Well, Bush DOES have more minorities on his Cabinet than any other President in history.
Quote:
6.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans.
Wrong. He appointed the heads of FEMA and Homeland Security. He vouched for their apparent 'skills' in the field. Obviously, he was about as wrong with his vouching as it gets.
Oh yes, and it was also Bush's administration aka 'his hand-picked staff' who denied New Orleans extra funding to fix the levees two years ago, instead giving it to 'terrorist protection' because apparently only terrorists can bring harm to this country.
Quote:
In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan.
Wrong: Consider that that 20 percent is the 20 percent below the poverty level and thus cannot jump in the car they don't own to flee. Consider that for days before the hurricane, the roads out were clogged with traffic. Consider that for people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, the idea that while they're away someone could just come in and rob them of everything they own is enough to chance it so they don't have to go right back to nothing.
Quote:
It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans.
Wrong: Once again, it's the fault of the men he vouched for, and since blame rolls uphill it's also his fault by proxy.
Quote:
His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.
Nor does it include 'being an incompetant boob', but he's doing a bang-up job of that isn't he?
Quote:
8.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.
Okay, fine. Perhaps he doesn't see things as black and white. Perhaps he doesn't see people by the color of their skin, but like any good political douchebag he sees them by the size of their wallets. Honestly, how can we fault a politician for not caring about a bunch of little empty wallets when all the big fat wallets are safe and sound? Obviously, the real victim here is Bush. Curse those big meanies for looking for accountibility from the president of the US! He should be allowed to party with his business buddies in San Diego while people swim in raw sewage and chemical waste!
And it's funny, Louisiana has always been a deep-red state. Guess they won't be in the next elections.
Quote:
Wrong. He appointed the heads of FEMA and Homeland Security. He vouched for their apparent 'skills' in the field. Obviously, he was about as wrong with his vouching as it gets.
Read the article. Bush appointed aid before the hurricane even hit.
Besides, Katrina is a lot more powerful than any hurricane that's been hit in recent years. The fact that so much aid has arrived in the span of only a few days (considering that, you know, most of NO is underwater and a good portion of Louisiana is devastated beyond belief) is remarkable.
Quote:
Oh yes, and it was also Bush's administration aka 'his hand-picked staff' who denied New Orleans extra funding to fix the levees two years ago, instead giving it to 'terrorist protection' because apparently only terrorists can bring harm to this country.
It's not the President's responsibility to look out for a city. The USA is a republic; the ones who have responsibility over New Orleans would be the mayor and the city government. Louisiana's welfare is the responsibility of the governor and the state government of Louisiana.
As for the levee funding, you have a point. Bush DID decrease funding for the Hurricane Protection Project. However, the levees that were being built were NOT going to hold up to anything stronger than a Category 3 hurricane (and this comes straight from the Army Corps of Engineers, the ones who built the levees). They anticipated the flooding; they knew that a Category 4-5 hurricane would cause waters to overlap the levees. But they didn't foresee the levees actually BREAKING (again, from the Army Corps of Engineers).
Also, the project was scheduled for completion in 2015. Which is 10 years from now.
And if you really want to blame Bush, you might as well blame Clinton as well. The levee project was started in 1965; however, in 1995, a CoE (Corps of Engineers) report recommending that the 120 million dollar project proceed was not forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget. This meant Congress could not authorize money for the project. Also, throughout Clinton's administration, funding was curtailed for the ACoE Louisiana projects. It often took Congress to allocate more funds than the Clinton administration proposed.
The fact of the matter is, even if Bush let more funding for the Hurricane Protection Project pass, it wouldn't have mattered against Katrina; the storm was simply too strong. Money can't solve jack against a storm of this magnitude.
By the way, nice knock on the War on Terror. Way to take it off-topic.
Quote:
Wrong: Consider that that 20 percent is the 20 percent below the poverty level and thus cannot jump in the car they don't own to flee. Consider that for days before the hurricane, the roads out were clogged with traffic. Consider that for people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, the idea that while they're away someone could just come in and rob them of everything they own is enough to chance it so they don't have to go right back to nothing.
Odd. There sure are a lot of cars underwater. I wonder who those belong to?
But seriously, is it the President's fault that some people decide to stay (against all conventional wisdom) when a Category 5 hurricane is bearing down on them? No; he does not have a handle on free will. Besides, the President cannot order a mandatory evacuation for a city; that's the job of the mayor. And the mayor didn't order it until after Bush called and said, "What are you doing? Order the evacuation!"
And here's an interesting pic.
That's a lot of buses. Buses that could've been used to evacuate those without cars. But were they used? No. And that's NOT Bush's fault at all.
Quote:
Wrong: Once again, it's the fault of the men he vouched for, and since blame rolls uphill it's also his fault by proxy.
There are sick, old, and people without cars in almost every city in America. Is that also Bush's fault?
Quote:
Nor does it include 'being an incompetant boob', but he's doing a bang-up job of that isn't he?
Considering all that's been going on thus far in his Administration (China, 9/11, the War on Terror, Katrina, the endless slandering of him and his Administration, etcetera), the way he's acted doesn't really equate to 'incompetent boob'. If anything, he's stood up well under pressure.
If there's anyone who's incompetent, it would be the government of New Orleans for failing to adequately prepare for this hurricane (instead of beginning preparations and evacuations a few days before Katrina struck, Mayor Ray Nagin waited until Katrina was 10 hours away).
Quote:
Okay, fine. Perhaps he doesn't see things as black and white. Perhaps he doesn't see people by the color of their skin, but like any good political douchebag he sees them by the size of their wallets. Honestly, how can we fault a politician for not caring about a bunch of little empty wallets when all the big fat wallets are safe and sound? Obviously, the real victim here is Bush. Curse those big meanies for looking for accountibility from the president of the US! He should be allowed to party with his business buddies in San Diego while people swim in raw sewage and chemical waste!
I sense sarcasm.
But let me be honest; do you honestly, TRULY think that Bush doesn't care? I think you know the answer to that.
And doesn't it strike you as odd that the criticism of Bush came so quickly? It should; no self-respecting media outlet would (or SHOULD) criticize government officials and polarize the populace while resuce ops and aid is being delivered. If they wanted to criticize Bush, they should've waited until WELL after Katrina struck. At least by then most of the tough parts would be over with and order would be established. But as things are now, all these cries of 'racism!' and 'Bush's fault!' are not helping one bit.
Quote:
And it's funny, Louisiana has always been a deep-red state. Guess they won't be in the next elections.
Republican or Democrat, Blue or Red, that doesn't stop a hurricane. Or flooding. Or tornadoes. Or earthquakes. Or any other act of nature of this magnitude.
But when it comes to aid, a pretty good job's been done so far.
Oh, and one last thing; did you know that New Orleans jails released all inmates before Katrina hit? Seeing as how no transport for the inmates was prepared, they were simply released into the populace.
