthening the levees, which comes from...well, everywhere else. States get grants from the federal government all the time for projects. It's all fair and good to me, as long as everyone pays each other, and as long as that money is used for its intended purpose(s). ^_^ Our tax dollars are paying for the relief, and any money you donate to an organization (like the Red Cross) will too. It's about working together. The States are like one big family and they all help out their brothers and sisters when they're in need, and right now thousands of our fellow Americans are in need. I would've rather seen that money go to the levees to prevent or at least reduce the magnitude of such a disaster than wherever the hell it went.
-
Ah hell, no one has perspective anymore. I'd post a long diatribe about how the response has been much better than you would ever see in a "3rd world" country, but no one's really going to pay attention to it and just continue *****ing anyway. Yes, it's a tragedy of huge proportions, but I haven't seen anything other than the issue of scale (and by only a factor of less than 2) that makes this significantly different than any other major hurricane. The human suffering seems unparallelled, but I for one will not let the exhaustive media coverage blow it out of proportion as this sort of thing, if you weren't aware, happens after every major hurricane. And yes, the response from all levels of government has been slow, but there is no reason to turn this into a political rant; Iraq be damned, it's meaningless in this discussion because the timeframe to pull any resources from there is far longer than any delay you've seen in the response. As for the states, they should have called up the Guard - all of them - before the storm (a major mistake, but not one that the feds are responsible for anyway) and then dealt with it to the best of their ability instead of just pleading for federal help. And the city of New Orleans (and much of the coastline) was evacuated before Katrina made landfall, which is not doing nothing by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
point is this disaster was handled worse than a 3rd world country.
That's the problem. The situation was handled poorly at almost every level from the people actually living in NO all the way up to government. I don't just blame the government either. I can't remember ever hearing of a case where people in a 3rd world country were shooting at rescue helicopters. Like I said there was stupidity at all levels.
Originally posted by Mongoose
(I'm not sure if that was related to the 2001 cuts, since the above link is dead)
Link I posted works fine for me.
Originally posted by Mongoose
I can guarantee you'll see such a project now.
Isn't that rather a case of bolting the stable door after the horse has fled? The point of a government is to see dangers ahead of time and take steps to prevent them.
This danger was foreseen. People were warning the government about it and were ignored. The system needs to be improved to make sure that this can't happen again and that the government does listen to people in the know.
Originally posted by Mongoose
My main source of grief with everyone is that you're all saying, "This should have been done years ago," but I didn't see all of you complaining about the levee system and the potential for disaster two weeks ago.
Do I look like the president of the United States to you? Is that the only way the current administration does anything? Is that the only way any administration in your country does anything? Wait until the screaming from the population rises high enough to make them do something?
If that's how your government works you can kick out both the legislative and executive branches and replace them with a clapometer.
Anyway did I blame Bush? I blamed the government. Bush may be in charge of it at the moment so of course he's going to blame the previous administration but the fact is that this happened on his watch after he was warned about it and had time to do something about it. The money required to reinforce the levies was cut during his watch.
Had this happened on Clinton's watch I would have been just as scathing about his idiocy in letting it happen.
Originally posted by Mongoose
You may blame the federal government in this instance, but I know for a fact that every last one of us has done the same thing in our lives.
Again have I been entrusted by 350 million people to look after them. Am I taking their money to do exactly that? If the government is so busy chasing phantom threats that it ignore a real one then the government has failed in it's task plain and simple.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Playing the blame game is all well and good, but all of that wasted hot air would be much better served in getting help to those people. I hardly call that a "head in the sand" philosophy.
My main source of grief with is with all the people who seek to trumpet their approval for Bush over the voice of anyone who seeks to point out that the government actually may have f**ked up. I'll bet none of them would be saying the same thing had Kerry been in charge.
Sure getting the aid to the people in New Orleans is important but making sure that this doesn't happen again is just as important if not more so. And I don't just mean the levies in NO. I mean making sure that there aren't other disasters out there waiting to happen that the government is ignoring. Judging from your own coments the government will only do something about it if there is a lot of what you call hot air. So best to generate the hot air now while the fire is still burning in NO and make that tragedy actually mean something. Waiting till later and then forgetting about it is the real "head in the sand" philosophy here.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about Hovercraft, but wouldn't...uh..."bad things happen" if the Skirt was raked with small arms fire? I mean, these roaming gangs must have at least Tec9's and Semi-Automatic rifles on them, so doesn't that pose a serious threat to a craft suspended on what is effectively an industrial size balloon of air...? (and yes, I know the two are completely different with almost no similarities whatsoever, but i'd like to see you find an appropriate analogy at 12:30am! :p)
Nope. Small arms fire, especially, would have little to no effect on the skirt of a hovercraft. Remember, the air isn't completely contained inside the skirt; it's actually the air escaping out from under the skirt that keeps the hovercraft in a hover.
I guess an analogy would be a garden hose. Open it up full blast and see how strong the water shoots out the end, how strong it pushes backwards. Now take a thin needle and poke a hole in the hose. Turn on the water again, and you'll get a very thin drizzle - if you're "lucky" it'll actually shoot out in a cohesive stream and not just dribble along the outside of the hose - and the main jet of water will appear to be no less stronger.
-
The real problem with a hovercraft in an urban setting has nothing to do with potential weapons fire though. The things are not the most reliable craft to steer in the narrow confines of a flooded street, and while poking holes in the skirt doesn't do much, a rip in the skirt is pretty bad and that's what would be more likely given the number of partly submerged semi-sharp objects in the area (wood, signs/signposts, chain-link and other fenses, etc). Though I really think everything available is being used.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nope. Small arms fire, especially, would have little to no effect on the skirt of a hovercraft. Remember, the air isn't completely contained inside the skirt; it's actually the air escaping out from under the skirt that keeps the hovercraft in a hover.
I guess an analogy would be a garden hose. Open it up full blast and see how strong the water shoots out the end, how strong it pushes backwards. Now take a thin needle and poke a hole in the hose. Turn on the water again, and you'll get a very thin drizzle - if you're "lucky" it'll actually shoot out in a cohesive stream and not just dribble along the outside of the hose - and the main jet of water will appear to be no less stronger.
Ah, good to know, thanks mate :yes: ...
...But keep in mind, the danger of small arms fire is still present for the crew of the Hovercraft. And while the still applies for the other primary means of transporting in supplies and such - ie. Blackhawk Helecopters (saw a really great photo of them dropping some supplies in the newspaper the other day) - i'm thinking that being able to fly over the larger obstacles - ie. Buildings, Trees, Gangs - would give them the edge in this situation...
...Oh, and RedMenace, it's the selfish, borderline racist attitudes such as yours that gives the US a bad name. I'm not saying there aren't people like that all over the world (and sadly there are many), but to have that attitude and be living in a country with one of the highest living standards on the planet...well...that just plain sucks man...:wtf:
-
Borderline racist? OMG WTF
Just because I believe in a very limited federal gov't and having issues with Gov't taking money from one person and bestowing a benefit on some one else? And before you go around levying accusations of of even borderline racism you should honestly meet my family. My parents have adopted inner city negro children. I grew up with them. They are my brother and sister. You want to act all righteous and smug because of my convictions conflict with yours, and therefore use that as a reason to insult me? Really, in a couple of words, grow up.
-
Okay, okay, I was a little...well...okay, very hyper-exaggerative of your post (...is that even a word?!)...still, I believe my arguement still applies; you say you don't want your Taxes to go and benefit someone else, and for that, I believe you're a total pratt. There, everyone's happy...
-
keep it on-topic. kthx :)
-
So out of curiosity, which third world country can and has dealt with a situation like Katrina before and better than the US?
I'm sure someone will say last winter's Tsunami, which is a complete red herring because tsunamis don't cause massive and persistant flooding as well not-insignificant inshore damage.
I'm also sure the reflexive anti-american wanking and pissing characteristic of HLP will continue as well.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I'm also sure the reflexive anti-american wanking and pissing characteristic of HLP will continue as well.
[color=66ff00]I think you'll find it a worldwide anti-american sentiment. It's not simply localised to HLP.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I think you'll find it a worldwide anti-american sentiment. It's not simply localised to HLP.
[/color]
Funny, I've been to places with a more balanced take on things. That's no excuse whatsoever.
Everyone here just nods and agrees whenever anything that sheds the US in a bad light is posted and doesn't bother thinking for themselves.
For some on-topic replies, hovercraft would be nice, but how are you going to get them there? They're much too big to move by air and so would need to be shipped in by boats. Plus, choppers are much faster and can fly over obstacles.
-
Major: WE NEED DAMN BUSES TO GET THESE PEOPLE OUT (http://evacuationfails.ytmnd.com/)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
So out of curiosity, which third world country can and has dealt with a situation like Katrina before and better than the US?
Jamaica and Mexico took one to the head from Hurricane Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert) a storm far nastier than Katrina and managed to avoid a descent into a Lord of the Flies type situation.
Feel free to read up on it if you wish (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ACOS-64D3DP?OpenDocument&rc=2&emid=ACOS-635NL7) but to summerise. This was a Category 4 when it hit Jamaica and a Cat 5 when it hit Mexico. (i.e stronger that Katrina).
Both recieved international aid of course so they didn't do it alone but no one was suggesting that anyone did.
And I found that simply by looking in Wikipedia for a Cat 5 that made landfall at that strength. I'll bet I could find many examples if I looked at cat 4s.
-
And as far as I can tell, Gilbert didn't strike a major city highly vulnerable to flooding almost dead on, nor did it result in levee breeches that greatly worsened the situation. In effect Katrina was major hurricane plus major flooding. It was a double whammy.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
So out of curiosity, which third world country can and has dealt with a situation like Katrina before and better than the US?
I'm sure someone will say last winter's Tsunami, which is a complete red herring because tsunamis don't cause massive and persistant flooding as well not-insignificant inshore damage.
I'm also sure the reflexive anti-american wanking and pissing characteristic of HLP will continue as well.
well dude if the tusnami had hit new orlenes then it would have been worse, why? the same reason its bad now, cause NO is under sea level.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Why do you bild such crappy homes in the US anyway?
Every time a stronger strom comes troguh thousands of houses are completely destroyed..And when you look in the new they're all out of some crappy materials (wood, cardboard).
Sure they are cheap, but they break easily.
Where I live we occasionally (several times each year) have high winds that can uproot trees and fling cars and practicyl no one ever dies and the damage is allway minimal. Why?
