Holy shit, please tell me this is not true.

[Ratty Sr.]

I'm not really sure why people are bringing Katrina related things into this discussion. Are you trying to use it as proof of ineptitude? Cause it would be a bad example. If anything, it's an example of crying wolf. Out of the last 3 times an evacuation order was issued in New Orleans, nothing happened twice. Those hurricanes missed New Orleans completely. As for Katrina, evacuations were taking place. Only around 75,000 were left in the city after Katrina hit, and of those 75,000, 15,000 were busing evacuated daily after the storm hit land. The problems in New Orleans don't really have anything to do with how effective the US or local governments were. It does have everything to do with the fact that people were refusing to leave.

Yeah, and I suppose all the looting, diseases and street killings were also people's fault. I guess laughable post festum ineffectiveness of the administration was also people's fault - shame on them, how dare they require water, food and insulin.

No, really, your post is such an eye opener. All this time I naively thought thousands of people died because of irresponsibility, complete lack of coordination and general unpreparedness of local and federal institutions on all levels, but thanks to you I now see those bastards deserved their fate. Officials in local government structures, FEMA, Bush administration and federal government are angels who performed their duties flawlessly. God bless them!

 

[King of Creation]

You do realise the evacuation order was given way too late?

You do realise those 75.000 left for the most part had no means of evacuation, as the only way to leave was with a car as a no buses were leaving?

The evacuation order was given with still plenty of time to leave. And there were LOTS of buses leaving.

You do realise this does not excuse the amount of time it took to come to the rescue? Or the small scale of the rescue?

I'd hardly call moving almost half a million people small scale. The time it took to move that amount of people is still astounding.

Semantics. Whether you call them freedom fighters that use terror tactics or terrorists is IRRELEVANT.

Actually, it's quite relevant. In Chechnya, those that use terror tactics use them because Russia has destroyed everything else that they have. You can't fight an effective battle when you have no army to fight with. As a result, they use these methods out of desperation. Their people are almost completely gone.

Though Russia is not at war with Chechnya, as Chechnya is not a country.

Chechnya is a nation, though, and what's happening to that nation is just the same as any other ethnic cleansing that the world has looked upon with disgust.

Does this also means there are no terrorists in Afghanistan or Iraq either?

Correct. There are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan. The vast attacks that the insurgents commit are aimed at military and political assets. The thousands of civilians that have died as a result are just collateral damage.

The flagrant ethnic cleansing that is taking place in Chechnya sickens me.

Yuh-huh.

I'm glad you can so lightly shrug off the ethnic cleansing of almost an entire people. Very righteous of you.

 

[King of Creation]

Yeah, and I suppose all the looting, diseases and street killings were also people's fault.

Yes. If they had left when the government told them to, they wouldn't have been exposed to the diseases. The people are the one's who are needlessly looting things like electronics stores. The people are the ones who fire guns at police, government officials, and evacuees.

All this time I naively thought thousands of people died because of irresponsibility, complete lack of coordination and general unpreparedness of local and federal institutions on all levels, but thanks to you I now see those bastards deserved their fate. Officials in local government structures, FEMA, Bush administration and federal government are angels who performed their duties flawlessly. God bless them!

What else would you have had them do? You sound so high and might, but what else would you have done given the circumstances. Bush stepped in the ring when he was called on to do so. Other than that, it was the governor of Louisiana and other local officials who issused evacuation orders, who bussed people out, who set up shelters and gave supplies to the displaced and those in need. The people chose not to come, to not abide by the instructions given by the government officials. The government's usefullness in this situation was limited by the willingness of the people to follow their instructions.

 

[Brother None]

The evacuation order was given with still plenty of time to leave. And there were LOTS of buses leaving.

Really? Enough to evacuate 75.000 people? 75.000 people many of whom too poor to buy bus tickets?

I'd hardly call moving almost half a million people small scale. The time it took to move that amount of people is still astounding.

I was talking about the amount of time it took to rescue people after the disaster and the small scale it happened in.