I'm pretty sure that's Bush's fault too.
Castor,
Read up on the Nation Incident Management System before you go railing against the federal government's response. The biggest failure was the city officials of NO.
From an out of state Policeman on the ground....
All fine in Baton Rouge so far. We have 50,000 refugees in a town of 300,000 so you can imagine the problems. So far the lid has been kept on and FEMA is starting to show a bigger presence. They are talking about moving the bulk of them to other cities. So stand by. You may be getting a chunk of the Big Easy coming to you.
I went down there yesterday on a SWAT operation to rescue specific individuals..... The physical damage to the city, other than flooding, is not catastrophic. The city looks the same in the daylight as it always did. The human situation on the other hand is insane. There is NO law and order anywhere in the city limits. The area of the French Quarter is a free fire zone as is the area around the Superdome. We were all over the city and we were the ONLY organized law enforcement on the street, period. There were 14 of us. Saw some dead bodies but not an overwhelming number. As of 3 p.m. yesterday there were only about 100 or so NOPD officers left on the job. The rest of the 1100 man department had quit and left the city with their families and I don't blame them. Most of them had been simply thrown onto the street the morning after the storm and had not see or spoken to their chain of command since. I mean NO contact. NOPD SWAT is about all that is left and we gave them ammunition. They looked like they had been through hell. We were out of the city by dark. One of the eeriest sights that I have ever seen was driving over the bridge and seeing a black void where the lights of N.O used to be.
We are going back down there in a day or so and set up a more permanent presence. This thing is going to start being fixed so the situation will start to improve over the next couple of weeks. There is going to have to be a complete federal take over and martial law declared over the whole area for an unspecified amount of time.
Had this happened to Raleigh it would be a different story. North Carolina practices for "incidents" every year, involving local, state, federal, military to include NG, reserves and the civil air patrol as well as the Red Cross. LA did not practice enough, did not have proper communications resources in place, and less than 10% of NO's police force remained in the city.
Had this happened under Clinton the result would have been the same.
Jimro
By the way, nice knock on the War on Terror. Way to take it off-topic.
This coming from the guy who dragged the thread all over Hell's half-acre to decry the horrible Liberal Mainstream Media and their groundless slandering of Bush's sparkly-clean administration. What a hypocrite.
Considering all that's been going on thus far in his Administration (China, 9/11, the War on Terror, Katrina, the endless slandering of him and his Administration, etcetera), the way he's acted doesn't really equate to 'incompetent boob'. If anything, he's stood up well under pressure.
Phrases like "$500 billion annual deficit", "largest and most wasteful government in American history", "biggest intelligence failure in American history", "illegal war that killed thousands", and "hundreds of people held without charge or access to attorneys" come to mind.
Quote:
This coming from the guy who dragged the thread all over Hell's half-acre to decry the horrible Liberal Mainstream Media and their groundless slandering of Bush's sparkly-clean administration. What a hypocrite.
Point taken. I apologize. But in this case, the slandering has no point and no useful purpose whatsoever.
Quote:
Phrases like "$500 billion annual deficit", "largest and most wasteful government in American history", "biggest intelligence failure in American history", "illegal war that killed thousands", and "hundreds of people held without charge or access to attorneys" come to mind.
I'll give you the first one. I don't have quite enough knowledge on previous administrations to form an opinion on the second one (I don't quite agree on the wasteful part though).
But for the last three...
'Biggest intelligence failure in American history'. The CIA and FBI (among intelligence agencies) needed fixing long before Bush came into office (their personal rivalry has caused problems dating all the way back to the Vietnam War).
'Illegal war that killed thousands.' Mind telling me why the War on Terror is 'illegal'? And for the record, civilian casualties are mostly dealt by the terrorists themselves. Also, American deaths come to around 1,000...which is amazing, considering that we've been in Iraq for a while now. The only wars that had less deaths was the Gulf War and the Spanish-American War...and those lasted for only 1 month and 4 months, respectively.
'Hundreds of people held without charge or access to attorneys.' Geneva convention rules only apply to combatants who wear uniforms signifying their union with a certain country. Terrorist combatants do not. Besides, Gitmo is more cushy than most American prisons.
Quote:
Mind telling me why the War on Terror is 'illegal'?
Because it was never sanctioned by the UN's ruling body.
After all the hurricanes I've been through, and nobody ever made a fuss like THIS over my town getting completely trashed. I can't believe it took them this long to realize, "HEY! We might need to reform how we evacuate people before a hurricane and what to do after it, et cetera." ~__~
The whole west side of my old town before I went to college got completely washed away by the storm surge. Including my Uncle's home. They say only 10-20 people were killed, but my observations have pointed to that there were a lot more than that. Do you really think they would tell you how many people would die because of these things?! Of course not. It would scare away tourists and keep people from building on the barriar islands. What the heck do they think we call them "barriar" for?! One hurricane is all it takes to wash away a business there. 9__9
I was lucky enough to visit New Orleans before it got washed away several years ago. Man I'm going to miss those Benyays. They were so delicious, and so far that is the ONLY area in the country where I know you can get them. ;__; I feel terribly horrible over all the victims in NO who lost their lives and homes. I remember Ivan here and people would tell me that they would NEVER ever go through another storm like that again inside their homes. That was a 3/4. This was a 4/5, and I don't see how the able ones weren't able to get a clue about how scary this thing was going to be just from Florida's storm experience.
I must say the levees breaking could have possible been avoided if it wasn't for a certain person who cut the budget on fixing it up or rebuilding it...but I'll leave that alone for now. You could have not possibly predicted the hurricane heading that way, even though we KNEW there would be an aweful storm in the future that would completely destroy the city. Although hurricanes are very big, it's only a little area that usually causes serious trouble. AKA the east side, and I'm suprised it actually turned at the last minute. It would have been a lot worse if nature didn't do that. I cannot imagine them trying to rebuild all of New Orleans later on. It's just asking for another beating! At least move the city up to where it's not below sea level, and give these people some land, and let the rest get cleaned out and remain underwater. There were people in my old town still living in Fema trailers, and any time a house goes on sale no matter what the price it is or what condition it was sold very quickly. Think of all those historical houses underwater. They'd be completely polluted with the water of that area, with blue roofs, with all those tree limbs hanging around! I cleaned up just the limbs and I tell you it is NOT easy cutting up a whole freaking pine tree and lugging it all the way to your front yard. I feel extremely sad about thinking about what the Orleaners are going to have to do to fix up their homes if they can afford it at all.