We have stone houses built like bunkers :D
one mainly because the gov is too cheap. however, alot of those homes are pre 60's built, some even from ww2 era. so theyre not really all that good. if u go to chicago or NYC, the buildings are built considerably diffrent, as are they in Japan or in California.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
And as far as I can tell, Gilbert didn't strike a major city highly vulnerable to flooding almost dead on, nor did it result in levee breeches that greatly worsened the situation. In effect Katrina was major hurricane plus major flooding. It was a double whammy.
So? Since New Orleans was vulnerable to flooding and had levies which were knows to be weaker than they needed to be to stand up to a hurricane of the force they knew was coming isn't it a sign of absolutely abysmal planning that no one prepared for the possibiliity that the city might be flooded? Especially as two days earlier people were talking about the fact that New Orleans was likely to be flooded on HLP of all places?
If Mexico could manage to evacuate the area affected despite being a 3rd world country why couldn't the USA? They certainly had a couple of days to get ready for the possibility that they might have to evacuate.
Oh and Kingston in Jamaica had the eye of the storm pass directly over it and was flooded in many places.
Originally posted by Shrike
I'm also sure the reflexive anti-american wanking and pissing characteristic of HLP will continue as well.
It's worth noting that some of the most scathing comments about the handling of the disaster including the first comment about 3rd world countries handling things better were from americans!
This anti-americanism defence is becoming the ulitimate denial of reality for some people. I suppose you'll be suggesting that you dig up McCarthy next and start putting the Americans who dare to suggest that something may be wrong with their own country on trial for unamerican activities. :rolleyes:
Stop assuming that every time someone says that something is wrong with America it's because of anti-Americanism. Sometimes there is actually something wrong and if you allow people to trumpet calls of anti-americanism over everything you actually reduce the chance of something being done to fix it cause you just encourage everyone to ignore the problem.
-
Other countreis wowed to thel the Us in ther efforts.
I hope it's not monetary help...
I fell sorry for everyone who needlessly suffer, but the US spends more money on the rifles of their soldiers each year then my country's entire yearly bugdet... tehy don't need money...
On another note I do think Bush is an odiot, but being in power is not allways an easy job. You allways have projects and people asking for funding and there rearly is a right answer - it mostly depends on the circumstances.
-
Kara, you'll find that none of us here are using the label of anti-americanism to deflect legitimate criticism. We've got lots of people comparing the US's internal response, in the timeframe of less than a week, to be inferior to that of a "3rd world country" after everything is said and done. There's simply no evidence to back that up. Sure, it looks worse. But then every major news network has a multitude of correspondants in New Oreans reporting all of the chaos after a disaster of this magnitude. The 2004 Tsunami didn't have that. Gilbert didn't have that. No one on earth, not even the US government, can point to something and make it appear and that's what everyone here seems to be expecting. My point is that it's the perspective placed by the media, not reality, that generates these kinds of comments. And instead of anyone actually, heaven forbid, THINKING about that, everyone just reinforces what's already been said.
As for preperations, well New Orleans was placed under a mandatory evacuation when it became clear that Katrina would hit. I don't know what kind of short-term preperations could have been made besides that. There wasn't time to reinforce the levys in the face of the storm, there wasn't time to do much of anything beside tell everyone that could get out to do so. The longer term stuff, sure, was a problem but that's got nothing to do with the relief efforts. It's happened. If we could hop into a time machine and say "hey, this levy is going to break in a year. Fix it." I'm sure we all would, but the disaster has happened and those errors cannot be corrected for the New Orleans of today. None of us have any idea how the US government will react to the fact that it was not prepared when it's done with the more urgent task of making sure survivors actually survive.
The problem here is that, while there are legitimate concerns, the discussion on HLP has gone from empathy for the victims to concern for why the disaster is taking the human toll that it is, both useful discussions, to nothing more than your run-of-the-mill bash America thread. And it's there, the fact that everyone has to dwell on how much the US government sucks, that the anti-americanism gets to be a real problem. Shrike's right, it's really hard to express frustration with everyone's attitudes towards the states because it's blanketed over with accusations that it's being used to stifle discussions.
Originally posted by deep_eyes
one mainly because the gov is too cheap.
Are you kidding me? The US government has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in how we build our homes. I know you're in the US, but this is still precisely that stupid anti-american sentiment that I'm complaining about as it's a matter of blaming the government for something that it's really not at fault for. At all. To reply to Trashman, my father builds houses. It's what he does. And I've never seen a house, be it one he built, or worked on, or tore down, that was made out of cardboard. That's got to be the most retarded statement you've made in a long time. And if they are built right (read: up to code, the one influence government DOES have in construction) then a wood house can be just as strong as almost any stone or concrete residence. Plus here, stone is prohibitively expensive to procure for negligable gain in the life of most homes, so no one uses it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So? Since New Orleans was vulnerable to flooding and had levies which were knows to be weaker than they needed to be to stand up to a hurricane of the force they knew was coming isn't it a sign of absolutely abysmal planning that no one prepared for the possibiliity that the city might be flooded? Especially as two days earlier people were talking about the fact that New Orleans was likely to be flooded on HLP of all places?
And what could they have done to fix the levees in a couple days? The weakness of those levees is something that goes back for decades, they're only rated for a class-III hurricane. Blaming Bush for that is just stupidity, because his administration did no more and no less than any of the preceeding ones.
If Mexico could manage to evacuate the area affected despite being a 3rd world country why couldn't the USA? They certainly had a couple of days to get ready for the possibility that they might have to evacuate. [/B]
And how many people were in the area Mexico evacuated? How easily could they get out? New Orleans is in a rather isolated position with a fairly limited highway network. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the vast majority of NO's population evacuated? You're talking about moving half a million people in the span of a couple days here.
Oh and Kingston in Jamaica had the eye of the storm pass directly over it and was flooded in many places. [/B]
Flooded over the long term like NO or just temporary flooding that went away?
It's worth noting that some of the most scathing comments about the handling of the disaster including the first comment about 3rd world countries handling things better were from americans! [/B]
And the US is full of people looking to score political points. They'll say anything to make the other side look bad.
This anti-americanism defence is becoming the ulitimate denial of reality for some people. I suppose you'll be suggesting that you dig up McCarthy next and start putting the Americans who dare to suggest that something may be wrong with their own country on trial for unamerican activities. :rolleyes: [/B]
Oh please. How many people in this thread actually looked at things objectively? The Feds aren't the first responders in these situations, that's the role of the local and state administrations - administrations that in New Orleans dropped the ball. How many people outside of NO are *****ing about the Fed response? There's other states where the damage was effectively total, if things were really as bad as some people are making them out to be, why aren't these states' administrations saying anything? It's cheap political point-making which plays wonderfully into the anti-americanism so many people feel. They'll believe anything that makes the US look bad.
I disagree with a lot of US policies, both internal and external, but I don't let that lead me into believing that the US is automatically in the wrong in any and all situations.
Stop assuming that every time someone says that something is wrong with America it's because of anti-Americanism. Sometimes there is actually something wrong and if you allow people to trumpet calls of anti-americanism over everything you actually reduce the chance of something being done to fix it cause you just encourage everyone to ignore the problem. [/B]
It's rather hard when pretty much every bit of US criticism that comes on this board is senseless bull**** instead of actual coherent, rational and cool-headed discussion.
If you can tell me where the various levels went wrong, then I'd be willing to accept it as criticism. If you just scream 'the 3rd world is better, wah wah!!!' then I'll tune you out, because you're just another talking head who's banging his pots.
-
I beleiveI was the one who first mentioned the third world thing, I was trying to explain to someone on the other side of the world why I was releived that this wasn't major news there, because we all knew it was going to be a horid mess three days before it happened, and when it hit there was a lapse in what happened, the national gaurd should have been readied to move, logistis should have been thought out in advance, there are a whole bunch of things that should have happened, that didn't. and there are people to blame, our leaders. there are all sorts of things we should be doing that we don't do, we have no idea how to stop an asteroid impact, and we laugh at people who look for them, but in reality we should be trying to come up with a solution. this thing though we've knowen this was going to happen for years, we _knew_, and yet what do we have to show for it? a flooded city. why didn't we do anything about it? and why is it loony anti-americanism to ask? why is it bad to say that our leaders dropped the ball?
-
Although I think that anti-americanism is kind of annoying lately, Bob's right. National guard should have been in there the day of (well, from what I've heard, most of Louisiana's guard is in Iraq). Is this anti-american, yes. But it's actually thought out and not "well, something bad happened in the US, stupid Bush...".
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Oh please. How many people in this thread actually looked at things objectively? The Feds aren't the first responders in these situations, that's the role of the local and state administrations - administrations that in New Orleans dropped the ball. How many people outside of NO are *****ing about the Fed response? There's other states where the damage was effectively total, if things were really as bad as some people are making them out to be, why aren't these states' administrations saying anything? It's cheap political point-making which plays wonderfully into the anti-americanism so many people feel. They'll believe anything that makes the US look bad.
Naaa, look at September 11th, 2001... was it just the NY government that responded? negative... it was handled on a national level. the argument here isn't whether it's Bush's responsibility or the local government's...
-
The thing that has me the most savage about the whole process at this point is the fact that someone has been denying access to the city for consular officials (at this point I don't know what level, but the media over here has been implying it's at the federal level) which has left reporters being the ones who're evacing Aussies (and, I suspect, other nationalities as well)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Naaa, look at September 11th, 2001... was it just the NY government that responded? negative... it was handled on a national level. the argument here isn't whether it's Bush's responsibility or the local government's...
9/11 was handeled on a national level because it was a terrorist act. Terrorism is a nation wide concern.
-
not back then it wasn't, it was a criminal problem, not a national security one.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I beleiveI was the one who first mentioned the third world thing, I was trying to explain to someone on the other side of the world why I was releived that this wasn't major news there, because we all knew it was going to be a horid mess three days before it happened, and when it hit there was a lapse in what happened, the national gaurd should have been readied to move, logistis should have been thought out in advance, there are a whole bunch of things that should have happened, that didn't.
Um, they were ready. There were hospital ship(s) preparing before Katrina hit and sailing within 24 hours and a marine LHA was in the region just as quickly. But the National Guard and other federal-level assets are not supposed to be first responders - they're supposed to take stock and be deployed to best deal with the situation. Plus New Orleans is pretty damn inaccessible right now, with what one whole highway operational and everything else busted up and flooded?