Actually, it's quite relevant. In Chechnya, those that use terror tactics use them because Russia has destroyed everything else that they have. You can't fight an effective battle when you have no army to fight with. As a result, they use these methods out of desperation. Their people are almost completely gone.

Explain to me exactly how this is different from the Islamist struggle against the West? No, I don't want to hear why one is more justified, I want to know how these struggles differ, since Chechnya is a well-known playground of international terrorists, as well as Chechens themselves.

Oooh, explain the difference between it and Israel-Palestine.

Chechnya is a nation, though, and what's happening to that nation is just the same as any other ethnic cleansing that the world has looked upon with disgust.

I was talking about official state of war, what are you talking about?

Your ethnic cleansing is unproven and funny considering the historical fact of the ethnic cleansing of Russians from Chechnya in the direct post-Cold War period, but I must say you're one of the few people left willing to defend a people who use such means to stand up for themselves. I wasn't aware killing children was heroic.

Correct. There are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan. The vast attacks that the insurgents commit are aimed at military and political assets. The thousands of civilians that have died as a result are just collateral damage.

Heh. And these semantics somehow make the problem or the means by which it is fought different? Somehow I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Yes. If they had left when the government told them to, they wouldn't have been exposed to the diseases. The people are the one's who are needlessly looting things like electronics stores. The people are the ones who fire guns at police, government officials, and evacuees.

I don't know whether to cry and laugh. Yes, the people are the ones looting things and shooting at other people. Now tell me, is that a normal occurence in America or does it indicate someone's catastrophic inefficiency?

What else would you have had them do? You sound so high and might, but what else would you have done given the circumstances. Bush stepped in the ring when he was called on to do so. Other than that, it was the governor of Louisiana and other local officials who issused evacuation orders, who bussed people out, who set up shelters and gave supplies to the displaced and those in need. The people chose not to come, to not abide by the instructions given by the government officials. The government's usefullness in this situation was limited by the willingness of the people to follow their instructions.

Again, I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Yeah, Bush stepped into the ring *when he was called on to do so* and local officials set up shelters and arranged supplies *several days after the incident*. Because obviously there was *no way* to tell Katrina was a *humongous fucking hurricane* headed *straight for New Orleans* and with potential to flood the streets with water, chemicals and corpses.

Yeah, there is *no way* this blatant failure of state organs can be blamed on state organs. Honestly, if all Americans have your sense of civil awareness, then I'm amazed similar disasters don't happen in USA more often.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Since this has spiraled completely away from it's original idea, I thought I'd just throw this link about Katrina out there. It doesn't have too much but it does kind of identify some oopsies that occured.

www.truthaboutkatrina.com

 

[King of Creation]

Again, I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Yeah, Bush stepped into the ring *when he was called on to do so* and local officials set up shelters and arranged supplies *several days after the incident*. Because obviously there was *no way* to tell Katrina was a *humongous fucking hurricane* headed *straight for New Orleans* and with potential to flood the streets with water, chemicals and corpses.

It was the governor's responsibility to call on Pres. Bush step in. In cases of emergencies like this, the governor has to call in the national guard, ask help from the president, etc.

Yeah, there is *no way* this blatant failure of state organs can be blamed on state organs. Honestly, if all Americans have your sense of civil awareness, then I'm amazed similar disasters don't happen in USA more often.

The fact that nothing like this has happened before proves that the institutions normally operated efficiently. Had the levees not broken, the disaster wouldn't have been nearly as bad. You can't place blame on the current officials for the failure of a structure that had, up to this point, operated normally.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

The fact that nothing like this has happened before proves that the institutions normally operated efficiently.

No it doesn't. It proves they were not prepared for it at all.

Had the levees not broken, the disaster wouldn't have been nearly as bad. You can't place blame on the current officials for the failure of a structure that had, up to this point, operated normally.

Yeah, except for the fact that most experts warned well in advance that the levee system is severly insufficient.

 

[4too]

Damage Control

Damage Control



KOC:

I'm not really sure why people are bringing Katrina related things into this discussion. Are you trying to use it as proof of ineptitude? Cause it would be a bad example. If anything, it's an example of crying wolf. ...

