Topic awaiting preservation: Good line

from Jay leno last nite. ' Well I see we've already sent aid to Pakistan. I didn't know that Pakistan is closer to the United States than New Orleans is to the United States.' =)

Of course, there are a couple things to consider -

- it still took some time to send that aid

- a whole lot more people are affected by what happened over there

being the key ones...

Another thing to consider - once the earthquake was over, the primary threat was over. Granted, there are aftershocks that can also be severe, but you don't have a several hundred mile wide, slow moving storm to negotiate to get aid to the location.

DL: Oh most certainly and of course the 'words' don't convey the delivery and the 'jaw' =) but I always want to give a medal to anyone poking at george. He's like a dog with a bone...still hammers OJ evrytime he gets a chance. Luv it. =)

Blaming the feds for not getting aid to New Orleans sooner would be ok as long as the primary blame was on the local authorities. There was a break down all the way up the line from what I can tell but the bulk of it was the local ineptitudes.

NoJive, let me get this straight... you're not a fan of George W? LOL!!!

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

You are forgetting, Bugs, that the National Guard (which would normally be activated by a State Government in such an emergency) was active elsewhere...I wonder where

Now who was responsible for that?

Kind of hard to get stuff done, without the normal chain-of-command, manpower and vehicles that one needs, especially in an Emergency situation.

Of course, you can close your eyes to that, if you so choose. You've managed to close your eyes to alot of other stuff that Mr. Bush has done and caused. Like you saying "That's the plan, WebShaman. We are going to take the battle to Al Qaida in Iraq, and give them a foreign battleground to prevent them from striking us on our own soil".

Remember?

Well...what was that last warning for the NY subways (even if it does look to be a "false alarm")? Why does Mr. Bush insist that "around 10" terrorist plots on our soil were foiled (but goes on to say that they are mostly "classified")? Why do attacks by Al Qaida seem to be picking up Internationally, and not the opposite (as one would expect)?

I guess the "battleground" has somehow escaped the Iraqi borders. Strange thing, isn't it?

But then, I suppose you still think Iraq is going "well"

Sorry about distracting things here. Please carry on.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-12-2005 08:13)

Troop deployments in Iraq have very little to do with the Mayor and Governor not making timely decisions in a crisis of that magnitude. They were simply not prepared to handle the situation. I fear you're getting sucked into the propoganda on that one.

I do not deny that the feds share part of the blame, I'm just pointing out that the blame begins at the local level and works it way up in a case like this. The local level was out to lunch.

Am I smelling some hypocrisy on your part? What would you have said if Bush would have ignored a state's sovereignty and sent federal troops in without a request from the governor? Would you have been screaming of a power grab or some beginning stages of Bush declaring himself dictator?

Now to be fair, I will admit that I considered whether or not he should have done so in order to save lives. But the political fallout would have been tremendous had he done such a thing and I can certainly see how a sitting president would be reluctant to commit political suicide.


I'm getting the impression that you miss the banter on Iraq. I'll be quite honest with you that I got very burnt out on that topic and avoided those threads for a while now. I'm almost ashamed to admit that, but it just got too heated and it was bringing me down.

I've never felt you've understood my views on the war, particularly when I talk about the long term view, and it is clear you still don't. I've never said that things were going exactly as planned. I've made it abundantly clear that an undertaking of what was begun in Iraq would be fraught with problems and hardships for many years to come. Do you remember I told you this would not be over for a minimum of 5 years and more likely 10? The biggest problem I predicted would be avoiding our tendency to "cut and run". We're damn good at that maneuver.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Why do attacks by Al Qaida seem to be picking up Internationally, and not the opposite (as one would expect)?

---

Would you have expected that?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Am I smelling some hypocrisy on your part? What would you have said if Bush would have ignored a state's sovereignty and sent federal troops in without a request from the governor? Would you have been screaming of a power grab or some beginning stages of Bush declaring himself dictator?

---

Who said anything about sending in federal troops

I think you are confusing the issue.

The more I look at it, it is you who are "succumbing" to propaganda - the "normal" emergency plans couldn't work, Bugs - those normally revolve around the National Guard for such Emergencies. IRREGARDLESS of how the Mayor and Governor reacted/did not react, there was no way to impliment anything major. With what resources?

Maybe you can enlighten me as to how it should have worked. I'm very interested to hear it.

quote:

---

Would you have expected that?

---

Obviously.

That one wouldn't expect such, is more than a questionable position.

That you don't ask the obvious question, is puzzling. Why didn't we first go after Al Qaida and Bin Laden, and then turn our attention to the Middle East afterwards? WEll, we started off doing so...and then, somehow...got turned from our goal. Now we are embroiled in something that is turning more and more into a clusterf**k. Let me see...when was 9/11, Bugs? How many YEARS have now gone by, and the main perp is still on the loose? Seems to me that WWII didn't last as long as this...hmmm...

I mean, after teh Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we ran them right back to their Island...and forced them to unconditionally surrender. We didn't stop at the Philippines and decide that Australia needed to become more "free".

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I do not deny that the feds share part of the blame, I'm just pointing out that the blame begins at the local level and works it way up in a case like this. The local level was out to lunch.

---

Couldn't agree more with that.
It is important though, that we look at the impact of having our national gaurd overseas. I am not sure on the numbers, but it seems unaviodable that it impedes the response to this kind of natural disaster.

As far as the Iraq situation is concerned...having gone to Iraq, we could not expect things to unfold much differently than they have.