-
then why did it take a week for food drops and the gaurd to show up when in virtualy all other hurricanes we've had in the last twenty years had these problems solved within two days
-
While there is a lost of Anti-Americanism flying around (if you can call any criticism of the US "Anti-Americanism"), I think it's quite well founded in this case. A lot of the opinions given on in this thread are just that; opinions, such as the 'USA handling this worse than a 3rd World Country' crack. That may be true, but it's only an opinion, and shouldn't be taken seriously to the nth degree as stoic Anti-American Racism...
...The plain and pure facts are; the US skimped on funds to raise the levys - leading to a catastrophic failure and the flooding which is has effectively destroyed a good portion of New Orleans. Moreover, things have obviously not gone exactly right in evacuating the danger zone, as there were just so many of New Orleans poorest people still in there. Finally, it's painfully obvious that the 'States has just plain screwed up the rescue effort. I've seen so many accounts from people from within NO as well as first hand accounts from Media Correspondants, including one from an Australian Correspondant that recued several Australians himself...
Any way you look at it, even considering the remoteness of post-hurricane NO, and the destruction reaped by Katrina, the rescue effort has been sub-standard for a country that's supposedly the most powerful on the planet. This is namely due to other contraversial issues, such as over-stretching the CoE and National Guard manpower with rebuilding Iraq - leading to an intense man-shortage - or the amazing corruption and twisting beaurocracy (sp?) of the Government...
...As for Anti-Americanism, why the hell not? I'm not saying I hate the US so much I want to go on a murderous rampage, or even to a degree of outright Racism, but - let's face it - the US hasn't exactly been making any friends as of late, what with the downright insane things the US has gotten away with (I really don't mean to offend, but c'mon! Be reasonable!)...
-
Bobboau, none of the hurricanes of the past twenty years even come close to this situation. The quadruple-whammy that Florida was hit with last year...the devastation that Andrew caused...they pale in comparison to this. Of course problems such as food and shelter were solved much faster with previous hurricanes; previous hurricanes didn't create one million refugees and didn't turn an entire city of 500,000 people into a tub of water. There's just no comparison to be made. This thing was absolutely massive; of course it's going to take longer to get aid than for a Cat. 2 storm that hits a small region.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
For some on-topic replies, hovercraft would be nice, but how are you going to get them there? They're much too big to move by air and so would need to be shipped in by boats. Plus, choppers are much faster and can fly over obstacles.
Some hovercraft are too big, yeah - the ones that would be most efficient at evacuating masses of people. But many hovercraft are plenty small. You can get ones that are about as large as 4 regular cars that could carry... oh, I'd guess a dozen people? Not that much, true, but they could also get lots of supplies to places.
Anywya, that hovercraft idea wasn't criticism by any means, it was just a "hey, wouldn't this be a good idea?"
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Borderline racist? OMG WTF
Just because I believe in a very limited federal gov't and having issues with Gov't taking money from one person and bestowing a benefit on some one else?
Major natural disasters like this ARE the responsibility of the federal government. That is what FEMA is for. But FEMA really ****ed up its disaster "relief" this time and a lot of people are dieing because of it.
I think he considers it borderline racist because most of the people left behind were black, and you say that there should be little government assistance.
As this point is seriously wouldn't surprise me if they botched the relief effort on purpose because black people almost always vote for the other party. I don't really believe that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. Bush has a record of exploiting disasters (not necessarily natural).
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Kara, you'll find that none of us here are using the label of anti-americanism to deflect legitimate criticism.
I don't care whether the criticism is legitimate or not. I just reread the thread and saw only 4 people make the claim that 3rd world nations have handled this situation better. Stealth, Bob, Deep Eyes and myself. Of those 4 I'm the only one who isn't american. So the term isn't applicable to this argument regardless of whether or not Shrike feels the four of us were talking a load of crap or not. Unless of course he's accusing the other 3 of being unamerican.
Let me turn the question on its head. Do you honestly believe that America has handled the situation better than a 3rd world nation would have? As the most powerful nation on Earth you would think that it should have been able to.
Originally posted by StratComm
The problem here is that, while there are legitimate concerns, the discussion on HLP has gone from empathy for the victims to concern for why the disaster is taking the human toll that it is, both useful discussions, to nothing more than your run-of-the-mill bash America thread. And it's there, the fact that everyone has to dwell on how much the US government sucks, that the anti-americanism gets to be a real problem. Shrike's right, it's really hard to express frustration with everyone's attitudes towards the states because it's blanketed over with accusations that it's being used to stifle discussions.
Who's bashing America? Certainly none of the people I've mentioned. Certainly not me. If I express concern with the way America is handling a situation I'm America bashing. Yet when Clinton was in power it was okay for everyone to constantly complain about the American government. Why is that? Why is it suddenly bad to say that the government of a country sucks now? Especially when said government has no problem with insulting the government of other countries like France.
The fact is that this "You hate America" crap is being used to stifle discussioons. Look at the way Shrike used it. To shut up 3 americans who disagreed with him!
The problem is not america bashing. The problem is people who love America so much that they think it's perfect and are unwilling to hear a single word said against it even when it's by other Americans.
Originally posted by Shrike
And what could they have done to fix the levees in a couple days? The weakness of those levees is something that goes back for decades, they're only rated for a class-III hurricane. Blaming Bush for that is just stupidity, because his administration did no more and no less than any of the preceeding ones.
Bush did less than the previous administration because he actually cut the funding to a project designed to fix them. Had that project not been cut the levees would have been strengthened and could have withstood a cat 4 like Katrina. So he definately did less.
But lets assume he didn't. What problem can any politician not blame on the previous administration? War in Iraq? Clinton's fault, Bush Snr's fault, Regan's fault all the way back to whoever put Saddam in charge and he can then blame the administrations before him.
The fact is that if there is a problem the politician in charge is responsible for fixing it. The only defence they have is if there wasn't time to fix it since they took over. If Bush wants to blame Clinton for the economy, or the state of the world that's one thing cause that sort of thing takes decades before you can rule out the effects of previous governments. With the levees though Bush had more than enough time to fix them. His government were told they needed to. They didn't. It's his fault.
Whoever is in charge takes the blame. It's that simple. If you're not willing to accept that then politicians can never do anything wrong cause they can always point to a previous administration and say "It's their fault". As I've already said if Clinton was in charge I'd have been just as scathing about him.
Originally posted by Shrike
And how many people were in the area Mexico evacuated? How easily could they get out? New Orleans is in a rather isolated position with a fairly limited highway network. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the vast majority of NO's population evacuated? You're talking about moving half a million people in the span of a couple days here.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of one particular hurricane because quite simply I lack the data. I posted the stuff about hurricane Gilbert as an example of a major city getting smacked by something every bit as bad as Hurricane Katrina and coming through it better. Relief Web was the best site I could find and that's still not enough for questions as specific as yours. I don't know of any site on the web which is.
Originally posted by Shrike
And the US is full of people looking to score political points. They'll say anything to make the other side look bad.
And yet again you seek to label anyone who disagrees with you. First it was the evil europeans and their anti-americanism and now it's the evil democrats and their desire to make Bush look bad.
Take a look at previous topics. Do Stealth, Bob and Deep Eyes look like dyed in the wool democrats out to score points off of Bush at every opportunity?
This is exactly what I meant about people sticking their heads in the sand. Just simply assume that any point of view that disagrees with your own comes from the other side so you can safely ignore it rather than considering it on it's own merits and perhaps realising that you might be wrong.
Originally posted by Shrike
The Feds aren't the first responders in these situations, that's the role of the local and state administrations - administrations that in New Orleans dropped the ball. How many people outside of NO are *****ing about the Fed response? There's other states where the damage was effectively total, if things were really as bad as some people are making them out to be, why aren't these states' administrations saying anything? It's cheap political point-making which plays wonderfully into the anti-americanism so many people feel. They'll believe anything that makes the US look bad.
Have I not said that this was a colossal f**k up at all levels? What you're doing is trying to claim that the f**k up was only at the state level so that you can absolve the Federal government of all charges. As I've said before that just makes it more likely that this will happen again next time.
Originally posted by Shrike
I disagree with a lot of US policies, both internal and external, but I don't let that lead me into believing that the US is automatically in the wrong in any and all situations.
Who's saying that it is?
Since when have the other 3 members who compared this to a 3rd world disaster ever said that America gets everything wrong. For that matter when have I?
As far as I can see you're putting those words into the mouth of anyone you disagree with in order to score points.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Bobboau, none of the hurricanes of the past twenty years even come close to this situation. The quadruple-whammy that Florida was hit with last year...the devastation that Andrew caused...they pale in comparison to this. Of course problems such as food and shelter were solved much faster with previous hurricanes; previous hurricanes didn't create one million refugees and didn't turn an entire city of 500,000 people into a tub of water. There's just no comparison to be made. This thing was absolutely massive; of course it's going to take longer to get aid than for a Cat. 2 storm that hits a small region.
Hurricane Andrew was a category 5 storm. Katrina was Cat 4 when it made landfall. The reason why Katrina has cause more damaged is pretty simple. The poor state of the levees. Don't ever make the assumption that Katrina was the worst hurricane to hit America in recent times.
The devestation is greater only because of the dreadful mismanagement that allowed the levees to fail.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
To reply to Trashman, my father builds houses. It's what he does. And I've never seen a house, be it one he built, or worked on, or tore down, that was made out of cardboard. That's got to be the most retarded statement you've made in a long time. And if they are built right (read: up to code, the one influence government DOES have in construction) then a wood house can be just as strong as almost any stone or concrete residence. Plus here, stone is prohibitively expensive to procure for negligable gain in the life of most homes, so no one uses it.
Stratty my boy, you do realise "house out of carboard" is just an expression and not a refference to a real material, right?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Hurricane Andrew was a category 5 storm. Katrina was Cat 4 when it made landfall. The reason why Katrina has cause more damaged is pretty simple. The poor state of the levees. Don't ever make the assumption that Katrina was the worst hurricane to hit America in recent times.
The devestation is greater only because of the dreadful mismanagement that allowed the levees to fail.
I'm perfectly aware that Andrew had a higher ranking than Katrina at the time of its landfall (even though, before it hit land, Katrina was actually the more powerful storm). I was merely responding to Bobboau's complaint that federal aid took longer to reach the area than it had in other hurricanes in the past. In my opinion, the very fact that the devastation that Katrina caused is the worst by any hurricane on record, regardless of Katrina's relative strength to other hurricanes, would imply that aid would take longer to reach those who need it. That's all I'm saying. I also wouldn't qualify the state of the levees as "poor;" it isn't as though they were dilapidated and crumbling before the storm hit. In fact, they had been upgraded in the past several years to deal with a Cat. 3 storm surge. I don't see any gross mismanagement there. Yes, there is the issue of the budget cut, but budget items get cut by presidents every single day, many of which would be useful and warranted. It's not as though Bush was sitting at his desk four years ago and saying, "I know there'll be a Cat. 5 storm in the next few years, but hell with it...I want more guns." There was always that possibility, but as I said, it had never happened. It's only hindsight that allows us to criticize decisions made four years ago.
