[Mongoose]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

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?

[Kazan]

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.

[Stealth]

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

[EtherShock]

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.

[StratComm]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Sandwich]

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! )

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.

[StratComm]

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.

[Mefustae]

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 ...

...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...

[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? 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.

[Mefustae]

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...

[Stealth]

keep it on-topic. kthx

[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.

[Martinus]

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]

[Shrike]

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.

[Zeronet]

Major: WE NEED DAMN BUSES TO GET THESE PEOPLE OUT

[karajorma]

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 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 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.

[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.