I see you have culled out some of the details of "" Katrina related things "" that don't serve to embellish, the why's and why not's of the bunker busting, preemptive, first strike, discussion.

Although ""crying wolf "' has an ironic sting when linked to the single issue, simple minded American obsession with 'possible' Iraqi WMD's. We are still 'paying to play' out that strategic option. A higher price to pay then first advertised. Now hailed, sold as yet another a single issue , as a war of liberation, this 'man made' storm defies the faith of the Best And The Brightest.

Perhaps the value of comparing this natural disaster, and it's aftermath, and the devastation of any nuclear detonation would be that large scale disasters show how response planning, relief aid, and 'damage control' will fall apart when important links fail on a regional scale.

An example would be the failure of the phone network and the evaporation of radio coordination when the batteries zeroed out. The impact of the devastation became
MORE then the sum of it's parts.

Perhaps this would feed a hysteria whenever WMD's and nuke's might be possible, whether they be truck, cargo plane or suitcase delivered.



The American nation requires a complex infrastructure. Our vulnerability is real.

The threats are real. The exact nature of the threats is hazy. The question here, is the target worth the use of a nuclear munitions. Especially when America's conventional strike ability is so massive.


Perhaps it justifies contingency planning of a ruthless nature.

And.

Faith alone, wishful thinking, that a target's destruction would be worth the moral and physical collateral damage seems a rather shoddy foundation for upping the ante to heavy metal half lifes.

At this point the certainty, the cold logic required - to nuke - seems super-human.

The destruction will be - surprisingly - greater. The unexpected will be compounded by fatal flaws in organizations. Saying one is ""sorry"" for the collateral damage will sound like the manipulations of some sick sociopathic tragedy queen.

I think that "" Katrina related things "" sheds more light on the dilemma that America faces.

Some planning can not be left to the vacuous, work-fare of political appointees.
Some decisions will have unknowable impacts.

And. Pre or Post Apocalyptic,

Sh't happens.






4too

 

[victor]

I don't really get why anyone would want to volunteer to help the US economically after the hurricane thang. The UN and EU should just not care. A country that has enough money to start two wars in a couple of years and invade the two countries they "declared" war on, has enough money to help itself.

 

[King of Creation]

It's all about Realist politics. Everyone who offered aid has something to gain by doing so.

 

[victor]

Yeah, like China, but what I don't understand is why individuals give money.

 

[Bradylama]

Publicity, or the pleasure derived from performing a charitable work.

If people know that you have contributed, then it is publicity.

 

[welsh]

Bunker Busting Nukes- Denied.

Bummer. Just when nuclear warfare was getting interesting again....

U.S. drops nuclear 'bunker-buster' plans

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Posted: 10:39 p.m. EDT (02:39 GMT)

Arms Control Nuclear Policies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration has abandoned research into a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, deciding instead to pursue a similar device using conventional weaponry, a key Republican senator said Tuesday.

But... But..... What about the radiation?

Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico said funding for the nuclear bunker-buster as part of the Energy Department's fiscal 2006 budget has been dropped at the department's request.

The nuclear bunker-buster had been the focus of intense debate in Congress, with opponents arguing that its development as a tactical nuclear weapon could add to nuclear proliferation.

Proliferation..... Hell, I doubt W could pronounce that word.

It took him years to learn En-tre-pre-neurs..

An administration official, speaking on condition on anonymity because negotiations on the department's spending bill have not yet been completed, confirmed that a decision had been made to concentrate on a non-nuclear bunker-buster.

SO maybe in secret....

Administration officials have contended the country must try to develop a nuclear warhead that could destroy deeply buried targets, including bunkers tunneled into solid rock. Potential adversaries increasingly are building hardened retreats deep underground, immune to conventional weapons, the officials said.

But Congress has been cool to the idea of a new nuclear warhead. The House blocked funding for the program, even though the Energy Department had requested only $4 million, scaling back earlier requests.