-
ok, two days after tsunami, people were getting food and water dropped to them, the tsunami came with absolutely no warning mostly in an extreemly poor country, and yet air dropps were mobalised in nearly 1/3rd the time it took here, when we had a three day _at least_ warning. the levies broke due to poor local management, but the feds fuct up the resque opperation.
the louisiana state and NO city government do not answer to me, but the feds do, and they are responcable for insureing the safty of all Americans, these same people are the ones who would be helping me if Scott AFB got nuked, do you see why I might focus on them a little more?
-
It's not hindsight. There were plenty of people screaming at him to do something at it before the hurricane but he ignored them. Will you say the same thing when his policy on global warming is proved to be equally short sighted and stupid? Cause you may have noticed that I'm not one of those people who says that cause something only happens every 100 years we should take the risk that it won't happen tomorrow.
The government were warned several times that the levees wouldn't stand up to a cat 4 or cat 5 hurricane and deliberately choose to do nothing about it even though hurricanes striking the new Orleans area is not an unknown occurance. I guarentee you that if I'd heard about this before hand I'd have been complaining about the government's stupidity in ignoring the danger.
Especially given the relatively minor cost compared with what will have to be paid now.
As for the comment about the levees being poor. I think that's a prefectly good description of a device that is designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane in a place where category 4 and 5 hurricanes can hit. And don't get me started on what I've heard the Dutch say about the quality of those defenses.
-
Ach, horrible stuff. I've been watching it on and off on Sky News / BBC World for the last few days, seems like a complete ****up of planning. Regardless of the shabbiness of having levvys that are too weak, how on earth did it take that long to get basic supplies? Even though any country would have difficulties with that magnitude of disaster (an entire city and beyond being inundated), the apparent lack of any cohesive disaster plan is surely unforgiveable - especially when we've seen exactly this sort of scale of disaster just 9 months ago, and in the worlds most powerful nation. (and when exactly this sort of devestation had been predicted by the New Orleans weather centre)
If it's true that money was diverted from the sea defense budget for 'homeland security', that just raises further questions. Not to mention my personal astonishment at how a city can so quickly break down into a virtual warzone, with armed gangs roaming the streets.... the overnight collapse of society that seems to have occurred is beyond anything I've ever conceived of or expected in this type of disaster.
-
Like I said before - making decisions is not easy..
you allways have poeple/groups/project screaming for money and ALL of htem will give you GOOD reasons to give it to them. Some cuts had to be made and I can't blaim bush for hte levie thing (allthough I hate the guy becoause of hte Kyoto thing - in a way it was his fault...and from the rest of america that uses 50% more resources per person than any other nation).
the response was slow nad it does appearto be due to poor planning but 3 (THREE) states were hit, not just New Orleans..not to mention the problem of actually getting there with most of hte roads under water.
I am surprised that choppers took so long to get there, but hey, it's a big country...
-
Katrina was God's revenge for Mardi Gras, plain and simple. Just like ****ing Sodom and Gamorra.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Katrina was God's revenge for Mardi Gras, plain and simple. Just like ****ing Sodom and Gamorra.
Like politicians here in Brazil, then. :p
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Like I said before - making decisions is not easy..
you allways have poeple/groups/project screaming for money and ALL of htem will give you GOOD reasons to give it to them. Some cuts had to be made and I can't blaim bush for hte levie thing (allthough I hate the guy becoause of hte Kyoto thing - in a way it was his fault...and from the rest of america that uses 50% more resources per person than any other nation).
the response was slow nad it does appearto be due to poor planning but 3 (THREE) states were hit, not just New Orleans..not to mention the problem of actually getting there with most of hte roads under water.
I am surprised that choppers took so long to get there, but hey, it's a big country...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4216508.stm
[q]When Hurricane Camille, a rare top Category Five storm, hit Mississippi in 1969, just missing New Orleans, the levees around the city were strengthened - but only enough to protect against a Category Three hurricane.
The gamble was taken that another Category Five would not threaten New Orleans anytime soon. This attitude prevailed among successive administrations.
Lt General Carl Strock, the Army Corps of Engineers commander, admitted that there was a collective mindset - that New Orleans would not be hit. Washington rolled the dice, he said.
After flooding in 1995, the existing system was improved. However, the sums were relatively small. About $500m was spent over the next 10 years.
From 2003 onwards, the Bush administration cut funds amid charges from the Army Corps of Engineers that the money was transferred to Iraq instead. The latest annual budget was cut from $36.5m to $10.4m.
A study to examine defences against a category Four or Five storm was proposed, at a cost of $4m. The Times-Picayune quoted the Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi as saying: "The Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies."
But in any event, there was no plan for a major strengthening. This would have taken billions of dollars and many years.
And an Army Corps of Engineers spokeswoman, Connie Gillette, said there had never been any plans or funds to improve those floodwalls which had failed. [/q]
-
This just in. There will be a full inquiry into what went wrong with the new Orleans evacuation and subsequent relief operation. the inquiry will be lead by... wait for it... Tell you what. Just click the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4220246.stm
-
I'm going to make my fortune - I'm going to sell whitewash in Washington.
-
and he never stopped to think that perhaps he was to blame?
-
Originally posted by Jeryko
9/11 was handeled on a national level because it was a terrorist act. Terrorism is a nation wide concern.
and extreme natural disasters aren't? Why is everyone blaming a large part on Bush? Why did the federal government declare martial law?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and extreme natural disasters aren't? Why is everyone blaming a large part on Bush? Why did the federal government declare martial law?
Because Bush is the ultimate figurehead of power; his name is shorthand for the government and the morass of faceless, nameless beauraucrats that form it.
Ultimately, there will be many people to blame. But those people will be the decision makers, and that surely must include the President; it would appear FEMA botched the job up horribly, and questions should be asked about why. If that involves it's movement to be part of the gesta... Homeland Security, or the key appointments made, then that would involve the Presidents office. Likewise if budgets were cut on flood defence, or studies cancelled, and what that excess money was used for.
It is, after all, the Presidents ultimate duty to take responsibility.
-
Youi know, it's only now I think about it I realise why FEMA was integrated. The legal powers FEMA have to even over-rule the federal government would extend Homeland Security powers to a frightening level.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and he never stopped to think that perhaps he was to blame?
You might think for a second that the mayor would think for a second that he too was to blame before make some fake emotional appeal.
-
Regardless of that the simple fact is that a review into what went wrong should not be conducted by a man who could be responsible for it all going wrong.
Oh and while I'm at it I've yet to hear anyone give a single credible answer to what the mayor of NO could have done to prevent the tragedy.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Oh and while I'm at it I've yet to hear anyone give a single credible answer to what the mayor of NO could have done to prevent the tragedy.
Have you seen pictures of all of those school buses sitting flooded in a parking lot? Why didn't the mayor order then to get as many refugeess as possible as far from the city as they could? You can't tell me that's FEMA's fault. Also, after they decided to use the Superdome and the convention center as shelters, why didn't local officials make them more well-equipped to deal with large numbers of people? They had a few days' warning, which is more than enough time to make better preparations than were evident in the stories of those forced to live in the shelters. I've said it before, and I've said it again: seeing what condition the city and surrounding region of the country was in after the storm, and seeing as how the devastation to New Orleans only became apparent a day or two later when the levees burst (some news types were still saying that the city had "dodged a bullet" the day after the storm), and seeing as how federal forces were already being marshalled before the storm hit, I just don't see how FEMA can be said to bear the brunt of responsibility for this catastrophe. I'm not sticking my head in the sand, and I'm not trying to defend the federal government; that's just my rational conclusion. If anything, I think we should be taking a good, hard look at what Mayor Nagin and the governor of Louisiana could have done better to help the people in their own backyards. It's not like they had to ship supplies and equipment thousands of miles; anything they could have used, like those school buses, was right at their fingertips. Why weren't they utilized properly?
Also, on a related note, something struck me as very odd about the video posted earler regarding the city official's mother who died as a result of being trapped in her nursing home. As tragic as her death was, I see absolutely no reason why it should not have been prevented. According to the interviewee's statements, her son called her three or four days in a row, saying that help was on the way. Why the hell didn't he go and get her himself? Are you telling me that, over the course of a few days, he couldn't manage to find a boat and get over there to get her to somewhere safer, or at least send someone over to get her? If that was your own mother, wouldn't you have moved her to higher ground well before the storm hit, or at least gotten to her as soon as possible, even if it meant swimming half the way?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Why is everyone blaming a large part on Bush?
Because he had the power to prepare the country for eventualities such as this, and didn't? Because he had the power to kick everyone's asses into motion as soon as it happened, and didn't? Because he should have got on the first plane back from his holiday, and didn't? :mad2:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I just don't see how FEMA can be said to bear the brunt of responsibility for this catastrophe.
I sure as hell do, and you must be sticking your head in the sand if you don't. FEMA was in there rather quickly, i'll give you that, but it was so chaotic that they did more harm than good. Four days in and they still hadn't gathered a Command and Control Centre, and as a result, different rescue efforts began working against each other. I've both seen and read reports of trucks loaded with Food, Water and Medical Supplies being turned away from NO in the chaos, all erupting for FEMA's - let's face it - completely inept handling of the situation...
Originally posted by Mongoose
According to the interviewee's statements, her son called her three or four days in a row, saying that help was on the way. Why the hell didn't he go and get her himself? Are you telling me that, over the course of a few days, he couldn't manage to find a boat and get over there to get her to somewhere safer, or at least send someone over to get her?
Yeah, I've seen that report a few times too, tragic really, but I really don't think you've grasped the gravity of the situation in NO at the time...You've stated in previous posts about the abject devestation of the area, but now you argue that anyone could simply get a boat, sail through the clean, clear flood waters, find, and subsequently rescue that poor old Woman. A few things wrong with your theory;
A) Boats were possibly hard to come by, I can't count the times i've seen people using doors to traverse the flood waters...