However, regardless of anyone's opinion whether we *should* be there or not, it still remians that we went there on entirely false premises, in a very clear case of bait and switch, and have accomplished next to nothing in our "war on terror".

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...the "normal" emergency plans couldn't work...

---

...because they were inadequate to begin with.

If the local authorities and the rest all the way up to FEMA had been properly prepared, the troop deployments in Iraq would not have prevented proper relief efforts from happening. I'm objecting to you boiling the problems in New Orleans down to troops in Iraq.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

It is important though, that we look at the impact of having our national gaurd overseas. I am not sure on the numbers, but it seems unaviodable that it impedes the response to this kind of natural disaster.

---

Certainly it is important to know what kind of impact exists. I am not sure of the numbers either. What I do know is that there were more than enough resources available to this country to provide relief to the victims. The primary reason it didn't happen faster and better was because of lack of planning and poor leadership, NOT a lack of national guard troops. Cosnider the fact that Mississippi was hit every bit as hard as Louisiana and did not suffer the same debacle.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

That one wouldn't expect such, is more than a questionable position.

---

It disturbs me that you would not understand Al Qaeda to that degree. They have suffered tremendously under our efforts in Afghanistan but to think that a few bombs can win the GWOT is just wrong. The only way they can be defeated is for the sources that feed their fanatacism to dry up. That requires years and years of effort on a wide range of activities. A democratic Iraq in the heart of the ME would be a great step in that direction. You either don't believe that to be true or don't understand how it could be.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

...and have accomplished next to nothing in our "war on terror".

---

I don't think it's possible to draw any such conclusion in such a short time frame. Why do you say this? If Iraq was not considered a threat to Al Qaeda, then why are they expending such efforts there?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

If the local authorities and the rest all the way up to FEMA had been properly prepared, the troop deployments in Iraq would not have prevented proper relief efforts from happening. I'm objecting to you boiling the problems in New Orleans down to troops in Iraq.

---

Now, hold on Bugs. I am not boiling everything down to the problems in New Orleans being because of the National Guard units being somewhere else (I never said they awere all in Iraq, either - I said overseas). However inadequate the planning and the lack of serious attention to the Levies (which of course played a role here, obviously) - even the best made plans can only work when there is the proper manpower, training, and equiptment to actually carry them out. The poorer the plan, the less the manpower, the less the training, and the less equiptment, the more disasterous the results.

Surely you are not denying this?

WHERE was the National Guard for New Orleans, Bugs? Why did Mr. Bush allow many of the units to return (after he decided later to mosey on down to New Orleans and get a gander at the spectacle)?

If you are going to try to play this down, you need to provide evidence to the contrary. I personally don't think you really and truly realize how thinly spread the American Military is at the moment (including the National Guard). New Orleans is a wake up call. Reports from the Pentagon mention that currently, the American Military is in danger of not being able to respond to another flash point effectively.

quote:

---

They have suffered tremendously under our efforts in Afghanistan but to think that a few bombs can win the GWOT is just wrong. The only way they can be defeated is for the sources that feed their fanatacism to dry up.

---

Suffered tremendously? Where are you getting your hard data? I haven't seen anything remotely resembling a reliable report on how Al Qaida has been affected. I do know that Bin Laden is still out there, and that he was mainly responsible for 9/11. We should have him by now. Hell, we should have had him a long time ago.

A few bombs? What has that got to do with hunting down Al Qaida and capturing (or confirming the death of) Bin Laden? Not much. It is a much greater blow, to capture Bin Laden first, then deal with the "clean up" - instead of creating new breeding grounds for Al Qaida to recruit from. And Iraq has become a breeding and recuiting ground, that is getting worse, not better, Bugs.

You really do not give the impression that you realize this.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

...and have accomplished next to nothing in our "war on terror".


I don't think it's possible to draw any such conclusion in such a short time frame. Why do you say this? If Iraq was not considered a threat to Al Qaeda, then why are they expending such efforts there?

---

Short time frame?! Bugs, when did Afghanistan start? It is not such a "short" time frame. Define short and long, please. As for the last part - Iraq is not a threat to Al Qaeda! It is a breeding ground! Why are they expending efforts there (and they are not "such" efforts, at least not that I can see - there is an insurection there, Bugs - that doesn't seem to have much to do with Al Qaida)? Quite simple - recruitment, training grounds (the newest reports indicate that Al Qaida has new training grounds in Iraq now) and a chance to sock it to Americans with very little threat of reprisal.

Responding to the NO Debacle;

1) FEMA, The National Guard, US Troops, The Coast guard, Black Hawk Helicopters, are not a "normal" response to US natural disasters. Fact: They are not used, as many hope they are, to be the first one's in.

2) The local city and state officials in N.O. failed to follow their own procedures. How many buses were under water?

3) The N.O. local officials responded with similar actions with Ivan as they did with Katrina. People were moved to the Superdome, with similar events of lawlessness. Hurricane Ivan, gave both the local city and state officials a "wake-up" call, which they did acknowledge flaws in their existing emergency procedures, but they did nothing to follow through with their proposed changes.

And one last idea. Yes there was submition of a 14 billion dollar public works program, to hopefully safeguard the N.O. area from impending category 5 hurricanes, as well as the impending storm surge. The problem with that is that even after they were re-buffed of the idea, based on cost, N.O. still did nothing extra to safeguard it's citizens.

The majority of N.O. is below sea level, and maybe the N.O. citizens did not know this fact(Yeah, right), but assuredly the local city, and state officials did.


And I agree. Their would be hell to pay if BUSH moved in without asking permission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "