Katrina

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Sep 2005 18:01

I once very briefly went out with a girl named Katrina. Wait that's not what this topic is about... - The Cyclone!!

I'm interested as to how other people feel about it and the way it was dealt with. I saw a very good interview last night with Christopher Hitchens who is one of my favourite journalist/authors. Anyway he said that it was a very politically significant event. He also said that he thinks people will be a lot less forgiving than they were with Bushes bumbling around after s11 and that since all the states effected are apparantly republican states - it could have a very negative effect for the republicans.

He also talked about the effect the event will have on the war in Iraq and he believes Bush will find it very hard to get any more support for the war and may be forced to remove troops and divert funding away from it.

I guess it was his comparisons with 9-11 that interested me the most. Basically many people in the lead up to 9-11 predicted that it was going to happen and many people after the event said that it could have been prevented - and more radical people said that the US administration was also responsible for the event because of their international policies etc. - Generally the public didn't seem to react to this much and disagreed with it. Now we see an invent much larger in magnitude - clearly predicted as going to happen - being reported around the world that exactly what did happen was going to happen - I mean from what I saw on the news prior to the event I thought that the whole city being completely flooded was what was being expected - not a worsed case scenario or anything like that. Of course we see people now saying that the event could have been prevented and that the US administration is responsible for the amount of deaths due to many reasons including their international policies (ie. the war on terrorism is more important than helping American's from New Orleans).

It's hard to see how Bush and the conservatives can gain any ground on this issue.

Anyway I'd be interested to know what other people think - especially American's - but also I'd be interested in knowing what the perception of the event is in other countries. Australia is pretty close to being the US's strongest allie and here every media source has been extremely negative towards Bush and the way the tragedy was handled (prior, during and after)

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 06 Sep 2005 09:41

It was handled poorly in all respects, and brought great shame to our country.

It didn't have to be a hurricane, a bomb could have blown the levee just as easilly. We had no plan to evacuate the city. We had no plan to provide clean drinking water. We had nothing but to watch bush play golf.

Bush can talk shit about the looters all he wants. They are the only people who know what's going on. There are three main steps to surviving dissasters in the united states.

1) Load the gun
2) Get the food and water
3) Defend the food and water.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 06 Sep 2005 10:05

The US dropped the ball and the whole world sat and watched with their arms folded.

Day 1 - Hmmm... Some flood water - interesting.
Day 2 - Hmmm... Venice in New Orleans - how quaint.
Day 3 - Hmmm... Lovely, look at all the people helping one another.
Day 4 - Hmmm... Maybe they may need some assistance, lets give it a day.
Day 5 - Hmmm... Hi folks were here to assist you.

REALITY:
Day 1 - Winds are strong and the levees have broken, water is flooding the area.
Day 2 - Massive amounts dead - water contaminated - bodies everywhere.
Day 3 - Survival occuring (aka looting) still no food or water.
Day 4 - Conditions look hopeless - still no food or water - patients dying.
Day 5 - Relief effort underway - 50k+ still without food or water - people still dying.

Imagine what the US and the World will see when the waters are gone.

Hopefully the US and the World will learn a valuable lesson from all of this. Divided we are many - joined together we are one. Sepearate we can only move dirt - united we can move mountains.

Just a sad sad event.

~peace
Damon

DoctorJay · Post by **DoctorJay** » 06 Sep 2005 11:10

Hurricans will get stronger in future because our planet heats up step by step .

The US government doesn't do enough when it comes to environmental issues .

I think that it is an economic thought what has to be done .

I have heard that it was very obvious that New Orleans will get into massive trouble when there is some kind of water to fill up this city.

when I watch reports in the media I can see only colored people in the big domes ? what about that ?

Let's see what comes next- people are bad ; they are chasing to get their individual needs and many many more . Companies are going to make as much profits as possible . nature costs are not calculated and so it has to pay a lot - sometime we will recognize that there is no step back .

Good luck to all people in New Orleans .

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 06 Sep 2005 11:51

NO is a poor region of the country. 30% of the residents don't have vehicles, can't afford to fly, and even if they could, couldn't afford a hotel . . .

This dissaster is the result of systematically dismantling the safety net of our society.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 06 Sep 2005 12:20

This dissaster is the result of systematically dismantling the safety net of our society.

Agreed.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 06 Sep 2005 12:26

There are sooooooooooooooooooooo many things to say about this.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 06 Sep 2005 13:34

Most lessons will be forgotten instantly by every government official, of both parties, but we will remember them for a couple days at least.

Tsiangkun said:
--------------------------------------

1) Load the gun
2) Get the food and water
3) Defend the food and water.

--------------------------------------

After a disaster, man-made or natural , the man with a gun is king.

The man without a gun is a bleating sheep.

Even if you were smart, and stored 6 months worth of food and water. Some guy with a gun can come along and take it all away. After all, you're just a bleating sheep sitting on a big pile of valuable supplies.

He could take your daughter also, to trade for drugs from the gang down the street.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 06 Sep 2005 13:41

I heard that the locals had a plan to use school buses to evacuate lots of people , but they didn't implement the plan, they must have had better things to do.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 06 Sep 2005 14:08

BUSES ??? 30,000 people ????

30,000/ 80 people per bus (MAX) is like 4000 buses.

They should have been loading up trains full of people and moving them by rail, in additional to the buses.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 06 Sep 2005 14:36

What's sad is that the buses they did have were forcefully taken by bigger and stronger men, leaving the women and children to fend for themselves.

Prediction:

When terrorists invade America (and they will) the rednecks of this country will show the rest of you lazy ass, no gun having, Politically Correct, bullshitters that is takes more than a degree and the ability to be tolerant to protect your family. You will be glad the NRA exists.

Watching Brutis (nickname for bad people) and his brothers bully their way through the streets of N.O.. looting (gathering items - I didn't see anything), shoving women and children, shooting their sisters for ice (WTF???), etc... You might want to take up arms yourself. These weren't terrorists Jihading people in the name of Allah. These were American Men taking up arms to save thier own asses.

Wake up people. Technology and evolution have brought us a long way. But it takes a brief moment in time for that to come crashing down to the basic foundation of human survival.

Best to practice, practice, practice...

~peace
Damon

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Sep 2005 16:18

FlexThis wrote:The US dropped the ball and the whole world sat and watched with their arms folded.

I don't think it's fair to say that world sat and watched - many nations (including Australia) have offered support - but what kind of support can we give that would be any help? A new president perhaps and some tips on handling disasters better? The US is the richest most powerful nation in the world - I don't think anybody could deny that. You spend more on your military than the Australian government spends on anything. I think from what I've read, it seems clear that the US had both the money and the resources to deal with this disaster - and still does. So you don't need our money, and supplies or people to go over and help. It seems that there is very little that the world can do that you can't do for yourselves - which is a very different situation to somewhere like Indonesia after the Tsunami - which is a very poor country that can't afford enough aid or inferstructure to rebuild and to help the people.

From what I've read - is it safe to say the vast majority of American's agree that the way Katrina was handled was incompetent? Is that a fair assessment? Do you think this will change the way people vote?

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 06 Sep 2005 16:23

to your two questions...yes and yes, especially because the media is saying so.

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 06 Sep 2005 16:23

No, other countries did help, unlike what everybody else says. France (or was it Britian) supplied us with a few pumps to pump water out of the city, China supplied us with money and/or troops, and several other countries as well sent us money.

I might have gotton a few (or a lot) of the things mixed up though, but this is just stuff I caught watching the news.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Sep 2005 16:40

slapdash21 wrote:to your two questions...yes and yes, especially because the media is saying so.