B) There was an obvious manpower shortage in NO. Rescue efforts were going on around the clock (although it took a while to wind up), yet you seem to think that there were many people free to hop on a boat, sail away, and save a single woman...not to mention the fact that the man was a city official, and likely had a freaking job to do!
C) Perhaps the main point is that all the information you have to go on about this particular case came from a sobbing friend of the Official in question. So, your basing your criticism of this knowing nothing about it, which - no offense intended - is just plain silly. For all we know, his Mother might have been in the most flooded area of NO, inaccessible to all but Aircraft, we just don't know, so i'd thank you not to insult a man who just lost his own damn Mother in damn near nightmarish circumstances...
...And as for the Investigation of the shoddy response being headed by Bush, well, it makes perfect sense. The main idea of these investigations, inquiries, or whatever, is to make it look like they're doing something, which they can also point to at any given time and say; 'We're having an investigation! Give it time! All answers will be given soon!
Before you know it, it's several years and several million dollars later, the results are finished, and no interest in it is apparent (yes, it is a major generalisation, but there isn't exactly going to be fanfare when the findings are finished), meaning that the findings can never be released without a ruckass...welcome to Western Politics...:doubt:
-
Maybe your country should have been "prepared" then Mefustae? Just a thought. Crazy I know.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Maybe your country should have been "prepared" then Mefustae? Just a thought. Crazy I know.
Mefustae
Valkyrie
Location: Sydney, Australia
eh? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
eh? :wtf:
My bad. I assumed since you were defending the US govt (who are I figure are pretty much indefensible) then the only explanation is that you lived there ;7
-
Woah, woah, woah...You've got me mixed up with Mongoose and such, i'm one of the people attacking the US Government for this debacle...! Where did I come across Defensive of said Government might I ask...?
-
lol. Oh well. Good. Carry on :D.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Because he had the power to prepare the country for eventualities such as this, and didn't? Because he had the power to kick everyone's asses into motion as soon as it happened, and didn't? Because he should have got on the first plane back from his holiday, and didn't? :mad2:
Actually, it is the the responcibility of the state and local gov't to prepare for natual disasters. They are better able to deal with such eventualities.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Because he had the power to prepare the country for eventualities such as this, and didn't? Because he had the power to kick everyone's asses into motion as soon as it happened, and didn't? Because he should have got on the first plane back from his holiday, and didn't? :mad2:
yeah i know, i'm agreeing. the question was rhetorical, because someone said you "can't blame the federal government for the action taken", and i said if no one's blaming the federal government, then why is everyone blaming bush? because he's responsible...
-
Actually I'd put that down to people blaming the President for everything that anyone remotely in authority does, but hey...
-
true.
but i do blame the president though... cause ultimately the ball rests in his court. if the mayor of new orleans is begging for help, then suddenly it does become the federal government's responsibility, that's why they're there in the first place, and that's why FEMA is federal
-
Climate change and the change in weather patterns it has brought threatening the US is a national concern. In fact it's an international concern. Bush has not only condemned his own people with his "stick fingers in ears and hum" attitude. He's condemned all of us. The guy is a spineless short-sighted moron and the sooner the political world is rid of him the better.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Actually, it is the the responcibility of the state and local gov't to prepare for natual disasters. They are better able to deal with such eventualities.
But, what about national disasters such as this, where it not only spans several states (requiring a co-ordinated relief effort across all of them and beyond), but also requires resources above that a state can manage even when not already crippled by said disaster? Surely it's FEMAs responsibility to plan for and manage disasters of this scale, especially when they can paralyze local and regional government?
-
FEMA was established to react to these crisis. Honestly, they were not prepared for this. Now, I wouldn't blame Bush for this. But if I were him, I would take responcibility for the failure of immediate action because as a certain former president said, "the buck stops here." However, this has crippeled the City of NO, but has not crippeled Louisiana as a whole. Frankly Louisiana needed to be better prepared. The only thing that might warrant the federal gov't is the fact that they don't have the military grade hardware to get supplies through flooded areas such as trucks or UH-60s. Although, the state does have a national gaurd unit which should have capable hardware to get the job done.
-
redmenace i WOULD blame bush for FEMAs lack of readyness - he GUTTED FEMA.
Bush appointed a guy who was a lawyer and the director of an international horse breeding association to be the Directory of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
PEOPLE WERE FIRED FROM FEMA FOR TELLING THE [current] DIRECTOR SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT THE NOLA LEVES NEEDED MORE WORK.
The idiot ******* he has in charge of FEMA cannot even comprehend that some people were incapable of evacuating [like they didn't have a car!]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The idiot ******* he has in charge of FEMA cannot even comprehend that some people were incapable of evacuating [like they didn't have a car!]
umm, actually the state law Louisiana states that public agencies can and should volunteer things such as school buses, which IIRC, are still sitting in a parking lot in NO. Frankly, FEMAs and Bush's incompetence is only dwarfed by the incompetence of the Mayor and company of NO and the State Government of Louisiana. These are the people at the grassroots, these people did not prepare themselves for these situations. Honestly, how hard would it have been to create an action plan ahead of time? On a side note, I am not even sure I support FEMA. It is the job of the states and local Gov't to prepare themselves, honestly.
-
Any incompetence in the face of national disaster is unacceptable; it doesn't matter how exactly the various mistakes interact, just that they exist. Measuring 'levels' of incompetence is simply a get-out clause for criticism; there is no acceptable level for incompetence.
To focus on Bush, he has a responsibility as a figurehead and the ultimate decision maker; I think he's failed there. Many others have failed, too. That doesn't mean any should be exonerated, or exempt from criticism.
-
I agree, "the buck stops here." But I get the feeling that certain people want to focus all their angre towards bush and don't want to look towards the grassroots authority, which honestly have a greater responcibility to prepare for this situation than the federal gov't ever could.
-
yeah to an extent that's true.
just certain stuff pisses me off though... like the fact that Bush didn't cancel any of his engagements the day the hurricane hit, even though none of them were unusual or highly important.
if something that big happens to your country, can't you at least cancel your speaking arrangements?
-
What would you rather have him do? What good would it be for Bush to cancel his engagements? Supposedly FEMA was prepared to handle such a situation(although they were not).
-
Originally posted by redmenace
What would you rather have him do? What good would it be for Bush to cancel his engagements? Supposedly FEMA was prepared to handle such a situation(although they were not).
It's normally seen as a sign of respect for the victims to do so, for one thing. The other is that - or at least with a halfway competent leader - it's often a morale boost to see them taking command, even from a figurehead position. Doing the converse is often seen as simply ignoring the problem.
Bush has somewhat of a knack for stupid Pr, though;
"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do ... The good news is — and it's hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house — he's lost his entire house — there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) —President Bush, touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
(Given that Lott is somewhat minted with several houses, and that he's a rich accussed racist whilst the majority of refugees are poor and black, it's somewhat of an insensitive comment to make)
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/currentevents/a/katrinaquotes.htm
-
I thought you were makeing that up, did he actualy say that?
:lol:
-
While we're talking about absurdities.
FEMA will only help you if you use IE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/07/fema_web_pc_only/).
-
Originally posted by redmenace
What would you rather have him do? What good would it be for Bush to cancel his engagements? Supposedly FEMA was prepared to handle such a situation(although they were not).
he did the same thing the day people flew planes into the world trade center
-
I thought he hid in a bunker then?
Albeit, when the first airliner hit, Bush was on the way to a Florida school, and continued onwards with that engagement (if not told in the limo, he was definately told once he got out of it at the school).
This is obviously quite a huge diversion, but the record of Bush' reaction is interesting (and quite bizarre) (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html; Note: some of this may be biased, I'd go primarily by where sources are presented). It seems like the administration - perhaps the institution as well as the incumbent - was paralyzed rather than springing into action.
But this is beside the point; the point IMO is should an occuring national disaster* take precedence over other engagements? I think so, and I'd expect it of those in power in the UK.
*(given that there were surely more facilities available to the Us government to examine the states affected than the TV media, and that the disasterous impact of a Force 4 or 5 hurricane on NO had already been judged)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I agree, "the buck stops here." But I get the feeling that certain people want to focus all their angre towards bush and don't want to look towards the grassroots authority, which honestly have a greater responcibility to prepare for this situation than the federal gov't ever could.
Because Bush is the leader of the country. He is supposed to be competent to make sure his country will always is under good control. There were so much to do alleviate the outcome of this hurricaner, but nothing was done even when people knew what was going to happen sooner or later.
-
I just saw a news report lately that says the US has accepted aid from China (amoung other countries). My, my, how the mighty have fallen.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I don't care whether the criticism is legitimate or not. I just reread the thread and saw only 4 people make the claim that 3rd world nations have handled this situation better. Stealth, Bob, Deep Eyes and myself. Of those 4 I'm the only one who isn't american. So the term isn't applicable to this argument regardless of whether or not Shrike feels the four of us were talking a load of crap or not. Unless of course he's accusing the other 3 of being unamerican.
Let me turn the question on its head. Do you honestly believe that America has handled the situation better than a 3rd world nation would have? As the most powerful nation on Earth you would think that it should have been able to.
A given third world nation? Typhoons in Bangladesh can cause upwards of a hundred thousand deaths, and that's not a once-in-a-lifetime event like NO.
People keep going on about how third world countries perform better, but nobody's actually posted anything that shows they'd perform better at dealing with New Orleans, which is quite possibly the worst possible city in the entire US at dealing with a hurricane. The SE Asia tsunami is a red herring because it didn't lead to long term flooding. New Orleans is still 60% flooded. How many third world cities of that size have been inundated with only a few days warning?
As I said before, this is not just a hurricane, it's also a flood. It's definately not a Tsunami.
Who's bashing America? Certainly none of the people I've mentioned. Certainly not me. If I express concern with the way America is handling a situation I'm America bashing. Yet when Clinton was in power it was okay for everyone to constantly complain about the American government. Why is that? Why is it suddenly bad to say that the government of a country sucks now? Especially when said government has no problem with insulting the government of other countries like France.
The fact is that this "You hate America" crap is being used to stifle discussioons. Look at the way Shrike used it. To shut up 3 americans who disagreed with him!
The problem is not america bashing. The problem is people who love America so much that they think it's perfect and are unwilling to hear a single word said against it even when it's by other Americans. [/B]
For the record, I'm not an American. I have no 'fellow Americans'.
As for 'American bashing', how many threads come up on HLP criticising EU policies, or Chinese policies, or others? Certainly not more or even terribly comparable on an individual basis and quite possibly not even if you added all the US-critical threads and compared them to the rest of the world-critical threads. People here ***** and piss and moan over almost every stupid or silly thing to come out of the US but don't seem nearly so inclined to do the same to other nations.
Bush did less than the previous administration because he actually cut the funding to a project designed to fix them. Had that project not been cut the levees would have been strengthened and could have withstood a cat 4 like Katrina. So he definately did less.
But lets assume he didn't. What problem can any politician not blame on the previous administration? War in Iraq? Clinton's fault, Bush Snr's fault, Regan's fault all the way back to whoever put Saddam in charge and he can then blame the administrations before him.
The fact is that if there is a problem the politician in charge is responsible for fixing it. The only defence they have is if there wasn't time to fix it since they took over. If Bush wants to blame Clinton for the economy, or the state of the world that's one thing cause that sort of thing takes decades before you can rule out the effects of previous governments. With the levees though Bush had more than enough time to fix them. His government were told they needed to. They didn't. It's his fault. [/B]
As was posted above, there were no plans to upgrade the levees and such a plan would never have been completed in time for Katrina anyhow. The budget cuts only occured two years ago, and even if the funds had not been decreased it strikes me as exceptionally unlikely that in those two years the levees would have been sufficiently strengthened. The studies alone for a multi-billion dollar civil engineering project might not even have been done yet. These things take time.
Whoever is in charge takes the blame. It's that simple. If you're not willing to accept that then politicians can never do anything wrong cause they can always point to a previous administration and say "It's their fault". As I've already said if Clinton was in charge I'd have been just as scathing about him.[/B]
And what would this criticism accomplish? Needless criticism gets in the way of a rational investigation. I'm quite certain there's much more legitimate criticism you can level against Bush than not spending billions of dollars on a civil engineering project that may not have been needed (speaking hypothetically). If you're going to criticise Bush for not allocating funds to the levees, it is quite fair to criticise all the previous administrations who did the same.
Should the general hurricane-proofing of the gulf coast region have been a higher priority? Yes. Does this blame rest solely on Bush? Certainly not when previous administrations didn't do anything more. It's a continued long-term failure that hopefully will be corrected after this.
Hindsight is wonderful in that you can see where you went wrong, but nobody can do everything.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of one particular hurricane because quite simply I lack the data. I posted the stuff about hurricane Gilbert as an example of a major city getting smacked by something every bit as bad as Hurricane Katrina and coming through it better. Relief Web was the best site I could find and that's still not enough for questions as specific as yours. I don't know of any site on the web which is. [/B]
The problem with this comparison is that the main damage to NO is the continued flooding. Until the levees broke New Orleans was seen as safe and while battered, pretty much intact. It was the flooding that well and truly screwed things over.
And yet again you seek to label anyone who disagrees with you. First it was the evil europeans and their anti-americanism and now it's the evil democrats and their desire to make Bush look bad.[/B]
And again, how often do we see threads criticising the actions of other nations on this forum? And ones with the same vehemence displayed towards many US actions? Unless you're claiming that the US alone does more stupid **** than the rest of the world combined (which, as much stupid **** as the US pulls I find difficult to believe) then yes, there's a bias.
Take a look at previous topics. Do Stealth, Bob and Deep Eyes look like dyed in the wool democrats out to score points off of Bush at every opportunity?
This is exactly what I meant about people sticking their heads in the sand. Just simply assume that any point of view that disagrees with your own comes from the other side so you can safely ignore it rather than considering it on it's own merits and perhaps realising that you might be wrong.[/B]
What have they actually said in defense of their claims? Nobody's sourced any third world countries that got a major city (10,000 people is certainly not major and the city in question was entirely evacuated) struck by a hurricane and then a flood and showed better relief efforts than the US. For all I know New Orleans is an unprecedented case for an industrialized country.
Have I not said that this was a colossal f**k up at all levels? What you're doing is trying to claim that the f**k up was only at the state level so that you can absolve the Federal government of all charges. As I've said before that just makes it more likely that this will happen again next time.[/B]
And again, where are the vocal calls from other states over the same response issues in NO? If the blame was mostly at the federal level then wouldn't all the affected states have been screaming?
I hear Bush this and Bush that, but the criticism of the state-level screwups have been far more muted, even though they're equally important in dealing with disaster relief and the go-to people for preparation. They didn't even follow their pre-organized plans for dealing with such an eventuality which may have directly led to the large number of people still in NO and the problems facing those remaining.
If you've been saying there's been mistakes on all levels then I'll withdraw my complaint. But people are blaming Bush at near or total exclusion to the state and municipal authorities when said authorities are as important as the federal government. If you're going to play the blame-game, at least play it fairly and assing blame where to all the parties. People on all levels made mistakes.
Who's saying that it is?
Since when have the other 3 members who compared this to a 3rd world disaster ever said that America gets everything wrong. For that matter when have I?
As far as I can see you're putting those words into the mouth of anyone you disagree with in order to score points. [/B]
The moment I say there's a lot of anti-US *****ing here at HLP, I get *****ed at and called some kind of US superpatriot who sees nothing wrong with the US. Who's putting words in who's mouth now? Perhaps I just see unwarranted or excessive criticism on top of warranted. Yes, 'you' (speaking figuratively) don't like the US because of XYZ. I don't need to hear it every bloody thread that mentions the US like some people who will remain anonymous.
And I believe that will be that last of that out of me, unless someone wants to discuss hovercraft more. These silly political arguments take far too much time to write and take time away from much more important things in my life. :p
And Re: Hovercraft, I don't believe there is any large number of small hovercraft available. They're not exactly common compared to boats and their possible utility probably simply doesn't compare to that of a helicopter.
-
[q]
As I said before, this is not just a hurricane, it's also a flood. It's definately not a Tsunami.
[/q]
That's true. The tsunami was much worse in both economic impact, casualties, and area of destruction.
-
Originally posted by Shrike The moment I say there's a lot of anti-US *****ing here at HLP, I get *****ed at and called some kind of US superpatriot who sees nothing wrong with the US. Who's putting words in who's mouth now? Perhaps I just see unwarranted or excessive criticism on top of warranted. Yes, 'you' (speaking figuratively) don't like the US because of XYZ. I don't need to hear it every bloody thread that mentions the US like some people who will remain anonymous.
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=95939&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Hmmm...tried a search for "George Bush" and...well...maybe you're right...
Displaying Topics 1 to 25 of 147
...Woah
-
Originally posted by Shrike
People keep going on about how third world countries perform better, but nobody's actually posted anything that shows they'd perform better at dealing with New Orleans, which is quite possibly the worst possible city in the entire US at dealing with a hurricane. The SE Asia tsunami is a red herring because it didn't lead to long term flooding. New Orleans is still 60% flooded. How many third world cities of that size have been inundated with only a few days warning?
flood waters don't affect food/water drops to wich the tsunami was getting two days after, the general rule of thumb is you should have two to three days worth of food and water, because that's how long it might take for resque to show up, this was the case in the tsunami, and it should have been the case here. you say that the flooding was some huge diference, well what about the hundreds of miles of coast that wasn't permaflooded and still didn't get much in the way of help? and still what does water on the ground do to stop helocopters in the sky?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
A given third world nation? Typhoons in Bangladesh can cause upwards of a hundred thousand deaths, and that's not a once-in-a-lifetime event like NO.
People keep going on about how third world countries perform better, but nobody's actually posted anything that shows they'd perform better at dealing with New Orleans, which is quite possibly the worst possible city in the entire US at dealing with a hurricane. The SE Asia tsunami is a red herring because it didn't lead to long term flooding. New Orleans is still 60% flooded. How many third world cities of that size have been inundated with only a few days warning?
As I said before, this is not just a hurricane, it's also a flood. It's definately not a Tsunami.
Yep, hurricane Katrina is nothing like Tsunami in December 2004. Both of them are poweful natural disasters, but the aftermath of hurricane is expected to be a long term clean up if it happens in New Orleans because everyone knows about its geographical disadvantage.
On top of that, there were signs and indications from research for years that on how terrifying it could be if a strong hurricane (catagory 3 and above) hit the cities at the coasts line, especially city like New Orleans. Last year's hurriance -- Ivan (a catagory 5 hurricane) missed New Orlean by the short distant. It should be a wake up call for the authorities to take action and start planning for the wrose.
Fine, if authorities do not enough time or money to fix the leeve, they should at least plan on how to evacuate people from the area. Researchers estimated about 20% of the residents will end up staying in the area (the poor, old and helpless). So try to help them leave the city if the disaster hits.
So it's not a matter of having short notice for what's coming. It's how the authorities handle the issue, and clearly that they failed horribly. Of course they are going have to hold full responsible for what they hadn't done.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=95939&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Hmmm...tried a search for "George Bush" and...well...maybe you're right...
...Woah
You're not counting the fact that only rarely does his first name even get mentioned. What's slightly more telling is a search on "Bush" in general; while this may include discussions on shrubbery as well, the number of cases will be infintismal in comparison.
Displaying Topics 1 to 25 of 655
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
Last year's hurriance -- Ivan (a catagory 5 hurricane) missed New Orlean by the short distant.
Ivan was a weakening Cat.4 at the time.:p
-
This just in:
FEMA Chief Relieved of Katrina Duties
AP - 17 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown is being relieved of his command of the Bush administration's Hurricane Katrina onsite relief efforts, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Friday. He will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts, Chertoff said.
Big headlines on Yahoo.com caught my attention: "FEMA CHIEF REMOVED!"
Also, as far as I know, this argument's not about which dealt more destruction: the hurricane a week ago or the tsunami late last year... it's about which one was handled better. the Tsunami, in a "third-world country" was handled better than a hurricane that affected a smaller area. at least people had food within 48 hours after the tsunami, as opposed to almost A WEEK after the hurricane :( :( :(
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Also, as far as I know, this argument's not about which dealt more destruction: the hurricane a week ago or the tsunami late last year... it's about which one was handled better. the Tsunami, in a "third-world country" was handled better than a hurricane that affected a smaller area. at least people had food within 48 hours after the tsunami, as opposed to almost A WEEK after the hurricane :( :( :(
Well most of the people who don't have food are the ones who won't get out.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]
As I said before, this is not just a hurricane, it's also a flood. It's definately not a Tsunami.
[/q]
That's true. The tsunami was much worse in both economic impact, casualties, and area of destruction.
You're missing the point. As soon as the tsunami was over, mere minutes after it hit (adjusting for differences in travel time), it was over. You didn't have hours or days of extremely strong winds making low-level flights difficult to impossible and flooding that a week later are still hampering relief efforts.
Originally posted by Bobboau
flood waters don't affect food/water drops to wich the tsunami was getting two days after, the general rule of thumb is you should have two to three days worth of food and water, because that's how long it might take for resque to show up, this was the case in the tsunami, and it should have been the case here. you say that the flooding was some huge diference, well what about the hundreds of miles of coast that wasn't permaflooded and still didn't get much in the way of help? and still what does water on the ground do to stop helocopters in the sky?
It's my understanding that there were food and water drops going on soon after Katrina struck. Was there enough is a different matter.
And as useful as helicopters are, they're no substitute for people on the ground. They can't perform a complete rescue operation by themselves.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You're missing the point. As soon as the tsunami was over, mere minutes after it hit (adjusting for differences in travel time), it was over. You didn't have hours or days of extremely strong winds making low-level flights difficult to impossible and flooding that a week later are still hampering relief efforts.
True (albeit the physical damage to buildings and roads was far more severe), but the Tsunami was across a markedly larger area of 13 countries, including a warzone (Aceh). Over 1.1 million were also left displaced, again across a large area. As with New Orleans, there was the threat of disease (again, the geographical scale and crippled infrastructure made it more difficult to feasibly relocate survivors from areas with bodies) necessitating action to cleanup bodies.
So IMO it's unfair to suggest the action to get aid to, what, 100,000 survivors in a flooded but limited geographical area (especially the Superdome and adjoing Conference Centre) is in any way harder than getting aid to over 1 million people spread across completely devastated areas spanning 13 nations. Especially given that Katrina occurred in a nation which had the resources to react with the likes of airdrops or amphibious vehicles, which may not have been true of most of the nations affected by the Tsunami.
-
That's the thing. The after-the-fact response was inadequate by just about all measures. However, I saw a particularly relevant quote on CNN sometime from some US official (I don't remember who, I'm afraid):
We do better in a 3rd world country
The "we" here is key. I don't see how a 3rd-world country could respond better. However, Western efforts can certainly do better where beurocracy isn't involved. There's a pretty fundamental difference there, and saying that a 3rd world country can't respond in a more appropriate manner isn't the same as saying that victims in a 3rd world country cannot be helped in a more efficient way. The problem is the beurocracy much more than the planning.
-
Shrike your understanding is WRONG - for several (3+) DAYS people were left with NO food and water being brought to them.
You didn't have days of strong winds with katrina either - you had probably 12 hours.
Helicopters and boats are complete rescue operations during flood conditions - remember the floods of 1993?
The simple fact of the matter is the feds ****ed up - they put a guy who LIED ON HIS RESUME and his last job was MANAGING A HORSE BREEDERS ASSOCIATION in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency - vastly defunded the organization.
COMMITTED FRAUD WITH THE ORGANIZATION IN 2004 (A House Rep from florida brough a large ammount of evidence to light about fraudulent payouts made by FEMA - with their knowledge they were fraudulent and EXAMPLE DOCUMENTS of FROM FEMA showing various organizations how to place these claims -- one county not touched by a single hurricane in 2004 in Florida received $23 million from FEMA for hurricane disaster relief!)
Bush then SCREWED THE POOCH by not listening to the Governer's request for not just a state of emergency but an "expedited major disaster" in Lousiana - bush declared a normal state of emergency.
BUSH THEN DID NOT PREEMPTIVELY ORDER NATIONAL GUARD INTO POSITION
FEMA THEN BLOCKED VARIOUS RELIEF SUPPLIES AND EFFORTS
-
http://kerrystopshurricane.ytmnd.com/
-
har har deep_eyes
/not funny
-
Originally posted by Shrike
A given third world nation? Typhoons in Bangladesh can cause upwards of a hundred thousand deaths, and that's not a once-in-a-lifetime event like NO.
And do you think the Bagladeshi army is still assembling 4 days after the event? In fact name one third world country where the army was not doing something major 3 days after the event.
Originally posted by Shrike
People keep going on about how third world countries perform better, but nobody's actually posted anything that shows they'd perform better at dealing with New Orleans, which is quite possibly the worst possible city in the entire US at dealing with a hurricane. The SE Asia tsunami is a red herring because it didn't lead to long term flooding. New Orleans is still 60% flooded. How many third world cities of that size have been inundated with only a few days warning?
As I said before, this is not just a hurricane, it's also a flood. It's definately not a Tsunami.
Spare me this argument. I've heard it once too often and it's time to call it. Which is worse, something like New Orleans where a single coastal city is severely flooded and all the surrounding roads are underwater or something like the Aceh region where all the roads were destroyed, blocked with fallen trees and the relief had to get through tropical forest in the middle of a warzone in order to get relief efforts in?
Or what about Sri Lanka which had to get the relief in during monsoon season and the heavy flooding that caused?
In both of those countries relief was being brought in long before the six days it took New Orleans to do it with a lot less resources to do it with.
Hell look at the floods in Mumbai last month. The death toll there is comparable to that of New Orleans yet within a week and with a third of the city still underwater they were still managing to send relief to other outlying areas within 6 days from Mumbai itself! And this is despite the fact that the monsoon was still continuing at the time.
Originally posted by Shrike
As for 'American bashing', how many threads come up on HLP criticising EU policies, or Chinese policies, or others? Certainly not more or even terribly comparable on an individual basis and quite possibly not even if you added all the US-critical threads and compared them to the rest of the world-critical threads. People here ***** and piss and moan over almost every stupid or silly thing to come out of the US but don't seem nearly so inclined to do the same to other nations.
I think you've misunderstood the reasons behind this. At the same time as this was going on a thread was posted critisising the way that Britain wants to pass illegal laws that would cover the entire EU. Did you hear an uproar against the UK and round of UK-bashing? No? Wonder why? It's cause any discussion about UK politics goes like this.
1st Poster : Blair is a w**ker because of policy x
2nd Poster : Yep
3rd Poster : Yep
1st Poster : So is Blunkett
2nd Poster : Yep
While a discussion on US politics goes like this
1st Poster : Bush is a w**ker because of policy x
2nd Poster : Yep
3rd Poster : No Bush is great and I want to have his manbabies but that would be a sin!
The reason why no other countries politics descend into an argument as quickly is because very few countries have anyone who rabidly defends their leaders and completely ignores their mistakes. When you find someone doing that you'll notice that the discussion gets just as heated.
Originally posted by Shrike
As was posted above, there were no plans to upgrade the levees
Doesn't really matter when you consider that Bush cut money that would have been used to maintain the current readiness of the levees.
Originally posted by Shrike
and such a plan would never have been completed in time for Katrina anyhow. The budget cuts only occured two years ago, and even if the funds had not been decreased it strikes me as exceptionally unlikely that in those two years the levees would have been sufficiently strengthened. The studies alone for a multi-billion dollar civil engineering project might not even have been done yet. These things take time.
They would however had been stronger than they were when Katrina hit. Much of the money was to be used to shore up the defences that already existed instead of preparing new ones. Those projects would have been completed before Katrina hit. The levees may not have held completely but maybe the breeches would have been smaller or less numerous.
Originally posted by Shrike
Should the general hurricane-proofing of the gulf coast region have been a higher priority? Yes. Does this blame rest solely on Bush? Certainly not when previous administrations didn't do anything more. It's a continued long-term failure that hopefully will be corrected after this.
If a gambler bets his house on the turn of a roulette wheel do you blame him when he wins or breaks even? The whole thing with taking a gamble is that you take the full blame for the consequences when your gamble doesn't pay off. Bush's only excuse would be if he had tried to fix the levees but couldn't do it in time.
Originally posted by Shrike
And again, how often do we see threads criticising the actions of other nations on this forum? And ones with the same vehemence displayed towards many US actions? Unless you're claiming that the US alone does more stupid **** than the rest of the world combined (which, as much stupid **** as the US pulls I find difficult to believe) then yes, there's a bias.
No bias. As explained above most other countries don't actually like their leaders or most of their policies but simply put up with them in the same way that you put up with asinine **** from your boss at work because you have to.
Originally posted by Shrike
And again, where are the vocal calls from other states over the same response issues in NO? If the blame was mostly at the federal level then wouldn't all the affected states have been screaming?
Weren't you the one who has repeatedly stated that the problems in New Orleans are two disasters and not just one? New Orleans is the worst affected area. I assure you that the rest of the states are complaining they just aren't being heard cause everyone is looking at NO.
Originally posted by Shrike
I hear Bush this and Bush that, but the criticism of the state-level screwups have been far more muted, even though they're equally important in dealing with disaster relief and the go-to people for preparation. They didn't even follow their pre-organized plans for dealing with such an eventuality which may have directly led to the large number of people still in NO and the problems facing those remaining.
When I said that there had been f**k ups at every level how many replies do you think I got claiming that the governer and mayor couldn't have done more?
Once again we're back to the fact that there are people who seek to absolve Bush of all blame and whitewash the whole federal involvement in the massive cock-up that was the hurricane Katrina relief effort. You hear more people complain about Bush's involvement because he's the one attempting to slime his way out of it and blame everyone else but himself.
Originally posted by Shrike
If you've been saying there's been mistakes on all levels then I'll withdraw my complaint. But people are blaming Bush at near or total exclusion to the state and municipal authorities when said authorities are as important as the federal government. If you're going to play the blame-game, at least play it fairly and assing blame where to all the parties. People on all levels made mistakes.
I've said that and I haven't seen anyone disagree with me. How many people have you seen say that they Mayor shouldn't have used the school buses if he could?
Compare that with how many posters have said that the national guard still assembling after 4 f**king days is okay.
Originally posted by Shrike
The moment I say there's a lot of anti-US *****ing here at HLP, I get *****ed at and called some kind of US superpatriot who sees nothing wrong with the US.
If you re-read my post you'll notice I never said that you were American. I've been at HLP long enough to know better.
However if you seek to stick your head in the sand and ignore the faults of the American government, if you seek to call it America bashing when people complain about the actions of the government of america and if you seek to say that anyone who dares to disapprove of Bush must be a democrat mouth piece, then you are acting in the exact same way as one of the American superpatriots I'm talking about.
The fact that you're not american matters not one jot if you've swallowed the big lie and actually believe that anylegitimate complaint about Bush's government is an attack on America.
Originally posted by Shrike
I just see unwarranted or excessive criticism on top of warranted. Yes, 'you' (speaking figuratively) don't like the US because of XYZ. I don't need to hear it every bloody thread that mentions the US like some people who will remain anonymous.