And gas because of this one incedent....OMFG?! Why isn't anyone sueing for taking advantage over these people from this great tragedy? It has risen 50 freaking cents since I've been here for 2 weeks? Unreasonable! Insurance certainly isn't going to pay for all of this mess. They need all the money they can save, and THIS isn't helping. I don't care if it's higher in Europe or where ever. What happens when it goes over their prices huh? What will people say then? It just makes me so mad. I'm going to be $80000 bucks in debt when I leave school, and my least worries should be if I can afford driving to work. (That's why I started a car pool.)
You raise an interesting point. Most of the TV coverage on Katrina's toll has been focused on New Orleans. I haven't seen as much coverage (Very very little) on other areas that were hit, like Mississippi or Mobile.
Fortunately (in terms of gas prices), the oil futures are already going down, which is a positivie sign. Expect gas prices to recede in about 2-4 weeks.
(shakes head at the 6.00 a gallon price in Atlanta at one point)
EDIT: And Wonderbat, the U.N. actually DID sanction force against Iraq if Saddam violated their resolutions. Which he did. 18 times.
You have to realize, though, that NO is such a crucial port in the delivery of oil and other fossil fuels, Not to mention all the roads that are either blocked or simply not there anymore. Gas prices rise for a real- tangible reason, not just because greedy oiul companies want more money, as seems to be the majority thought.
NO is not crucial to oil distribution, things would be MUCH worse fuel wise if Katrina had hit Texas.
The reason for the oil price hike is all those offshore rigs had to stop operations for Katrina, once pumping they can send oil to Texas, where most of the refineries are anyways.. But it will take time to get things running again, but they will get running again.
gom.rigzone.com/
www.businessweek.com/bwda...1_2115.htm
www.usatoday.com/money/in...usat_x.htm
Americans are industrious, diligent, and inventive. Things will be rebuilt and life will get back to normal, eventually.
Jimro
Are you all fools? The people of New Orleans could not all leave. The majority of the population down there are very poor. Many bus routes were closed so people without cars would have to walk out of New Orleans. And go where? They couldn't carry everything with them and they couldn't buy new houses.
Sometimes just trying to take on the hurricane seemed like a better idea than abandoning their only home so they could go live in poverty somewhere else with even less than they had before. When help was sent in by helicopter, it was fired upon by revolting, stranded citizens arming themselves with weaponry they looted from Wal-Mart.
Many people wanted to leave but couldn't. Some of you fools just can't realize that. Making assumptions by what your friends tell you that they hear, if you even have friends.
The American economy isn't going to make an astonishing comeback. We're not the best country in the world. We're dwindling to become the worst. The USA has been struggling to rule the world and all of the oil in it, ignoring other solutions to the lack of oil and building Humvees. The war to obtain oil is just wasting even more of it. Prices are going to keep rising. We're not going to magically recover. Get out of your bubbles, you tools.
The people of New Orleans are starving and thirsty. It's driving them to madness. They cannot drink the flood water because it will kill them. It won't make them sick or woozy, it will kill them. What will they eat? Eachother? New Orleans is also surrounded by dangerous creatures such as snakes and alligators that can easily maneuver through the waters. Power lines are hanging in water, electrifying it. It's dangerous just to go through the water.
Soldiers in APCs armed with machine guns are going to be required to fight off the insane. Hopefully they can avoid killing them and take them to safety where they can become sane again. Many looters were criminals before the hurricane and are just taking advantage of the situation.
It doesn't matter what you nerds think. None of you are there. You're sitting in your chairs, getting fat and talking about it in forums. "Oh, let's pray." Out of your shells, tools. Realize what's actually going on and what's going to happen to our economy and us all.
The USA's economy was weak before, but now that New Orleans has been utterly destroyed and the majority of our soldiers are off in the Middle East fighting the resistance, America is going to Hell.
The price of oil isn't the only thing that is going up. Oil makes our transportation go so the prices of EVERYTHING will rise. For every oil tanker that is destroyed, the price of oil rises in every country in the world. Don't be idiots.
The USA isn't going to be as it was before Hurricane Katrina devestated New Orleans. Don't try to think that everyone else will take care of your problems for you and that you can hide behind stupid dreams. Without oil, America is going to become city-states again. Locales will have to farm their own food and everyone will have to do their part to keep themselves and everyone alive. No more idiots browsing the internet. No more "hanging out" and wasting time. No more overpopular bands, no more television, no more "collectable" items, no more battery-operated devices, no more fancy cars with weird rims, none of that crap you anesthetic dipsticks fan over while people die all around the world from things we should be trying to prevent.
Any of you realize that the USA has one of the lowest education percentages in all major countries? Another example of our pitiful economy. The money that should be making our children smarter instead puts guns in their hands and sends them off to kill and die.
You twats make me sick.
Oh, yeah, that's my only post. Ever. So ban me or something. You know you want to. In advance, if any of you tries to disagree with me, just let it be known that you are an idiot who knows nothing.
My goodness, pessimistic aren't we?
I looked through a lot of it, and found a lot of things that were contradicted already in this thread.
All I see is a lot of fear-mongering that serves no purpose except to make yourself and other people feel bad. What's the point of being so pessimistic that you yourself not only feel miserable, but have to make everyone else try to feel miserable?
America is a strong nation. It's weathered through worse situations before. After all, America was once split apart. It came back together. If anything, that was more of a crisis to the country as a whole than Katrina.
Oh, and there was a certain economic crisis called the Great Depression. We survived that too, didn't we?
Quote:
Oh, yeah, that's my only post. Ever. So ban me or something. You know you want to. In advance, if any of you tries to disagree with me, just let it be known that you are an idiot who knows nothing.
You only make your stance less credible when you call everyone else idiots for not sharing the same opinion as you do. And asking to be banned and then saying 'you know you want to' only makes you looked foolish.
Oh well. Not my problem.
P.S, over 75% of the National Guard is in America, and not overseas as you seem to think.
'Biggest intelligence failure in American history'. The CIA and FBI (among intelligence agencies) needed fixing long before Bush came into office (their personal rivalry has caused problems dating all the way back to the Vietnam War).
A number of daily briefings with headings like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." were sent to George Bush, and were ignored.
Mind telling me why the War on Terror is 'illegal'?
It is if you're of the school of thought that military actions in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.
And for the record, civilian casualties are mostly dealt by the terrorists themselves.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php
Who was killed?
* 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
* Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
* Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die?
* 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
* Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing?
* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry?
* Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
* Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
* Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
How many were injured?
* At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
* The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
* Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
* The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.
Who provided the information?
* Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
* Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
* Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.
Also, American deaths come to around 1,000...which is amazing, considering that we've been in Iraq for a while now.
1886 American soldiers have been killed and at least 14021 wounded in Iraq.
And that's to say nothing of the monetary cost of the war, which is now nearing $200 billion. Instead of causing the deaths of thousands, the US government could have paid for a year of Head Start for 25 million children, provided a year of health insurance to 115 million children, hired three and a half million additional public school teachers for one year, provided four-year scholarships to nine and a half million students, built two million additional housing units, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for seven years, fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 19 years, or ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 63 years.
