Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 02, 2006, 12:05:10 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm
He was caught lieing, red handed.
-
Now Mr. Bush, how do we spell it?
I-M-P-E-A....
-
Let's see this "video", or at least a transcript. Where the hell is the transcript?? If it's there, I certainly didn't see it. But, anywho, I cant stand people who are pointing thier fingers at Bush saying "It's all his fault we didnt' recieve help after Katrina". What the hell did Ray Nagin do? He's no Juliani, for sure. Comments he's made during, and after the hurricane (especially the "Chocolate City" remarks) give me a bad feeling that I just can't put my finger on. I've heard reports of Nagin having transportation ready and waiting, but was never utilized when the hurricane hit.
The Levees, it's silly, so silly to say that "BUSH didnt' upgrade our levees" or the more ridiculous (to the point of insanity) "BUSH blew up the levees" when the levees were only designed to prevent a Cat 3 storm, IIRC. It's not Bush's fault for not upgrading the levees, it's the local and federal government's fault as a whole, because this problem has been there before Bush's time! Unless there was specific legislation in the works to upgrade the levees under the Bush administration, it's unfair to say that Bush was the cause for levee failure.
But I will admit, Bush is slipping, especially with this "PortGate" issue that's got parties mixed all over the place. Hearing this on Hannity today, apparently DPWorld is supporting a boycott of Israel, which is illegal in the United States, to put it as simply as I heard it on the radio. How could we let them take ownership of the ports if DPWorld is doing something the US Govt. considers illegal?
-
Indeed, my problem is not with the Levees not being upgraded, it is with Bush declaring that they never suspected if, in fact, they did suspect that Katrina would break them, and that people in the Dome would not be able to be properly helped. Lives might have been saved if it had been officially stated that there was a high risk of those Levees not holing.
It's 6am here, so I'll wait and see how the story develops to be honest, details are sketchy, and I'm sure more will come to light over the next 24 hours or so.
-
I'd just like to see more concrete proof before I blindly say that Bush really and truly did wrong. Yeah, it does irk me that he was informed about the Dome refugees, and he did nothing about it right that moment, but IIRC, we had absolutley no idea Katrina would grow to be such a large storm. I kept an eye on news reports on the storm itself and people thought it would only get up to a category 4 at most, untill it entered the gulf of mexico. Once it did, and grew to a Cat5 storm, I don't think anyone could have done anything to save the levees, even if they're built specifically for Category 5 storms.
-
I don't know if you were around HLP in the weeks following Katrina, Nix, but we had a rather lengthly thread regarding Bush, the Administration and the Levees that summed up quite well why Bush [as a term used to summarise the entire administration] was to ultimately to blame for the downright s***ty reponse, and to a lesser extent to the failing of the levees as well. It'd certainly be an interesting and enlightning read if you care to dig it up.
Back OT, i'm predicting that - if accurate - this thing'll be swept under the rug quite soon. Bush still has a few years left to run his nation into the ground, and he's going to be there for every one. :doubt:
-
What I'm going off of is what I've heard on our two local AM news radio stations, and whatever little I've seen on the major news networks. I purposely avoided the katrina thread because I knew that's exactly what would be discussed, and at the time it sounded like more typical anti-bush rhetoric. (which I do not find enlightining)
When it comes to the levee's themselves, it's illogical to say that Bush was the problem. It's also illogical to say that we should have prepared for a Category 5 storm, when all indications of the storm pointed to being no more than a Category 4 at it's worst, untill the day before it made landfall. This, I DID watch, each and every day it was talked about. Delivering aid to the people affected by Katrina, yes, I would say Bush was at fault, but not a hundred percent at fault. The mayor sure wasn't any help, and with the slow response of FEMA and the like, which ANYONE could or should have seen. I would have thought that FEMA would have been there within hours, instead of what was it, four days? I understand that with only a day or two in advance of really knowing what this storm was capable of, it'd be difficult for anyone's administration to respond to, not just Bush's, but I will agree that the amount of time it took them to get there was unacceptable.
-
its not so much lieing as being a total ****ign moron :D
-
Okay, look. It's not the federal government's responsibility to deal with natural disasters. It's up to the individual states. Katrina isn't the first hurricane to hit the US, and FEMA being months late is the norm, not the exception.
You can certainly say the video exposes hypocrisy, but getting mad at the administration for doing nothing here is just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run IMHO. What I find more troubling is the other, more substantive issues getting swept under the rug: illegal immigration, the Dubai port scandal, warrantless wiretapping, PATRIOT Act renewal, etc.
-
Doesn't mean a damn thing if nobody's got the balls to stand up and do something about it. (Or ovaries, for that matter)
There's a lot of people that are very unhappy because of the Bush administration's lies and coverups. But all they seem to be doing, as near as I can tell, is boosting the number of people watching the news so they have something new to ***** about.
-
It's not a question of whether anything could have been done about it that is the problem. Whether this interview had taken place or not, nothing would have changed what happened during the storm.
The Hypocrisy is Bush denying that they even considered the possibility in light of this Video. It does seem like he was aware of the risk but lied after the fact.
Many people will not accept the first paragraph as enough to forgive the second.
-
Look at the "right" alternative - if this video was indeed recorded on the eve of the storm. Had he relayed the sentiments to the general populace, it could have well started a disorganized, every-man-for-himself exodus that would have resulted in more death than simply reinforcing the belief that people would be generally safer by continuing with what they were doing. I don't think this even comes close to an impeachable offense, of which there seem plenty more to choose from.
-
And you honestly think that most of America is going to see it that way? Especially when he denied on Public television that anyone thought the Levees were going to go?
Personally, I doubt it will lead to anything more than a slap on the wrist, at best, but we will never really know what would have been different if Bush had been honest, especially considering he was being told that the resources of the entire country would be needed to deal with the aftermath.
What it will be seen as by a large percentage of the US is 'Bush was warned, but they were black and poor, so he chose to do nothing.'. Right or Wrong has very little to do with these things.
-
LoL. What's with all the surprise, he's a politician for ****s sake!
Of course he lies, all national leaders do!
But I will admit, Bush is slipping, especially with this "PortGate" issue that's got parties mixed all over the place. Hearing this on Hannity today, apparently DPWorld is supporting a boycott of Israel, which is illegal in the United States, to put it as simply as I heard it on the radio. How could we let them take ownership of the ports if DPWorld is doing something the US Govt. considers illegal?
LoL at that too. It's not like the US is known for doing anything illegal or un-ethical, no. That illegal invasion of Iraq?
The use of unsanctioned weapons such as napalm etc?
The refusal to sign many national treaty's involving militarization?
Capitalism and democracy has one great flaw. Corruption.
Evident anywhere where in the world that 'uphold' these ideals you go.
Though I guess the same could be said for any type of government system.
-
I can't vote for Nagin, I can't vote for Blanko, I can vote for Bush, I have a feeling most people on this board are in a similar situation (actualy most can't even vote for Bush) therefore, this buck passing on his (and his suporters) behalf seems to only weaken my impression of his leadership abilities. beond this, it is his responcibility to ensure the safety of everyone in this country, he is the last line of defence, and he failed, miserably, in this role, and the result was that we essentualy lost one of our counties most important major cities. As I said, I can't vote for the local officals, I feel they should probly be voted out of office next term, but I can't vote for them, so I don't care what depths of incompotence they posesed, Bush on the other hand, I have to think, what will happen if someone sneaks a nuke across the border he has failed to secure and tries to take out the logistical comand center of of the US militart (wich I happen to work within sight of), a disaster of that scale WILL overwhelm any local capasity, and my fate will rest soley in the hands of the national government, led by Bush. I'm sory but if he failed at this, I have no confidence in his capacity to keep me safe, he has failed.
-
LoL. What's with all the surprise, he's a politician for ****s sake!
Of course he lies, all national leaders do!
True, but the difference between a Good politician and one who is slipping is whether, and how spectacuarly they get caught.
-
its not like that's the first time he lied
i love how, first, clinton lied about gettin some head, and everyone went crazy and tried to impeach him and he got in all kinds of trouble
then we get bush. he lied about there being weapons of mass distruction, and started a war that cost thousands of US military lives as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, based on that lie, and he has barely gotten in any trouble at all
where the **** is justice
-
where the **** is justice
Justice is an illusion. Always has been, always will be.
-
naw, justice is just a sysematic form of vengence, it exsists fall short of many peoples ideals though due to the sysematic nature, that provides loop holes, people should put more faith back into strait vengence.
-
I find it interesting how Bush gets nailed for "mishandling" Katrina and "mishandling" Iraq, in other words being incompetent, but not for quite competently starting a war that has killed hunderds of thousands, not for competently curtailing civil liberties and all the rest. In other words, there's nothing America loves more than a winner, or hates more than a loser, regardless of the morality of the man's actions.
-
Well, every country would deal with things in a similar manners. After all, it takes one man or a small group to mishandle something, whereas it takes an entire country to start a war.
It's always easier to point away from yourself.