Yeah that's interesting. I saw a documentary a while ago about how the war on Iraq is presented by the media and what it suggested (although certainly didn't openly say) is that the US government censors pretty much all the news from Iraq and the journalists a really not happy about this at all. Perhaps the way Katrina is being reported in the news now is because they're getting a chance to report on the Bush administration un censored - although obviously most of the media is owned by big business who have an interest in keeping the republicans in power - I still don't think they would have enough power over their journalists to stop them in such an open event - it would presumably look much worse for the mainstream media if they stuck to their pre Katrina lines and then were obviously shown to be wrong.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 06 Sep 2005 17:03

Jeremy wrote:
slapdash21 wrote:to your two questions...yes and yes, especially because the media is saying so.
Yeah that's interesting. I saw a documentary a while ago about how the war on Iraq is presented by the media and what it suggested (although certainly didn't openly say) is that the US government censors pretty much all the news from Iraq and the journalists a really not happy about this at all. Perhaps the way Katrina is being reported in the news now is because they're getting a chance to report on the Bush administration un censored - although obviously most of the media is owned by big business who have an interest in keeping the republicans in power - I still don't think they would have enough power over their journalists to stop them in such an open event - it would presumably look much worse for the mainstream media if they stuck to their pre Katrina lines and then were obviously shown to be wrong.

actually that does have a lot to do with it...like you say, Iraq wasnt really blamed on the administration as much as it could have been by the media, but eventually public opinion made its own ideas about the situation (partly due to documentaries and the length and extremity of the war, of course), and also the public realized that the media was somewhat censored in terms of giving details about how the situation was evolving. so i feel like (personal opinion) media is almost making up for the errant censoring that took place with the war in Iraq. but like you say, jer, its a lot more public and known event, being on our own soil with so many citizens involved...
but yeah. the govt cant stop the media with THIS one...it may hurt bush personally more than the republicans in general, because people seem to see bush as a total figurehead for the full organization, because he has been such an active, public leader, with building controversey surrounding him...

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 07 Sep 2005 09:58

I could be mistaken, but doesn't NO have an entrenched Democrat political machine? Will they pay a price, or be re-elected solely because of race?

Did the Repubs in high LA office bungle also? Throw them out anyway.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 07 Sep 2005 10:01

Another tragedy . . ..

There was a boat off the gulf coast that is capable of producing 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has a hospital onboard, and was never ordered into action . . ..

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 07 Sep 2005 10:19

Who controlled that boat ? and was it sent to the Indo-Tsunami recovery, but not used for ourselves?

Is this the smoking gun of GW's globalism?

Do guilt-peddling foreigners sway him more than his own people?

------------------------------
Here's an interesting column from one of everybodys favorite author:

Summer is Over for America
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Sep 7, 2005

Friday night, the Bush presidency was in grave trouble.

TV reporters at the New Orleans convention center and Superdome were fairly weeping for food and water for the visibly suffering thousands, on the fifth day after Katrina hit.

Saturday, the cavalry had arrived. All day, the truckloads of troops, helicopters and relief columns moved in. By nightfall, the convention center and Superdome had been evacuated, and reporters who had been howling only hours before were cheering.

By Sunday, responsibility for the disaster was being shifted by Bush aides and media allies to the mayor of New Orleans and Louisiana Gov. Blanco. Monday, The Washington Post reported Americans did not blame President Bush for the breakdown and failure of government in New Orleans.

The sudden turnaround left the race hustlers hanging out there. They had been bellowing that Bush did not care about black people, since most of the refugees from Katrina were African-American. But, so, too, were the looters. And a visible majority of those coming to the rescue were white folks. Those who played the race card have been taking a deserved beating on national radio and cable TV. Even their Democratic allies seem to have abandoned them.

Yet, make no mistake. Summer is over for America -- and George Bush. That unifying image of Bush atop the pile of debris in lower Manhattan days after 9-11 has been displaced by ugly accusations and recriminations over who lost New Orleans. Katrina has exposed the limits of federal power and the absence of a serious set of national priorities.