Military Industrial Complex.... denied.
At the same time they are going to give money to rebuild a predominantly black city.

And this a republican administration... Surely things have gone Bizzarro.

The Senate approved the $4 million, but a final decision was up to lawmakers working out a compromise between the House and Senate on the department's budget.

Domenici, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Energy Department's budget, said the conferees had agreed to drop funding for the program at the request of the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that oversees nuclear weapons programs.

"The focus will now be with the Defense Department and its research into earth-penetrating technology using conventional weaponry," Domenici said in a statement. The nuclear security administration "indicated that this research should evolve around more conventional weapons, rather than tactical nuclear devices," the senator said.

"This is a true victory for a more rational nuclear policy," said Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation advocacy group. "The proposed weapon, more than 70 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, would have caused unparalleled collateral damage."

70 times Hiroshima? Fuck... that's nothing!

Last April a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that an earth-penetrating nuclear device would likely cause the same casualties as a surface burst if the weapons are of the same size. Such a bomb could cause from several thousand to 1 million casualties, depending on its yield and location, the panel said in a report requested by Congress.

Hey, if you want an omelete, you got to break some eggs.

Or something...

At a congressional hearing earlier this year, nuclear security administration chief Linton Brooks acknowledged there is no way to avoid significant fallout of radioactive debris from use of a bunker-buster warhead.

He said the administration never intended to suggest "that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't believe the laws of physics will ever let that be true."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, one of Congress' most vocal opponents of the bunker-buster, has said the nuclear bunker-buster "sends the wrong signals to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear door and beginning the testing and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons."

Damn.... One more arms race shot down.
Democrat Pussy!

l

 

[Albatross]

Why develop bunker busters when they could have this in twenty or so years?


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5700&R=C673D12[/url]

 

[John Uskglass]

Now tell me, is that a normal occurence in America or does it indicate someone's catastrophic inefficiency?

It's a human thing. People deprived of order and civility WILL do anything they wish to society. See: Paris.

Yeah, Bush stepped into the ring *when he was called on to do so* and local officials set up shelters and arranged supplies *several days after the incident*

Federalism's a bitch. The Local Government was supposed to be in charge. Having a President run right into an area that is being evacuated because of a massive storm is as far as I know unheard of.

Bush fucked up by setting up the Department of Homeland Security, not canning FEMA, hiring the biggest douche in the universe to be the head of FEMA, then saying that "Brownie was doing a heck of a job", diverting money to protecting Littleton, Wyoming from Terrorists (OMG! IT'S A LETTER FROM NEW YORK! TERRORISTS!) that could have gone towards the Levees (but would have ended up paying for some shithead Louisiana politican's three day long Whore & Coke party), but saying the little over a thousand deaths from Katria are his fault is absurd.

Because obviously there was *no way* to tell Katrina was a *humongous fucking hurricane* headed *straight for New Orleans* and with potential to flood the streets with water, chemicals and corpses.

That's why there where Levees, smartass.

Yeah, there is *no way* this blatant failure of state organs can be blamed on state organs. Honestly, if all Americans have your sense of civil awareness, then I'm amazed similar disasters don't happen in USA more often.

On the National scene the person who probably fucked up more then anybody was Brown. I'd say Bush is only guilty by association, but I don't trust Bush at all.

Really? Enough to evacuate 75.000 people? 75.000 people many of whom too poor to buy bus tickets?

Most did not wish to leave. If that sounds crazy, it is. So is shooting at Red Cross and National Guard peps, but fuck, that happened too.

The fact that nothing like this has happened before proves that the institutions normally operated efficiently. Had the levees not broken, the disaster wouldn't have been nearly as bad. You can't place blame on the current officials for the failure of a structure that had, up to this point, operated normally.

Quoted for truth.

Your ethnic cleansing is unproven and funny considering the historical fact of the ethnic cleansing of Russians from Chechnya in the direct post-Cold War period, but I must say you're one of the few people left willing to defend a people who use such means to stand up for themselves. I wasn't aware killing children was heroic.

You don't think it is possible to ethically take sides in the situation?