-
Indeed, my problem is not with the Levees not being upgraded, it is with Bush declaring that they never suspected if, in fact, they did suspect that Katrina would break them, and that people in the Dome would not be able to be properly helped. Lives might have been saved if it had been officially stated that there was a high risk of those Levees not holing.
It's 6am here, so I'll wait and see how the story develops to be honest, details are sketchy, and I'm sure more will come to light over the next 24 hours or so.
Errr, no, people would have have stayed, I mean, if you are gonna stay with a Cat 5 hurricane in a city that is below sea level anyways, then good luck too ya.
Also the fact, everyone who knew a thing about weather, knew those levees were gonna come down, it's very simple, and it's been preached for years. The fact is people are dumb enough not listen.
The thing is, we would not be taking about the levees if Kat come in at full steam, we would be talking about the 10s of thousands killed when the Superdome came down with a crash.
-
I know, I recall you mentioning your concerns before Katrina hit. However, do you really believe that the American public will view it that way, especially with Bushes comments after the fact and the slow initial response? I put the 'might' in italics because I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you, but I don't think that will be the general consensus. People will think more of the fact they weren't warned than of the fact that it wouldn't have helped.
-
Let's see this "video", or at least a transcript. Where the hell is the transcript?? If it's there, I certainly didn't see it. But, anywho, I cant stand people who are pointing thier fingers at Bush saying "It's all his fault we didnt' recieve help after Katrina". What the hell did Ray Nagin do? He's no Juliani, for sure. Comments he's made during, and after the hurricane (especially the "Chocolate City" remarks) give me a bad feeling that I just can't put my finger on. I've heard reports of Nagin having transportation ready and waiting, but was never utilized when the hurricane hit.
The Levees, it's silly, so silly to say that "BUSH didnt' upgrade our levees" or the more ridiculous (to the point of insanity) "BUSH blew up the levees" when the levees were only designed to prevent a Cat 3 storm, IIRC. It's not Bush's fault for not upgrading the levees, it's the local and federal government's fault as a whole, because this problem has been there before Bush's time! Unless there was specific legislation in the works to upgrade the levees under the Bush administration, it's unfair to say that Bush was the cause for levee failure.
But I will admit, Bush is slipping, especially with this "PortGate" issue that's got parties mixed all over the place. Hearing this on Hannity today, apparently DPWorld is supporting a boycott of Israel, which is illegal in the United States, to put it as simply as I heard it on the radio. How could we let them take ownership of the ports if DPWorld is doing something the US Govt. considers illegal?
worth pointing out that the federal government repeatedly cut the amount of money allocated to hurricane/flood defense, though, allocating $3m (bumped to $5.5m under pressure for Congress) in 2004 when around $11m was needed; most of the Army Engineers' money for maintaining the defenses had to go to backpay contractors owed from the previous year. Reportedly in July, the White House was lobbying against a wetland recreation project that would have cost $1bn but rebuild large areas of eroded coastline and wetlands (the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did) The Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project requested $62.5m, and Bush offered $10.5m. I believe a predominant factor in said budgets is cited as Homeland Security.
This is where governmental responsibility, and that of the head of government, applies. If the underfunding had been under Clinton, or Bush Snr, or Reagan, etc, they would have been held accountable. If the underfunding is down a legacy of prior mismanagement, it's no excuse - the job of a government includes correcting mistakes or omissions by the prior government, not ignoring them.
-
the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did) T
Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.
Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.
-
The basic deal is that for every two miles inland you need another foot of storm surge to get across it, even if it's flat. New Orleans used to be 30 miles from the sea. It's only 18 today. You see where this is going? The storm surge probably wouldn't have made the city.
The real problem though is that New Orleans is 22 feet below the level of the Mississippi River right next door. Yes, that's greater then its depth below sea level. The Mississippi wants to change its channel, see, but the city of New Orleans and the federal government don't want it to because they'd have had to spend roughly 20bil to build a ship channel from the new course of the river to New Orleans. (Which would have been a bargin, it turns out...) So they built up the levees to keep the Mississippi from changing its course. Now, let's be honest here, in the end that's not going to happen, you can't fight the damn Mississippi River and win for any length of time. They tried anyways. Poke nature with a stick, it'll poke back, and it has bigger sticks, as Katrina proved.
The other thing that bothers me is that sure, New Orleans got screwed up. It's still there though. Biloxi got wiped right off the map. It was at ground zero where Katrina came ashore. It's just not there anymore, and you don't hear jack schiznit about that.
-
The basic deal is that for every two miles inland you need another foot of storm surge to get across it, even if it's flat. New Orleans used to be 30 miles from the sea. It's only 18 today. You see where this is going? The storm surge probably wouldn't have made the city.