I'm sure that there is unjustified critisism but where was it in my comments? Or the comments of most of the people who thought the situation was handled badly?
How about you just warn the people who are actually being anti-american instead of just labling all complaints about America as being america bashing. Cause quite frankly I'm not too happy to see people disrupting discussions either.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
True (albeit the physical damage to buildings and roads was far more severe), but the Tsunami was across a markedly larger area of 13 countries, including a warzone (Aceh). Over 1.1 million were also left displaced, again across a large area. As with New Orleans, there was the threat of disease (again, the geographical scale and crippled infrastructure made it more difficult to feasibly relocate survivors from areas with bodies) necessitating action to cleanup bodies.
So IMO it's unfair to suggest the action to get aid to, what, 100,000 survivors in a flooded but limited geographical area (especially the Superdome and adjoing Conference Centre) is in any way harder than getting aid to over 1 million people spread across completely devastated areas spanning 13 nations. Especially given that Katrina occurred in a nation which had the resources to react with the likes of airdrops or amphibious vehicles, which may not have been true of most of the nations affected by the Tsunami.
Don't forget to count the remaining 400-odd thousand from NO who are very much displaced, plus all the others from the various other places severely affected. (Wikipedia puts the population of greater New Orleans at about 1.3 million people, but I've never heard any news about the greater region. I wonder how affected it is) According to wikipedia, there's over a million people displaced. Geographically it's a smaller area, but in terms of people it's nearly the same.
It's bad enough dealing with floods further upstream (we've had some bad ones in the last few years), a city that's below sea level has got to be the worst possible case for recovery work. I pity the poor bastards who have to fix things.
Originally posted by StratComm
That's the thing. The after-the-fact response was inadequate by just about all measures. However, I saw a particularly relevant quote on CNN sometime from some US official (I don't remember who, I'm afraid):
The "we" here is key. I don't see how a 3rd-world country could respond better. However, Western efforts can certainly do better where beurocracy isn't involved. There's a pretty fundamental difference there, and saying that a 3rd world country can't respond in a more appropriate manner isn't the same as saying that victims in a 3rd world country cannot be helped in a more efficient way. The problem is the beurocracy much more than the planning.
Regarding this, I found out earlier today that apparently the only legal way Bush could have poured in troops ASAP would be to essentially read the riot act (something to do with insurrection measures or something, I'd have to look it up) and take over, as the deployment of extra-state national guard is by invite only except during said times of crisis. Hamstrung by your own laws. :ick:
Originally posted by karajorma
And do you think the Bagladeshi army is still assembling 4 days after the event? In fact name one third world country where the army was not doing something major 3 days after the event.
As I mentioned before, the national guard is not supposed to be the first responders. That task falls on the local police, fire and other emergency services. The problem was that those services got overwhelmed.
Moreover, the guard were in Katrina within 48 hours (I couldn't find anything more specific) distributing aid. But the US cannot simply shuffle units around willy-nilly without going through legal hoops. See my commentary above. Jurisdictional issues caused serious problems for the US efforts.
Anything else will have to be taken to another time, because it's too late here for me to look up anything and write anything more.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Regarding this, I found out earlier today that apparently the only legal way Bush could have poured in troops ASAP would be to essentially read the riot act (something to do with insurrection measures or something, I'd have to look it up) and take over, as the deployment of extra-state national guard is by invite only except during said times of crisis. Hamstrung by your own laws. :ick:
Precisely. And 99.95% of the time, that is a good thing.
-
You know the redcross was there ready to hand out food and water and bus people out but were not allowed into new orleans by the govenor. The govenor should have enacted the national gaurd immediatly as well but did not, why? Maybe she is much of a ****ing moron as bush?
-
Well, she is a politician as well.......
-
Yes, and to put it simply, she is a ****ing stupid *****. And I am suprised the only news organization that will seem to run stories critical of her is Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. On a side note is the fact that she is a Democrat which might factor into the lack of critical pieces
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Regarding this, I found out earlier today that apparently the only legal way Bush could have poured in troops ASAP would be to essentially read the riot act (something to do with insurrection measures or something, I'd have to look it up) and take over, as the deployment of extra-state national guard is by invite only except during said times of crisis. Hamstrung by your own laws. :ick:
And people were aware of the lawlessness days before they actually were deployed and yet Bush still did nothing.
Originally posted by Shrike
As I mentioned before, the national guard is not supposed to be the first responders.
But they are actually supposed to respond at some point, right? Not only four days later when the media shames them into doing something.
Originally posted by Shrike
That task falls on the local police, fire and other emergency services. The problem was that those services got overwhelmed.
That's not what I dispute. What I dispute is that it should be necessary for them to be overwhelmed for 4 days before anyone attempts to help them. It should have been obvious after the first day that they would have been swamped. If FEMA can't detect that then you have to question what the hell FEMA is for in the first place.
Originally posted by Shrike
Moreover, the guard were in Katrina within 48 hours (I couldn't find anything more specific) distributing aid. But the US cannot simply shuffle units around willy-nilly without going through legal hoops. See my commentary above. Jurisdictional issues caused serious problems for the US efforts.
Due to Bush f**king it up. Are you seriously telling me it takes the president of the USA four days to declare somewhere a federal disaster area? (actually more like 6 or 7 if you include the time from the letter from governor saying that he couldn't possibly cope without federal help).
-
Originally posted by redmenace
You know the redcross was there ready to hand out food and water and bus people out but were not allowed into new orleans by the govenor.
Apart from the ravings of Major Garrett what proof do you have of that? Cause I've seen f**k all about it on the Red Cross or Salvation Army websites.
That claim is based almost entirely on Garrett's hearsay of what he was told by some unnamed Red Cross official as far as I can see and even some of the sites which are reporting it say that the reason was that sending in adaequate food etc to the superdome would have resulted in attracting more people there and ending up with an even bigger problem.
EDIT : In fact the Red Cross have an explaination elsewhere on their website (http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html). And CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.redcross/) and Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Red_Cross_is_not_in_New_Orleans_for_Katrina%2C_Guard_raced_it_to_Superdome) also have the same explaination.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
har har deep_eyes
/not funny
owe contrar.... i thought it was... however i do personally think that no one coulda really did a better job, maybe a lil bit but not kerry. definantly not kerry.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Apart from the ravings of Major Garrett what proof do you have of that? Cause I've seen f**k all about it on the Red Cross or Salvation Army websites.
That claim is based almost entirely on Garrett's hearsay of what he was told by some unnamed Red Cross official as far as I can see and even some of the sites which are reporting it say that the reason was that sending in adaequate food etc to the superdome would have resulted in attracting more people there and ending up with an even bigger problem.
EDIT : In fact the Red Cross have an explaination elsewhere on their website (http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html). And CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.redcross/) and Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Red_Cross_is_not_in_New_Orleans_for_Katrina%2C_Guard_raced_it_to_Superdome) also have the same explaination.
Again this show that there was no planning on the part of the state.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Again this show that there was no planning on the part of the state.
In what sense?
AFAIK the state planned to toally evacuate the city, and moved to a contingency when that became impossible. That doesn't inherently indicate a lack of planning; maybe bad planning (in not getting all those people out, or having enough support), of course, or simply bad luck.
-
bad planning is lack of planning
But they did not have enough places for all these people immediately.
But in the end, you will see this whole mess is fairly complicated and there is so much spin in the media that you can't really tell who said what etc.
-
What the f**k are you on about Red. All three sites state that the red cross only offered to start moving food and supplies in three days after the storm had hit.
The home guard managed to get supplies in the next day as part of their efforts to evacuate.
I don't see how any of this implies poor planning from the state. It appears to imply they spent the day trying to figure out whether it was better to send the guard in with the Red Cross or on their own as they did in the end.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Precisely. And 99.95% of the time, that is a good thing.
except shrike's statement was wrong - he had all the paperwork and requests from the state and local governments to get the troops in there prempetively
-
by kajorama
The reason why no other countries politics descend into an argument as quickly is because very few countries have anyone who rabidly defends their leaders and completely ignores their mistakes. When you find someone doing that you'll notice that the discussion gets just as heated.
My country is like that. We have a dirty, sold-out, lying commie bastard as our president and many love him couse he's funny... :(
-
Yeah but you'd actually need another croatian on the board before you could start a flame war :p
-
Don't worry! Halliburton (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,68829,00.html?tw=rss.TOP) is to rebuild New Orleans!
-
****. Me.
-
For the record KBR has been doing gov't reconstruction contracts for years. I believe Clinton used them during his administration.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/13/D8CJG4U00.html
:eek2: He actually took responcibility.
-
Not hugely surprised to be honest. It allows his supporters to come out with ridiculous "He's already admitted responsibility so drop it" responses to any claim that anyone makes.
Meanwhile it gives him time to breath and time to hope that people forget about it before the commission can finish their whitewashing and prove that it wasn't his fault after all.
-
Saying 'I take responsibility' doesn't actually mean all that much. It doesn't equate to censure, it doesn't guarentee any form of change or improvement, and it doesn't mean he actually takes responsibility, just acknowledges the most PR-expedients bits of it.
-
Too bad, I was finding democrats so entertaining over the past couple of weeks.
-
And the republicans weren't?
-
eh, not as funny as Chuck Schumer solicity campaign donations using the hurricane. Or using Footage of hurricane victims in a commercial.
-
Did neither party use, say, pictures of 9/11 or the war in Iraq/Afghanistan in their election campaigns last year, then?
-
Not a week after the event.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Not a week after the event.
Does that mean they did?
-
I think Bush nominating himself head of a commission to look into failures he now has taken responsibility for is pretty funny too.
-
I am sure someone did. What is offensive about it is using such footage so close to the event. It is frankly distrurbing and disrespectful.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Does that mean they did?
That made me raise my eyebrow.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am sure someone did. What is offensive about it is using such footage so close to the event. It is frankly distrurbing and disrespectful.
It's always disturbing and disrespectful, whether its 2 weeks, 2 years or 20. My point being that all politicians are discgraceful publicity whores in this regard; it's fair enough giving vocal criticism, but not using footage of dead, dying, etc victims to make your point - unless you have the written consent of every single person who was either hurt, or who is a relative of the dead victims.
I would bet any money if you switched the party in government, the same thing would happen; my point being that you can use it for points-scoring all you want, but it's applicable to both parties and always will be.
-
I am sure they would do the same. But the ones that seem to be desperate at this time to sling mud, any mud, are democrats which is why I thought they were funny and disturbing.