In New Orleans, those who relied on government -- the New Orleans police, the mayor, Gov. Blanco, FEMA -- suffered most. Those who relied on themselves for food, water and safety from marauding mobs of rapists and looters, with guns in their homes, fared best. Ultimately, U.S. and Guard troops had to provide the security before government agencies and volunteers could do their rescue work.

But hour-by-hour coverage of the damage done by Katrina to an area of the South as large as Britain must bring home the truth: We are a self-indulgent nation and an overextended empire.

Before Bush went off on his five-week vacation, he signed a $286 billion highway bill containing $24 billion in pork -- 6,300 earmarked projects, among which was a quarter-billion-dollar bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska, population 8,000, to Gravina Island, population 50. Had half that sum been spent fortifying the levees of Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans would not be underwater today.

With a federal deficit, because of Katrina, rising toward $400 billion, a trade deficit of $700 billion to $800 billion and Americans saving only 1 percent of their income, we can no longer afford such nonsense. And it is not just tax-and-spend liberals who are culpable, but conservatives who believe they have patented a formula for the permanent retention of power: guns, butter and tax cuts, too!

With Medicare and Social Security costs about to soar as the first wave of baby boomers reaches early retirement in 2009, with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with troops in 100 countries, from the Balkans to Central Asia, from the Persian Gulf to Guam, with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens breaking in yearly, we are stumbling toward national crisis.

If any major act of terrorism, or urban riot, is ever traced to criminal elements who came across the Mexican Border, the Bush presidency will be as busted as Lyndon Johnson's in 1968. The tax cuts, or the welfare-warfare state, or the New American Empire has to go. We cannot afford them all.

With Marines and Army troops headed for third tours in Iraq, and the Guard and Reserve reaching the breaking point, how would we fight another war in any of the 50 countries we are committed to defend? And what are 37,000 U.S. troops still doing on a DMZ defending South Korea from a country with one-half its population and 3 percent of its economic wealth?

We wail about the cost of fuel and electricity and our dependence on Middle East oil -- yet, we have oil and gas waiting to be tapped in Alaska and off the coasts of California and Florida, but refuse to go after it. We have not built a nuclear power plant or a refinery in 25 years, because we were frightened by Three Mile Island and no one wants a refinery in his backyard. Yet, since the death of the Soviet Empire, we have indulged in years of self-congratulatory braggadocio about being the "last superpower" and "indispensable nation."

With 9-11, we got a wake-up call. With Katrina, the smoke alarm went off. America needs today an authentic conservatism that will end our Asian wars, shed this empire, bring the budgets back into balance, no matter the political cost, and make demands on us all for sacrifices.

Yes, the lazy, lovely days of summer are over.
----------
-n

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 07 Sep 2005 10:33

HighDemonslayer wrote:I could be mistaken, but doesn't NO have an entrenched Democrat political machine? Will they pay a price, or be re-elected solely because of race?

Did the Repubs in high LA office bungle also? Throw them out anyway.

-n

I dont think many people are putting my blame on the politicians around Lousiana or New Orleans, especially, partly because they were obviously so helpless and could only rely on the nation for aid, so the only way they could mess up is if they didnt ask for help quickly enough or something like that. however, i heard a quote on the radio for the NO mayor flipping out about the lack of help that NO was receiving...it was a desperate and angry plea, somewhat along the lines of: 'just get off your asses and help us!!!' pleas to that affect would only garner respect for the ones that spew them, partially proportional to the amount of aid that is given (possibly) based on the plea in the first place. i dont think the small-time politicians in the area will take any heat about this...they can basically fly under the radar and let the figurehead politicians (bush maybe?) take all the heat, which isnt difficult considering that is exactly what the public AND media have been determined to do for some time now...they were just looking for a solid opportunity like this.