Ummm, you're right the storm surge didn't make it to the city. Well, from the gulf anyways.
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mob/0805Katrina/katrina_aerial.jpg)
NO was on the western side of Katrina, winds would be comming from the north, and would push water back into the gulf. However it was not the gulf that got NO,due to the north winds, it was Lake Pontchartrain that gave the surge. So, umm 70 miles of wetlands wouldn't have helped NO.
But, anyways, had Katrina hit west of NO, it's 35 foot surge would have easily traveled over 30 miles of wetlands,so the result would be about the same except for 20,000 or so added to the death toll.
-
the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did) T
Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.
Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.
I remember (or think I remember) seeing something in a documentary about the wetlands (or rather, more land area in general) having played a key previous role in weakening hurricanes due to 'breaking' the connection (convection?) with warm ocean water. Only found this quote (Dr. Shea Penland of the University of New Orleans describes wetlands as a coastal area's first line of defense. "They're the 'speed bump' that slows a hurricane and reduces its intensity.") from a sort of teachers site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3204_02_nsn.html) to support that, though. But I'm sure I saw it cited as a key thing in said documentary about Katrina on either BBC2 or C4 ages ago.
-
the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did) T
Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.
Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.
I remember (or think I remember) seeing something in a documentary about the wetlands (or rather, more land area in general) having played a key previous role in weakening hurricanes due to 'breaking' the connection (convection?) with warm ocean water. Only found this quote (Dr. Shea Penland of the University of New Orleans describes wetlands as a coastal area's first line of defense. "They're the 'speed bump' that slows a hurricane and reduces its intensity.") from a sort of teachers site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3204_02_nsn.html) to support that, though. But I'm sure I saw it cited as a key thing in said documentary about Katrina on either BBC2 or C4 ages ago.
It will except not very well, and not very fast.
The thing is, hurricanes don't need just warm water as most people think, they need deep water. They will cool the surface water pretty fast as they tap that energy.
So, wetlands about 1/2 a foot to a foot above the surface is not gonna be alot diferent from water that is 3 to 4 feet deep. But, in a wetland there is still alot of water and moisture, and it differs considerbly from the dry, true landmass of the CONUS.
And this IR shot basicly proves my point.
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/coriolis/katrina/08_29_1515_ani.gif
Notice how far the eye made it inland, it's traveled over miles and miles of wetlands but still has a well defined eye into Miss, however you can also see that the eye is really feeling the effects of dry land.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Hurricane_Katrina/
Theres a link in there to an Audio/Video recording of the piece.
-
Well, I don't know enough climatology to debate it, and unfortunately I can't even remember the name of where I saw it nor the scientist that said so, so I'll take your word for it. Maybe me ole mind is fuzzy and he was referring to storm surges along the rest of the (non NO) coastline.
-
and unfortunately I can't even remember the name of where I saw it nor the scientist that said so
Fortunately, I do. :D
The coast is disappearing into the sea
Over the years the levees and dams stopped annual floods from the Mississippi River. As a result sediments that were brought down by the river to replenish the land were prevented from reaching their natural destination. Gradually Louisiana started to lose its coast. Today it has the highest rate of coastal land loss in North America. Every 20 minutes an area the size of Wembley stadium is swallowed up by the sea.
Shea Penland, a coastal geologist at the University of New Orleans, knows every inlet, every cove and every stretch of marsh that surrounds the city. He also knows that Louisiana's wetlands, thought of as wasteland for years, are in fact critical to the survival of the city. Providing protection against storm surges, these wetlands are a natural defence against the onslaught of hurricanes. As he says: "The first line of defence isn't the levee in your backyard, the first line of defence is that marsh in your back yard and we're learning what that means."
After the disaster, he chartered a seaplane to investigate the overnight loss to Louisiana's precious wetlands. What he discovered sounded like the death knoll for the city. In just one night, Louisiana had lost three-quarters of the wetland that it usually loses in one year. Without this protection, New Orleans is a sitting duck against future storms.
Unfortunately the BBC have stopped putting the transcripts of Horizon up on their site but you can find the page devoted to that programme here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/orleans.shtml).
-
I don't think one person in charge isn't to blame for this. I'm pretty sure everyone went into CYA mode before it even hit.
-
I don't think one person in charge isn't to blame for this. I'm pretty sure everyone went into CYA mode before it even hit.
Any leader of any kind of organization is ultimately accountable for the actions of his/her underlings. The one who often takes the heat when something goes wrong is the leader.