'Hundreds of people held without charge or access to attorneys.' Geneva convention rules only apply to combatants who wear uniforms signifying their union with a certain country. Terrorist combatants do not.
America law says that nobody can be held without charge, nor without access to an attorney. Besides which, how are the people being held terrorists, when no evidence to prove this has been presented in a formal legal proceeding?
Besides, Gitmo is more cushy than most American prisons.
Personally, I'd be pissed off if I were being confined with neither charge nor access to an attorney, in a five-star hotel. For a nation that's trying to spread its western values into the far reaches of the world, some Americans sure don't seem to care too much for their own Constitution.
Quote:
A number of daily briefings with headings like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." were sent to George Bush, and were ignored.
Evidence please (lest we forget that Clinton was personally offered Bin Laden by Saudi Arabia, and we know what happened there.)?
As for your information culled from Iraq Body Count, I question the validity of the source.
The guy who runs the Iraq body count webpage, also ran a similar count for Afghanistan where he said the number of civilian deaths was over 3000. He was proven wrong (by about 2000) in an independent analysis performed by numerous sources, including the Los Angeles Times. He uses dubious techniques and sources for his numbers.
As the website states: "The minimum can be zero if there is a report of 'zero deaths' from two of our sources. 'Unable to confirm any deaths' or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of '0' in the minimum column." In other words, suppose the Iraqi Information Minister said, "Today the imperialist aggressors slaughtered 300 innocent Iraqi children." Reputable news outlets will report what the Minister said, while simultaneously reporting that they were unable to confirm it and that the Pentagon was unable to confirm it. But the Pentagon will only rarely be able to say with certainty that the incident did not happen, or that no innocent civilians died--the fog of war is often too thick, and the Pentagon, unlike the (former) Iraqi Information Minister, does not want to make false statements. So, instead, it will say that it was "unable to confirm" the reports. And the result? The Iraq Body Count Project will add 300 to both its minimum and its maximum counts.
For example, here are two entries from the Project's database, (1) the explosions in the Al-Shaab marketplace in Baghdad on March 26 and (2) the Al-Nasser marketplace in Baghdad on March 28. For (1), the Project lists a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 15 civilian deaths caused by coalition action; for (2), the numbers are 34 and 62. But anyone who reads the papers knows that the U.S. and British governments claim that, in both these instances, Iraq--either intentionally or mistakenly--caused those explosions itself. By refusing to put zero in the minimum column, the Project again privileges Iraqi government sources over Western ones.
A few other points:
1. The stated mission of the project is: "This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003."
Oh really, that's the reason? Right. The table displayed at the Body Count site shows numerous examples of weapons listed as causing civilian deaths as "car bomb", "roadside bomb", "suicide car bomb", and even "roadside bomb camouflaged with vegetables and a soda can". No one in his right mind could imagine that the US or its allies could have directly caused these "deaths" based upon the recorded information. Clearly those are Iraqi-on-Iraqi deaths not caused by the US.
2. Then there's a batch entry that lists well over a thousand deaths at once. The site's description for this was: "60 per cent from gunshot wounds." But moved off into a separate file was this description: "about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi." So here is an acknowledgment that less than a quarter of these people were actually killed by coalition forces, if at all, yet all the deaths are lumped together anyway. And do we know how many of these were actually civilians, as opposed to terrorists playing dressup? All that seems to matter is that the 60% is higher than the reported pre-war decimation already taking place under Saddam.
3. The tagline for the site is: We dont do body counts
as stated by General Tommy Franks, US Central Command. This was a statement made by Tommy Franks during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, not Iraq. In fact, he was referring to the dubious military body counts that the US used during the Vietnam war, and stating that the US would not count military opposition dead. His statement had nothing to do with Iraq and nothing to do with civilians. In fact, the US does not target civilians and would have no idea what the accidental deaths were.
Considering the source, the validity of the numbers is in question.
And FYI, more Americans die in auto accidents each year than the total casualty count (on both sides) in Iraq. Might as well ban cars since they're so deadly.
Quote:
And that's to say nothing of the monetary cost of the war, which is now nearing $200 billion. Instead of causing the deaths of thousands, the US government could have paid for a year of Head Start for 25 million children, provided a year of health insurance to 115 million children, hired three and a half million additional public school teachers for one year, provided four-year scholarships to nine and a half million students, built two million additional housing units, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for seven years, fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 19 years, or ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 63 years.
All wars have a cost. I'd rather that the war not have to happen at all, but there are those in the world who hate us so much that they would be willing to kill innocent civilians and hide amongst them like wraiths. Lest you forget that they behead victims on LIVE TV.
Quote:
America law says that nobody can be held without charge, nor without access to an attorney. Besides which, how are the people being held terrorists, when no evidence to prove this has been presented in a formal legal proceeding?
Last I checked, POWs are not entitled to the same rights as American citizens. The Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to anyone captured in plain clothes, behind the lines, hiding among civilians (and also killing civilians). Anyone can read the Geneva Conventions for themselves. Fighters/soldiers must meet four conditions to be covered. Terrorists fail to meet at least three of those.
Even IF the Geneva rules applied, they would still be held for the duration of the war, just like in every other major war America's fought in, including the Revolutionary War and WWII. There was even a German POW camp in Arkansas (Google it if you want to find out more). Were they entitled to a trial or a lawyer? No.
As for the cost of the war being around 200,000,000,000 dollars, it sounds big, but not if you put it into perspective.
Big numbers always sound impressive but you have to put them into perspective.
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States is $10.45 trillion.
Even assuming the numbers on that page are correct, the Iraq War is costing a little over 1 percent of the U.S. GDP.
By comparison, World War One cost America 24 percent of our GDP and World War Two cost us 130 percent of our GDP.
Saddam Hussein's war on Iran cost Iran over one million dead and cost Iraq around 600,000 dead.
Another bloodbath followed the Gulf War as Saddam engaged in atrocities against the Kurds and the Shiites that comprised 80% of the Iraqi population.
Quote:
Personally, I'd be pissed off if I were being confined with neither charge nor access to an attorney, in a five-star hotel. For a nation that's trying to spread its western values into the far reaches of the world, some Americans sure don't seem to care too much for their own Constitution.
If I were an Iraqi terrorist that had been living in an high-pressure environment for most of my life (concerning the different Muslim factions in Iraq, as well as Saddam's heinous acts), confinement in a place with three square meals a day, safety, and peace would sound AWFULLY pleasant.
And by the way, the Constitution only applies to American citizens.
EDIT: And Cycle, I would like to bring this topic back to a focus on Katrina, so if you want to, we can continue this debate over PM.
Quote:
You raise an interesting point. Most of the TV coverage on Katrina's toll has been focused on New Orleans. I haven't seen as much coverage (Very very little) on other areas that were hit, like Mississippi or Mobile.
Watch more of it then. ;p Mississippi has been covered. Alabama hasn't. Of course, the reason for the coverage is due to the flooding so it's currently getting the most. Mississippi, particularly Biloxi, is getting a bit of coverage as well. The cable networks are currently always shifting between New Orleans, Biloxi, and Houston in particular with their coverage. ;p
Edit:
At first I was just going to ignore it all, but after re-reading, I decided that I wasn't going to ignore this part:
Quote:
11.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an act of nature worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.
NO ONE is blaming Bush for "an act of nature." So that's absolutely ridiculous. As it is, people are calling for the head of FEMA, NOT Bush. Bush just gets caught up in it due to the fact that he's defending certain people who are responsible for being in charge of the effort.
Whether you realize it or not, these people in the media are human, too. They are down there in the middle of the destruction. The media is the only reason some of those people were found alive, or have been able to tell their family and friends in other parts of the country that they are alive. As even some of the many conservative media analysts were basically saying (and these are people who're in Mississippi, not New Orleans), why is it that they can get to the people but not the government? If anything, the media has only been venting the same frustrations other people have had throughout the country. Don't sit here and blame the media for their coverage, particularly if you read the comments made by people in newspapers all over the country regardless of their political leanings are disgusted among other things.
Only if you actually believe that people are so stupid as to follow the media in terms of how they see everything does the media affect the "morale" of others. People are not fools, Ultra. What you see, whether it's on MSNBC, CNN or Fox News, is how the people of this country see the effort. Just because you don't like what is being said about Bush, don't start blaming the media for it either. It's coming from the people in the affected areas. It's coming from the people who know those people or those towns. It's coming from the people in this country that care about others they don't even know. Even some of the troops on the ground when interviewed say that the conditions there are worse than they remember seeing when they were in Iraq (as some had gone through duty over there). If you don't like the news, then don't watch it but don't complain about things being reported coming from the mouths of the people on the ground.
Oh yeah, last point to make. This is not so much about local governments because they don't have the resources to do the things that needed to be done to save or attend to people after the hurricane. The only part of our government structure that controls much of those resources is the federal government. That's why the heat is on them, particularly with comments made about things being "adequate" by FEMA or being under control, when it was plainly obvious at the time that things weren't "adequate" or under control.
What'll end up happening is a re-evaluation of the current response system because there's a lot of red tape that is to blame for a lot of this, but anyone who's really paid attention to the response system could've mentioned that. ;p
Quote:
NO ONE is blaming Bush for "an act of nature." So that's absolutely ridiculous.
I have seen people do so, believe it or not. Hence my frustration earlier (along with the charges of racism).
I'm not blasting the people who are venting for legitimate reasons. It's those who fling 'racism' around that got me riled up.
President Bush asked the European Union "urgent help". 60 countries say being ready to send money, medics, planes, etc. Even the great world power, Cuba, wants to assist this poor Third-World neighbour hit by this disaster. In the eyes of the worldwide community, the Republican administration and his most-hatred ever President has now completed to discredite itself.
Quote:
President Bush asked the European Union "urgent help". 60 countries say being ready to send money, medics, planes, etc.
That's the only thing that makes sense. The rest doesn't. America a Third World country? o.o
And how does asking for aid discredit a government?
That's the only thing that makes sense. The rest doesn't. America a Third World country? o.o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
The way he said doesn't make it seem like sarcasm.
And if it IS sarcasm...then that's the third time this week I've missed it. >.>
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Indeed.
Ultra Sonic, I (and the majority of the European people) see in Bush's answer a PROOF of his vanity, thoughtlessness, incompetence.
And how quickly would that help arrive? A few small teams could arrive rather quickly, but rapid response belongs to us. We have all the long term resources we need, and all the rapid response we need, if we can get them organized properly. We don't need the help being offered unless it can get here yesterday, but even then standardizing equipment, language, and procedures is a pain in the glutes. We haven't practiced working with others, and it would be stupid of us to screw up what little organization we have by trying to let everyone play.
The more I read about this, the more I understand what a screwup this really is for LA, NO, and FEMA, and they practiced evacuation protocol 3 weeks prior according to one source.
Jimro
Why is Bush asking for the EU's help? It's hardly like he's a member of Europe.
Why doesn't he try the UN? Oh, I know why... because he treats the UN like toilet paper.
It's not funny, but at the same time, its hilarious.
Now, my point. I..simply can't feel for this distster. Unlike Sumatra-humans have been TRYING to continually live in a area, develop it, and deal with the fact that even their man-made safety is falliable.
And now people are bickering because it failed 
. I can't feel for this. I mean, yeah, it's bad that people died-not saying that. Im not saying that we may have lost a good chunk of NO-The Gulf and hell, I DONT CARE IF YOU GET EVERY DROP of water out from that area-geologically, that place is STILL 20 FEET under >> And it NEEDS TO MOVE away from the banks of that river ><! It's just common sense now-that after your constructive levees {and the natural ones too >> << Im just saying} break, that you can go ahead and try to compensate for a lvl 5-15-234873 hurricane. Aint gonna save you. Cause that river's gonna flood one day and we'll have a new coast and its gonna be called Arkansas >> {Or wehatever state is above Louisiana, I forget x_x}
Sorry if that sounds pessimistic, I'm just stating it like it is in my view. Yeah Bush didn't create this hurricane. Nature did. Whether its global warming, I can't say {I lean toward NAO, but that's just me since I really don't trust the Gulf Streeam right now}
>> As for GAS *Snickers*-Im sorry, it has to go up. I just hope this is a kick in the ass for politicians and innovators to come up with better ways to fuel cars that can go mainstream fast enough to avoid having a "shortage" like this. 10% of oil distribution disabled cause of this hurricane >>..and you get 65 cent hikes? Man...funk that...peak oil needs to happen within the next year, IMO, just so the true innovatin could appear and we'd have a solution. No better time than crunch time. {And yes I know about the eletric cars and the Hydro systems being tested in Japan, and even the new Solar Reflex prototype that's being developed {With pretty good extrapolation, but I wanna see it built first}-but it's not fast enough. Once the kick comes, it'll get done }
Found an interesting piece written by Jeff Head, author of the Dragon's Fury novel series.
xxxx
THE LESSONS OF HURRICANE KATRINA
By Jeff Head
September 5, 2005
Over the last ten days I have, with the rest of America and the world, watched a horrific natural disaster and tragedy unfold. I say natural disaster because that is exactly what a hurricane is when it strikes humanity and destroys property and lives and leaves suffering in its wake, as hurricane Katrina did along the Gulf Coast last week. I say tragedy because I have sat transfixed as I have watched as governmental social programs long in place, contributed to the disaster, and as a number of unimaginable and crass mistakes made by those who could have and should have exhibited stronger leadership, failed to do so which also added significantly to the loss of life and to the human suffering.