-
Then why in the hell isn't Nagin taking any heat from not bussing people out of the 'Dome? From what I've seen, he's gotten off scott free, if not a slap on the wrist!
-
You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."
Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.
-
Then why in the hell isn't Nagin taking any heat from not bussing people out of the 'Dome? From what I've seen, he's gotten off scott free, if not a slap on the wrist!
I would imagine because most people saw him on TV screaming for more help. I don't think he could have anyways, until someone sent in the national guard, as it was downtown Baghdad there. I know of at least one medical helicopter forced to return back home after coming under fire from the ground(!).
-
Anyone else constantly hear the song "House of the Rising Sun" playing in their head whenever reading about / seeing the New Orleans disaster?
:nervous:
-
You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."
Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.
Yet, it is very easy to see, it wouldn't been such a huge messup if Nagin had got the poeple out like he was suposed to.
-
You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."
Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.
Yet, it is very easy to see, it wouldn't been such a huge messup if Nagin had got the poeple out like he was suposed to.
You'd have a flooded ruined city rather than a flooded, ruined anarchy. There's a multitude of responsibility, of course.
Reportedly the failure to evacuate was partially down to the results of an evacuation in 2004 when there was no 'hit'. That's not an excuse, of course - it does raise the question IMO whether disaster response/anticipation should always be in political hands, though (how you'd replace it in some fair way that didn't pander to reelection nor fail to represent peoples' wishes in terms of priorities, is another question).
-
Has anyone in this thread pointed out that the video warns of the levees being TOPPED, and Bush said they never expected them being BREACHED?
Damn, I geuss logic evades people these days...
It is pretty pathetic to drag this out and go "OMG, zeh liar killar face!"
-
You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."
Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.
Yet, it is very easy to see, it wouldn't been such a huge messup if Nagin had got the poeple out like he was suposed to.
You'd have a flooded ruined city rather than a flooded, ruined anarchy. There's a multitude of responsibility, of course.
Reportedly the failure to evacuate was partially down to the results of an evacuation in 2004 when there was no 'hit'. That's not an excuse, of course - it does raise the question IMO whether disaster response/anticipation should always be in political hands, though (how you'd replace it in some fair way that didn't pander to reelection nor fail to represent peoples' wishes in terms of priorities, is another question).
Exactly, I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't take some of the blame, but there are alot of other people should take a good bit of the blame as well.
The reason for the poor evacuation I think is the fact that the mayor didn't order them until 24 hours before Kat came in, I remember watching live stream of NO sunday night and still seeing the roads packed. Now I know you will not get all those to leave, but I would scare them to death to get them out. Like I've said on other forums, I would rather overwarn and get shreaded after the thing missed than underwarn and know that I could have saved thousands of lives.
The thing is this was a total failure on all levels, Local, State and Federal. And they lucked that it didn't happen like it could have.
-
Has anyone in this thread pointed out that the video warns of the levees being TOPPED, and Bush said they never expected them being BREACHED?
Damn, I geuss logic evades people these days...
It is pretty pathetic to drag this out and go "OMG, zeh liar killar face!"
Um.... isn't the whole point regarding the lack of proper preparation and reaction for a flooded city, rather than how the levees became useless? (NB: part of the breach problem was apparently due to levee subsidence/settling, the funds for correcting which were cut - for example, the 17th Street Canal was breached and sat 4 feet lower than the rest of the levee system).
In any case, it is rather pathetic, IMO, to excuse the lack of response and planning for a national disaster pertaining to a flooded, below sea level city with the excuse that it was flooded in a different way to that they were warned might happen. In other words, they were warned there could be disasterous flooding due to the hurricanes' storm surge, which is key.
(NB: breaching can refer to any way in which the 'security' of the levee system as a barrier was broken, anyways; it's not even a clear cut semantic meaning)
EDIT;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec05/levees_10-20.html
While most of the levees were overtopped, his computer models told him that water did not go over the top of the levees at the 17th Street or at the London Canals, which would mean there was another reason for the levee breaks.
Note the topped part. So the warning was correct, anyways.
Exactly, I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't take some of the blame, but there are alot of other people should take a good bit of the blame as well.
The reason for the poor evacuation I think is the fact that the mayor didn't order them until 24 hours before Kat came in, I remember watching live stream of NO sunday night and still seeing the roads packed. Now I know you will not get all those to leave, but I would scare them to death to get them out. Like I've said on other forums, I would rather overwarn and get shreaded after the thing missed than underwarn and know that I could have saved thousands of lives.
The thing is this was a total failure on all levels, Local, State and Federal. And they lucked that it didn't happen like it could have.
They're lucky there still is a city, even though they've seemingly failed to rebuild or even clean up the mess. Unfortunately you can't trust politicians with important things like peoples' lives, it seems.
-
They're lucky there still is a city, even though they've seemingly failed to rebuild or even clean up the mess. Unfortunately you can't trust politicians with important things like peoples' lives, it seems.
Yeah, I heard something on the news that really made me sick.
As you probley know, NO just got over with Mardi Gras, and then they tell on the News there are still sections without power and water.
And I really don't get it, I know they tried to lift their spirits with Mardi Gras, but wouldn't all your people having power and running water be more important then a big party? :doubt:
They said they would have the levees back to pre-Kat strength before HS 2006, but at the pace they are going they will not have it done. :sigh:
-
Practical measures aren't always the best morale-boosters. Sometimes you just have to let people have fun in order to keep them going, even though it's not the most productive activity.
-
From a practical engineering perspective, they can't get the levees back to pre-Katrina integrity before hurricane season starts. They really need to face facts and either re-locate or abandon New Orleans altogether. Building a city in the middle of a flood-plain right next to the largest river in North America some 20 odd feet below sea-level (and the water level of said river) is stupid. Perhaps the people who originally built the town couldn't have been expected to know any better. Certainly that excuse is no longer applicable.
New Orleans was home to many people who lost virtually everything. On top of everyone who died, that is a tragedy. Trying to rebuild there is just going to get more people killed. As others have pointed out, New Orleans got lucky in many respects with the way Katrina came ashore. Seriously, this is about as inteligent as rebuilding in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius. You KNOW that one day it is going to up and blow. On that day, no amount of preparation is going to be enough.
-
You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."
Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.
You're making it sound like I want Nagin to take ALL responsibility. He had the ability to move people, and didn't. Kept begging the govt for more and more help. In a time of national disaster, people should do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the people, WITHOUT wating for the dammned government to step in and take care of it. What I'm saying is that he should have done whatever he could to get those people out and away with the busses he had, instead of letting them sit there! I'm in no position to say what should happen to him, but surely he deserves more than what he got.
Why should he be punished? If a leader cannot make the right decisions when it comes to people's lives, get him out of power. Nagin demonstrated that he didnt make the correct decision at the correct time. So many people are so quick to jump up and scream "IMPEACH BUSH" cause of these same exact decisions, why does it not apply with Nagin?
-
From a practical engineering perspective, they can't get the levees back to pre-Katrina integrity before hurricane season starts. They really need to face facts and either re-locate or abandon New Orleans altogether. Building a city in the middle of a flood-plain right next to the largest river in North America some 20 odd feet below sea-level (and the water level of said river) is stupid. Perhaps the people who originally built the town couldn't have been expected to know any better. Certainly that excuse is no longer applicable.
New Orleans was home to many people who lost virtually everything. On top of everyone who died, that is a tragedy. Trying to rebuild there is just going to get more people killed. As others have pointed out, New Orleans got lucky in many respects with the way Katrina came ashore. Seriously, this is about as inteligent as rebuilding in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius. You KNOW that one day it is going to up and blow. On that day, no amount of preparation is going to be enough.
Unfortunately, NO is too important in financial/trade terms for that. I think an author - I forget the name - proposed that the US would eventually have, like the rest of the 'older' (i.e. longer colonized by 'building' peoples, rather than say those living in tents) world, a number of cities that were no more than ruins, like Pompeii (for example) now is. New Orleans was a suggestion, as were the cities on the San Andreas fault.
-
From a practical engineering perspective, they can't get the levees back to pre-Katrina integrity before hurricane season starts. They really need to face facts and either re-locate or abandon New Orleans altogether. Building a city in the middle of a flood-plain right next to the largest river in North America some 20 odd feet below sea-level (and the water level of said river) is stupid. Perhaps the people who originally built the town couldn't have been expected to know any better. Certainly that excuse is no longer applicable.
New Orleans was home to many people who lost virtually everything. On top of everyone who died, that is a tragedy. Trying to rebuild there is just going to get more people killed. As others have pointed out, New Orleans got lucky in many respects with the way Katrina came ashore. Seriously, this is about as inteligent as rebuilding in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius. You KNOW that one day it is going to up and blow. On that day, no amount of preparation is going to be enough.
Unfortunately, NO is too important in financial/trade terms for that. I think an author - I forget the name - proposed that the US would eventually have, like the rest of the 'older' (i.e. longer colonized by 'building' peoples, rather than say those living in tents) world, a number of cities that were no more than ruins, like Pompeii (for example) now is. New Orleans was a suggestion, as were the cities on the San Andreas fault.
Aldo is correct on that.
The fact everyone fails to see is the fact that NO was not the worst place for something like this to happen. They include Galveston and Houston, Miami, New York City, Boston, Mobile, Tampa and many more.
Most of our major ports and they can't be abandoned.
And the scope of what could happen is nearly unimaginable. Had Ivan hit a few miles west of Mobile, they said the storm surge would have dammed up the Alabama river, and would have wiped out most if not all of Mobile.
And even that pales in comparison to what would happen if a Cat 3 hurricane hit NYC.
-
The same can be said for London as well, there was an article in our local paper recently that showed how much of my local area would be underwater if the spring rains cause the reservoirs near us to overflow. It was not a very heartening image.
-
You're making it sound like I want Nagin to take ALL responsibility. He had the ability to move people, and didn't. Kept begging the govt for more and more help. In a time of national disaster, people should do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the people, WITHOUT wating for the dammned government to step in and take care of it. What I'm saying is that he should have done whatever he could to get those people out and away with the busses he had, instead of letting them sit there! I'm in no position to say what should happen to him, but surely he deserves more than what he got.
So, effectively what you're saying, is that Nagin should be punished for not being able to save the city without any Government help whatsoever... :wtf:
You make it sound like he had hundreds of heavy-lift helicopters and soforth to move the people out, and yet chose not to! As a matter of fact, the busses you're referring to didn't have any drivers, and trying to evacuate people in busses without people who actually know how to drive a bus... in the middle of a Hurricane... not the best idea i've heard...
Building a city in the middle of a flood-plain right next to the largest river in North America some 20 odd feet below sea-level (and the water level of said river) is stupid. Perhaps the people who originally built the town couldn't have been expected to know any better. Certainly that excuse is no longer applicable.
No, not stupid, just ignorant, same as yourself. When the city was first built, it was considerably above sea-level, and it was placed in a prime position economically, hence it becoming such a major city. Then, over time, the entire city slowly sunk to the level it is at now.
-
So, effectively what you're saying, is that Nagin should be punished for not being able to save the city without any Government help whatsoever... :wtf:
You make it sound like he had hundreds of heavy-lift helicopters and soforth to move the people out, and yet chose not to! As a matter of fact, the busses you're referring to didn't have any drivers, and trying to evacuate people in busses without people who actually know how to drive a bus... in the middle of a Hurricane... not the best idea i've heard...
1: He had plenty of buses to do it, but they stood still.
2: As I stated before he started the first evacs Sunday morning, 12 hours or more after hurricane watches went into effect. I do believe hurricane warnings were in effect before he started Evac.
3: Hmmm, so how Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Miss does evac without goverment help is all luck?
Dude, what the goverment's problem was with the delayed relief effort and that kind of thing after the hurricane, everything before is and allways will be the City/State responsability. The only goverment hand would be the hand of the NHC whitch did their job very well.
-
You're making it sound like I want Nagin to take ALL responsibility. He had the ability to move people, and didn't. Kept begging the govt for more and more help. In a time of national disaster, people should do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the people, WITHOUT wating for the dammned government to step in and take care of it.
Has the thought ever occured to you that ones who could get out on their own did and ones who stayed behind (mostly) was because they couldn't get out? Many of the people died just because they didn't own cars.
-
1: He had plenty of buses to do it, but they stood still.
As I stated before, in that quote actually, there were no qualified drivers for said busses, and I personally would not want to be in a bus driven by someone who has neither the training or experience driving a bus.
2: As I stated before he started the first evacs Sunday morning, 12 hours or more after hurricane watches went into effect. I do believe hurricane warnings were in effect before he started Evac.
You raise a good point, but that does not change the fact that a good lot of people still in NO when Katrina hit were - as Kosh pointed out - incapable of leaving, whether it be their lack of transport or simply a desire to remain with their homes. Frankly, if I were a lower-class individual in NO with a hurricane approaching and no way of escape, i'd stay in my home rather than risk robbery/murder/squalid conditions in places like the 'Dome.
3: Hmmm, so how Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Miss does evac without goverment help is all luck?
Hmmm, because they've never had a major city of 1.2 Million, situated below Sea-level, hit with a Category 5 Hurricane? Plus, it's somewhat of a bad time to be hit with a Hurricane, what with most resources - both manpower such as in the CoE, and monetary assets - pooled towards spreading peace, love & democracy via kicking the s*** out of a small nation that shall remain nameless. :nervous:
-
1: He had plenty of buses to do it, but they stood still.
As I stated before, in that quote actually, there were no qualified drivers for said busses, and I personally would not want to be in a bus driven by someone who has neither the training or experience driving a bus.
2: As I stated before he started the first evacs Sunday morning, 12 hours or more after hurricane watches went into effect. I do believe hurricane warnings were in effect before he started Evac.
You raise a good point, but that does not change the fact that a good lot of people still in NO when Katrina hit were - as Kosh pointed out - incapable of leaving, whether it be their lack of transport or simply a desire to remain with their homes. Frankly, if I were a lower-class individual in NO with a hurricane approaching and no way of escape, i'd stay in my home rather than risk robbery/murder/squalid conditions in places like the 'Dome.
3: Hmmm, so how Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Miss does evac without goverment help is all luck?
Hmmm, because they've never had a major city of 1.2 Million, situated below Sea-level, hit with a Category 5 Hurricane? Plus, it's somewhat of a bad time to be hit with a Hurricane, what with most resources - both manpower such as in the CoE, and monetary assets - pooled towards spreading peace, love & democracy via kicking the s*** out of a small nation that shall remain nameless. :nervous:
1: Why have so many buses if you have no one to drive them? And you would rather face the fury of 165+mph
winds instead of an un-qualified bus driver.
2:Except 90% of those people could walk. Now the thing about it is, if there was a Cat 5 hurricane comming straight at me, and I was below sea level, I would do all I could to get me, my family and friends out of that city.
3. Wrong, Hurricane Andrew 1992, over 1 1/2 Million people fled from the face of that storm. As it scraped Miami. It was also right after DS.
-
The same can be said for London as well, there was an article in our local paper recently that showed how much of my local area would be underwater if the spring rains cause the reservoirs near us to overflow. It was not a very heartening image.
Dude, start building an ark! :D
-
1: Why have so many buses if you have no one to drive them? And you would rather face the fury of 165+mph
winds instead of an un-qualified bus driver.
There are likely other reasons for those buses not being utilised. It's not like he had a sinister motive for keeping those buses unused, nor I doubt he would have forgotten about them. The fact of the matter is, they weren't used for whatever reason, case closed.
2:Except 90% of those people could walk. Now the thing about it is, if there was a Cat 5 hurricane comming straight at me, and I was below sea level, I would do all I could to get me, my family and friends out of that city.
...I'm not even going to begin telling you what's wrong with what you just said.
3. Wrong, Hurricane Andrew 1992, over 1 1/2 Million people fled from the face of that storm. As it scraped Miami. It was also right after DS.
Touche, sir. Although DS was a minor skirmish compared to the cluster-f*** Iraq is now, and the damage caused by Katrina was considerably worse [nearly double the property damage], but other than that, the disasters are eerily similar. With that in mind, reading into the disaster shows that Federal Aid was slow then as well, with George H. Bush only speeding it up after Hale's outburst. Coincidences, coincidences.
It's worth pointing out that even with the cock-ups, over 80% of the city was evacuated [highest estimates], but even conservative estiamtes of around 65% aren't bad for a city with an extremely large lower-class population.
-
1: Why have so many buses if you have no one to drive them? And you would rather face the fury of 165+mph
winds instead of an un-qualified bus driver.
2:Except 90% of those people could walk. Now the thing about it is, if there was a Cat 5 hurricane comming straight at me, and I was below sea level, I would do all I could to get me, my family and friends out of that city.
3. Wrong, Hurricane Andrew 1992, over 1 1/2 Million people fled from the face of that storm. As it scraped Miami. It was also right after DS.
Um, I think you're wrong with 1 and 2. Firstly, placing unqualified drivers in charge of evacuation buses not only has impact on helath and safety liability, it throws up a very real possibility of one or move of those buses having an accident and causing a severe holdup to the entire evacuation. The reason for having too many buses could be manifold, from simple bueractratic stupidity, to needing an amount of backup buses at each local station/depot, etc. There could even simply be a shortage of qualified drivers, rather than intentionally having too many buses.
Secondly, you'd have to be damn sure of the exact path of the hurricane in order to risk moving outside on foot to escape it - and you'd doubtless have to walk a huge distance too. Not to mention young children, the elderly or infirm.
-
*edit: I had the above comments anwsered, then after thinking about it, I've relized how much I've pulled this thread OT, and we are now discussing the same mess we have discussed on this forum and others as well after Kat hit. So I apoligize for pulling this OT. ;)
-
Heh, if we all had to apologise everytime we pulled a thread off topic, we might as well start a sticky apology thread and save time ;)