As I considered this over this holiday weekend, I thought it imperative, if for no other reason than to get these issues off my chest, to write down the lessons I have learned as a result of this disaster and tragedy. Hopefully, there are those who will reads this and benefit from it, most notably my own children and grandchildren and their descendants.
So, here are the lessons, I pray they reverberate within the hearts and minds of those who read them, so that more and more people can avoid some of the circumstances which have led to what will probably be recorded as the worst natural disaster and tragedy in American history.
LESSON NUMBER ONE:When clear warnings of an imminent natural disaster are issued, heed them.
When the weather service or other agencies, private or public, tasked with making such warnings issue them, take the warnings seriously and move well out of the path of danger. Do not wait for governmental officials to issue a so-called "mandatory" evacuation. Use your own initiative and resource, whatever they may be, to move yourself and your loved ones out of danger. Irrespective of how many false alarms have been raised in the past, irrespective of how well your or neighbor's structures have survived in the past, act for yourself and move yourself and loved ones out of the path of the oncoming danger. Your very life and those of your loved ones could well depend on it...and to err on the side of caution is a good thing in such circumstances.
The specter of those who decided to stay, and who were partying in the path of this storm on live news coverage up to the time the storm began to come on shore, will remain etched in our memory for the rest of our lives. Such foolishness punctuates the need to remember and act upon this first lesson. It is a lesson wholly within each of our power.
LESSON NUMBER TWO:Be prepared.
Start now, in whatever sustained way you can. Any preparation is better than none, decent preparation is better than just a little. Realize we live in a world where natural disaster, economic fallouts, upheaval, strife and war exist and can strike us with little warning, leaving our entire lives and livelihoods completely altered in the space of a few days. We should do what we each can, within our respective circumstances, to have food and water supplies set aside to sustain ourselves and loved ones for a period of several months if possible. If possible, have your own well on your property with a manual pump. Also, if possible, have your own septic system.
We should also all strive to have a 96-hour kit set aside for ourselves and each of our immediate families should we have to leave our homes in response to lesson number one above. Such a 96-hour kit should contain all of the following:
Water (Including purification tablets)
Food (Including high energy and vitamins)
A good First Aid kit (including necessary medications)
Toiletries
Temporary shelter
Two or three changes of Clothing, including underwear and socks
Firearms
Ammunition
Spending cash, several hundred dollars, or whatever is possible
Reading material (The Holy Scriptures, a couple of Classics)
Communications (Transistor radio-AM or XM, scanner, 2-ways, SW)
Flashlight and batteries (for light and/or other devices like radios)
LESSON NUMBER THREE:The welfare state of any nation is a destroyer of human compassion and civilization.
It teaches people to be (mistakenly) wholly reliant on government and indolent and therefore lacking in the necessary moral clarity when faced with a crisis. Far too many caught up in that life style either turn into a mob seeking only what they feel at the moment is good for themselves, even to the destruction of those around them, or, they are left without the means to effectively apply lessons one and two, leaving them defenseless and at the mercy of the danger itself, of incompetent officials, or at the mercy of the mobs that follow on the heels of such disasters in sections of cities that are largely populated by those dependent on such programs. Avoid such programs and such areas like the plague...because that is exactly what they turn into in such dire circumstances as we have witnessed over the last ten days, particularly in New Orleans.
Who will ever forget the sight of so many woman, with their children, no men responsible for these families within sight, as they waded through brackish, polluted waters in search of safety? The social programs that were manipulated and changed in the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" have come home to roost and had their thin veneer dashed by these circumstances, revealing the ugly, festering sores just beneath the surface.
One example, in the 60s, a longer term program that provided governmental relief for children of widows who had been legitimately married, but whose husband had died, was altered to allow any illegitimate children to be included. It wasn't long before more and more desperate woman found that by having four or five children out of wedlock, they could sustain themselves on governmental programs. Men, normally raised to understand that one of their primary roles was to provide for children, found that that role could be supplanted by the government...and so a horrific seed was sown that has resulted in the destruction of the traditional family in a growing segment of American society. It impacted particularly the black family to begin with, but has since spread throughout society...and this is just one example of a myriad of such programs that have had the effect of creating huge segments of society dependent on government for their livelihood, and beholden to politicians whose careers are made by promising more and more of the same. The result is that individuals, families, and entire communities become corrupted...and the outcome is horrific when pitted against circumstances such as Katrina where the foundational building blocks of society such as hard work, strong families, commitment, individualism, creativity and moral strength are indispensable.
LESSON NUMBER FOUR:Large inner cities are breeding grounds for the welfare state.
The resulting drugs, indolence, gangs, and other traits make these areas a dangerous place to be at almost any time, but especially during any crisis. Avoid them like the plague, at the mortal threat to your very life.
The sight of utter lawlessness, looting, murder, rape and pillaging in the wake of hurricane Katrina has horrified and shocked us all. Much of it is a result of the seeds sown in lesson number three above.
LESSON NUMBER FIVE:Local, liberal politicians are not prepared or equipped to provide help to citizens in a major natural disaster.
After their initial (late) warnings, their decisions and indecision resulting from their ideology (which ideology produced the welfare state in the first place), are more apt to significantly worsen the crisis than to provide relief...and this includes planning in advance of such a crisis.
While I am sure there are many civic leaders who will remain unsung heroes in this (such as the numerous initial Coast Guard rescue flights and those who made and coordinated them), I was struck by two examples of this lesson in this particular crisis.
One was the Mayor of New Orleans, at a late date (within 12-18 hours of the storm actually striking), calling for a "mandatory" evacuation. In essence, he told everyone who could get out on their own to do so...and then proceeded to gather large segments of the poor and welfare dependent, at ground zero in the direct path of the storm with little or no food, water or relief for them. The horrific reality was that the mayor could have gotten those people out of there, even at that late date. He had hundreds of school buses that were slated, in normal circumstances, to carry many more children all over New Orleans the next day...and yet they were not utilized but left in their parking lots to weather the storm Instead, he gathered tens of thousands of the most at risk citizens at the Superdome and the Convention Center, or left them in hospitals and rest homes, which later lost all power and water, and were surrounded by flood waters. Left in those circumstances, horrors unparalleled occurred. The pictures of those busses, covered in water the next day, stands at a punctuation and a witness to this lesson number five.
Another example was the governor of Louisiana. When it became apparent how terrible the decision had been to leave the people in the Superdome, she flew there with part of her staff to see for herself how bad the circumstances were. In a later news briefing she described a man holding a small baby who was seriously ill and how that child and many others like it were left in the Superdome and in need of immediate assistance. I could not help but ask myself while she was talking, "Governor, how did you get out?", and, "If you could get out, that sick child could have gotten out". Indeed, the helicopter or whatever transportation the governor used could have been utilized to carry many sick children out of those circumstances. A strong, moral and inspiring leader would have kept themselves and staff at the Superdome, with their security people, and then used their transportation to take out all of the most seriously ill to the safety of the State Capitol from where she later gave the news conference, I was appalled that such a leader could not be found amongst the highest officials of the city or the state. Perhaps there were...but not in the instances I cite here. In addition, the Governor had it within her power, from the beginning to send the Louisiana National Guard into New Orleans as early as Monday to stop the looting. That she did not, and days later complained about the President not reacting fast enough was a classic example of a lack of leadership lashing out at other leadership to fix blame in my opinion. It not only was a disservice to those citizens in New Orleans, it may well have been fatal for a good number of them.
LESSON NUMBER SIX:Federal government programs cannot logistically react quickly enough to provide the level of assistance necessary in the first 72-96 hours.
While they may eventually get the needed relief to the survivors (particularly in the hands of a moral, conservative leader), that relief may come too late if good planning and preparation on the part of the people themselves and local leaders is not already in place. In order to ensure the maximum chance for survival, see lessons one and two above and make sure you abide them...better for you and yours to err on the side of caution, than to be caught in such a circumstance.
LESSON NUMBER SEVEN: Moral and spiritual preparedness is equally important to all of the above.
John Adams said the following:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
Our fundamental, foundational, moral beliefs...meaning the Judeao-Christian values upon which this nation was established, and please understand, on the societal level it matters most that those values are shared by us as opposed to which denominatios have the most members...are what enables us to aptly and with wisdom and compassion apply whatever preparations we make. No amount of planning and preparedness will suffice in the absence of solid, foundational moral values built upon truths like:
Thou shalt not steal, Thos shalt not kill, Thos shalt not covet, Thou shalt not commit adultry, Love others as yourself, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc."
In the end, this is fundamental and essential to our success in planning at the individual level, the local level, the state level, and the national level. For leaders to espouse such beliefs is fine...but espousing them for political purposes can never supplant having applyied them in their daily lives and thus experiencing their necessity and utility in that regard so that in a crisis applying them comes naturally and immediately.
If people (and particularly my own children, grandchildren and descendants) understand and apply these lessons, they will be in a much better position to preserve the life and liberty of themselves and their loved ones. Having done so, they will also therefore be in a position to help, aid, and provide relief to their fellow citizens in the crisis, as opposed to simply becoming another victim unable to help anyone, even themselves.
Finally, on a final note: These are lessons we as a society simply MUST learn and apply quickly. The lessons of the impact this disaster and tragedy has had on our society is not something that is being felt, noticed, and learned from here alone. Our enemies are also watching. It is imperative that we learn the lessons and apply them before any such enemies can take advantage of them..
xxxx
Although no mention of those who cannot fend for themselves is mentioned (ie: the disabled, the elderly, etcetera), I find that this article rings with a rather disturbing truth: you can't depend on the government to solve everything for you (or, in the case of Katrina, to completely protect you).
Did you know pigeons will drown themselves by staring up during a storm?
~Rico (*Is going to hell*)
I thought that was turkeys. >.>
Might be both. o.o
~Rico
Well, it's good to learn.
CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
New Orleans I'm sure had gotten sort of cocky in a way considering the numerous big storms that had oassed them by...I mean hurricans have some wacky patterns and some have even made a 360 degree turn to hit something else...
...still doesn't excuse the thousands refusing to leave despite the city being a dump now...I see similarities between this and another natural disaster...
Quote:
Well, it's good to learn.
CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE
Hi ^^
Has anoyne heard of Sheen? You know, the guy that lived in Louisiana and used to be in this board?
Btw, I'm baaacckkk! :p
Something actually ON Katrina:
Sorry, didn't see this thread. I'm posting pictures in a minute here, need to upload them. Somewhat bad quality but whatever. For those who don't know, I live in Biloxi, Mississippi. Or what's left of it...
EDIT: Alright. not much but figured I might as well post it. Bad quality, VGA camera on a cell phone...
Bad cloud clover as I was driving towards Panama Beach.
Our pool at the beachfront hotel: It was a damn vacation! It has a waterfall, a cave and everything. The Main waterfall... Here you can see the cave. Inside the Cave.
The view of the beach from our hotel room. [2] [3]
Our pool when we got back. It fared better than the pool next door. That one got sucked out by a tornado...
Sorry, Dreamer, I'm not in contact with shane ever since he stopped posting here.
Isn't grovelling for international aid after a natrual disaster something third world countries normally do? And they don't normally get much - the US government had to be shamed into giving anything more than pocketmoney to the Tsunami hit countries, and their death toll numbered something upwards of 250,000.
Shane is fine.
At first, the initial pledge was 15 million dollars. Then it went to 35 million. Then George Bush increased it to 350 million. Also, most figures don't include private donations.
I want to point out this part of the article.
Quote:
United States
$350m in government donations, although this is expected to rise to $650m. Washington also sent military assistance involving 12,600 personnel, 21 ships, 14 cargo planes and more than 90 helicopters. Around $200 million of private donations, with $120m donated to the US branches of the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children, and to Catholic Relief Services.
I would hardly call upwards of 800 million 'pocket money'.
Also...'grovelling'? Besides, it's not like other 'first world' nations haven't asked for aid before.
Let's just think about the logic here; a hurricane stronger than any other in your country's history strikes. Towns are wiped off the map, and a very big city is flooded. The total damage is spread out over an area the size of ENGLAND.
Now, when aid is being offered, wouldn't YOU accept it?
Yeah, but he asked for more...
And you missed the point. He started at 35 million. He had to be shamed into giving more.
America really shouldn't rely on oil so much in its economy.
Quote:
America really shouldn't rely on oil so much in its economy
I was thinking of saying something along the lines of "alot of advancements are being made in science to change the kind of power used in industry, but the international community has been too slow to adopt new ideas so this is the situation we have right now", but I thought that that might be a bit difficult for you to respond to with quotes you've heard another people say, so how about I just respond with:
Wow, really?
Quote:
And you missed the point. He started at 35 million. He had to be shamed into giving more.
The tsunami happened on December 26th, 2004. On 12/27, Bush upped the money from 15 million to 35 million. On 12/31, he increased the amount tenfold to 350 million.
A span of five days. If it had been a month (or a few weeks at the very least) between upping it from 35 million to 350 million, you might've made your point.
But upping it to 350 million after only five days is equivalent to Bush being 'shamed' into doing so? 
I think not.
And LOL @ stumbleina. 
Found an interesting article, detailing the reasons why Bush didn't act as soon as he did. Reason being is because it would've been unconstitutional for him to do so without the state of Louisiana's approval.
xxxx
We forget that the Constitution created a FEDERAL republic of STATES, not a national socialist collectivism.
The issue of federalism has been thrust under the spotlight, both by the charges and counter-charges about failures of execution after Katrina hit New Orleans, and by the death of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who sought to reestablish a proper balance between the political powers of the states and of the Federal government.
Democratic and Republican liberals are loudly declaiming that the Federal government should have anticipated and prevented the lawless thuggery and inept evacuation efforts in New Orleans. What is not sufficiently recognized is that, to have that power, the Federal government must be able to impose martial law on a state instantly, whether the state desires such attention or not.
Is that what we really want? The Governor of Louisiana flatly refused it when, two days before Katrina hit, President Bush urged her to permit federalizing the evacuation and relief program.
Liberals argue out of both sides of their mouths. On the one side, they shriek that the Patriot Act grants too much power to the Federal government to scrutinize individuals' personal lives, but on the other side demand that the Federal government deal with a Katrina situation, exercising the unilateral and concentrated power of an Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.
We can't have it both ways. There must be a sense of limits and boundaries affecting shared responsibilities.
Katrina gave us only a couple of days' forewarning. If the Federal government is to be expected, on such short notice, to shoulder the responsibility of evacuating people and providing food, water, shelter, and protection from looters and armed bands of marauding thugs, then the President must be given the power to order the Department of Defense to move instantly into a state or a city and to take complete control of its affairs.
Giving that power to any President is opening the door to totalitarian dictatorship. It is in complete opposition to the basic principles of the Constitution.
If a President, citing emergency conditions, can unilaterally order Federal troops into any city or state, we will have given him the power that Hitler used in the Austrian Anschluss, the annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, and the occupation of the Danzig corridor.
The Constitution was intended to create a Federal government that would regulate and adjudicate activities among the states, to provide for functions that affected all states equally (such as coining money), and to maintain unified diplomatic and military relations with other nations. All other functions of government were expressly reserved to the states and to the people.
At the other end of the spectrum, liberal-socialists in both political parties have championed the socialist theory that individuals, left to their own devices, are incapable of managing their own lives, that only a collectivized government, wielding unlimited regulatory power, can provide the needs of the people.
The writer of Federalist No. 51, either Madison or Hamilton, noted that maintaining the proper balance between Federal power and the reserved powers of the states required judgment and understanding. A famous passage in No. 51 reads:
"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
What must be noted in that connection is that the Constitution's checks and balances were not confined, as students are instructed today, to the three main departments of the Federal government: Congress, the presidency, and the Federal courts. The greatest of all the checks and balances were the powers not expressly granted to the Federal government, but reserved to the states.
A sense of the expected balance between the powers of the states and those of the Federal government is clearly projected in Federalist No. 45, where Madison wrote:
"The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.....
"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter....
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government."
The liberal-socialist vision of the Federal government as the all-providing, all-wise source of power and material benefits is totally in opposition to the understanding when the Constitution was written. Look again at Federalist No. 51, which states that diversity of interests and diffusion of power among the states is the means by which political and religious liberties are to be secured:
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."
xxxx
The original page can be found here.
The previous article was written by Thomas E. Brewton.
I hope people remember that the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic of many states united. For Bush to have acted so soon like many people said he should have would've been the equivalent of him ceasing power via unconstitutional means.
Liberals argue out of both sides of their mouths. On the one side, they shriek that the Patriot Act grants too much power to the Federal government to scrutinize individuals' personal lives, but on the other side demand that the Federal government deal with a Katrina situation, exercising the unilateral and concentrated power of an Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. We can't have it both ways.
Gimme a break. Canada is a federation of fairly autonomous provinces and territories, however, we have an integrated and federally-regulated disaster response system. And no draconian legislation that flushes our rights down the toilet. And we certainly don't have a unilateral or concentrated Nazi or Stalinist government.
There were some powerful hurricanes last year that hit Florida. Same FEMA, under the command of the same Mike Brown (who happened to be relieved of his Katrina duties today, replaced by Vice Admiral Thad Allen). Yet things went quite smoothly in comparison to what happened in New Orleans.
This whole Katrina fiasco was a problem on the local level, and not a problem with the system as a whole.
Quote:
And no draconian legislation that flushes our rights down the toilet.
Just out of curiosity, who do you blame for the legislation that 'flushes our rights down the toilet'?
Don't get me started, Ultra, on the federal response issue (though I'm getting really tempted because some of the things posted are really silly even if they're way off-topic). I've ignored most of the political baiting, and it is really is kind of silly that you are the one continuing it particularly since you were the one complaining about it in the first place. I don't know why people keeping making a topic out to be political that shouldn't be. You want discuss politics, then make another topic. ;p
Edit:
Don't care if it sounds hypocritical, but just one point to consider.
Quote:
Yet things went quite smoothly in comparison to what happened in New Orleans.
You are posting under a slightly mistaken impression (even if you don't personally have it). Things didn't go smoothly in Lousiana OR Mississippi. It wasn't just New Orleans, which is why so many politicians from Mississippi were complaining about the lack of support and some about the media coverage of New Orleans (though parts of Louisiana also complained about New Orleans coverage in the media as well). Things didn't go smoothly in Alabama either, but due to the fact that Alabama wasn't hit all that badly in comparison (Alabama sent its own National Guard to help out Mississippi) to the other two states, that the federal help wasn't as necessary. While it is possible that every single local official in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama were incompetent, it's highly unlikely, which leads to there being a problem at the federal level (along with Chertoff's own admission a couple of months ago that there could be problems with federal responses to diasters due to the buearacracy--something that isn't being mentioned much at all).
I don't know why I keep having the urge to debate. Maybe I'm just catching up on years of not doing so. >.>
Or it could be that it's fun. Hard to tell.
Ah well. What's done is done. BACK ON-TOPIC (for real this time).
In case anyone doesn't know, those who were in the Superdome have been moved to the Astrodome in Houston.
As a side-note, the Superdome's going to be torn down most likely, due to damage from Katrina's winds, flooding of the stadium floor through holes in the roof, and the sheer amount of human waste.
There are also negotiations going on right now about the New Orleans Saints playing in San Antonio for their next four home games (discounting the week 2 matchup of Giants vs. Saints, which is scheduled to take place at Giants Stadium intead of the Superdome as originally scheduled.
They could play some games at LSU too, though that's looking doubtful. The owner of the Saints seemingly has been wanting to move the team out of New Orleans anyway and this might give him the chance to do it.
Yeah. Who knows; seeing as how San Antonio is still growing, the Saints might just stay there.
San Antonio Saints...
Saint Antonio Saints. 😛
In case anyone doesn't know, those who were in the Superdome have been moved to the Astrodome in Houston.
And as Barbara Bush so nicely put it, living in a giant stadium full of thousands of sweaty people and feces with no privacy is a "step up" for "those underpriveleged types".
