How New Orleans Was Lost...

[Celumnaz]

Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush's Iraq war.

This is just plain stupid. Anyone who believes this is also ...just plain stupid.

822008[/snapback]

That about sums it up joc. Agree.

[Me_Again]

Celumnaz Posted Today, 01:44 PM

QUOTE(joc @ Sep 1 2005, 07:08 PM)

Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush's Iraq war.

This is just plain stupid. Anyone who believes this is also ...just plain stupid.

That about sums it up joc. Agree.

This is what is stupid , calling people stupid because you don't agree with their opionions ...When I first posted this topic I believed in what the author of the story was saying. It is a possibility that if we were not at war right now, the situation in New Orleans could have been handled differently But who's to say . I said I was stopping, putting the blame on the victims or on Bush because blame doesn't solve anything. I like Faedens quote about history being the judge. I'm sure that during WWII people were agreeing with Hitler and thought that he was correct in his war. Eventually, the truth will come out and set you free

in Light and Love to ALL, Me_Again

P.S. Faeden I don't know if you read my message to you in a different thread but I'll say it again...sometimes it is better to say nothing at all, especially to those who don't agree with you. The only person you can change is yourself. And BTW, I don't agree with everything you say, I just don't say it

[Faeden]

Joc I blame Bush because he is the leader, the man at the top. The authorities should be efficiently working together, isn’t that how its supposed to work? Since Bush is the leader he takes the brunt of the responsibility, as he is the one that should be giving the orders, he is the one that sent most of his troops and equipment to Iraq to an illegal war that most people around the world was saying NO to.

Its strange how when Bush messes up in front of everyone, people then try and take the responsibility from him by saying "Oh Bush was not in charge of that part of America, that was some other groups responsibility" One of the responsibility of a leader is to make sure all the different groups in your web of government are running efficiently and effectively, and that communication between all is in place, so that when a tragedy does happen it all goes as smoothly as possible, because when it comes to the safety of your own citizens there should be no room for error, let alone a cockup like this one, if the cells in a government cant work efficiently together then the government failed, and Bush is the head of that government.

Hi Me_again

I am sure you do not agree with me on lots of things its all good I am changing all the time, because I question everything, which is what helps one gain insight and learn Some people don’t question a thing, and never learn anything.

All the best

Faeden

Edited September 8, 2005 by Faeden

[Me_Again]

Faeden,

The people who look at the world through rainbow colored glasses understand what you are saying, you are against war. Others are not, that's just the way it is...There will be an answer, let it be I'm at work GTG 4 now

[Celumnaz]

This is what is stupid  , calling people stupid because you don't agree with their opionions

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupid

It's not because I disagree, it's because the original article is actually stupid. It contains outright lies, misguided perspective, and ill-concealed hatred.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Faden you are so anti bush, that it feels anti american. Bush is not the best president but he isn't the worst. You don't live here. So your comments are from the media. When you live here, then you will know for sure. Until then it is just speculation.

Edited September 8, 2005 by ericraven2003

[LarryOldtimer]

the federal government cannot go in without the okay of the state government.

This appears to be where one of the biggest problems seems to have been. The federal government was not capable of getting that message out. They were ravaged. In cases like this (in my opinion anyway) the men at the national level need to say, 'hang that for a joke, bugger legislation, these are real people in real danger,  we should start making the necisary arrangements now, just incase. Things do look pretty grim'

And I still don't know whay the soldiers where not sent in with food an water as well as guns.

And Props to the Policeman and The Fireman and the Medical staff who were/are there and also to volunteers working toward a solution as well as thoughs of you who have donated even in some small way to a worthy cause.

Faeden,

I can see that you are stating your opinion but unless you tone it down substantially, I will be forced to slip into mod mode. And I am not afraid to use the pointy stick.

832447[/snapback]

It is quite difficult for people not of the US to understand our laws, and more, our Constitution, which rules our laws, that is, our laws have to be in accord with our Constitution. The most important part in regard to Katrina is that what we are about is local control. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong either to the states, and if not taken formally by the states to the individual citizen (and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution limit powers of the state and local governments). Thus, there are significant limits to what the federal government can actually do, no matter how much those in the federal government want to do something when a Katrina or the like strikes. Basically, the local government has to have the first shot at matters not of a national security standpoint. If they fail, it then defaults to the state. Even then, if the state fails, the state legislature has to formally ask for federal intervention, before the President has the authority to use the military to maintain law and order, and certainly, that would have been part of any military answer to the problems caused by Katrina. A mayor of even the largest city does not have the legal authority to request such federal intervention! That is the law, and even the President has to obey it. Had Bush done otherwise, he most certainly would have been impeached, no matter any good intentions he had!

Much has been made of a "failure" of FEMA, but as you can see from the above, FEMA is a federal agency. Its very (lawful) role recognizes this. It is not a "take control" agency, but rather a coordinating one. One of the primary functions of FEMA is to assist state and local agencies in developing emergency response plans, and has done a very good job of doing this. FEMA, in fact, does not have the personnel, trained for or otherwise, to "take over". FEMA does not itself have food and water stores to distribute. The primary care and aid giver is the American Red Cross, authorized to be this by an act of Congress in 1905. FEMA collects and shares data regarding the location of shelter, and stores of food, water and other necessities, but does not own them, and can't distribute them. There is no fleet of large trucks (lorries to you in England) which FEMA either owns or controls. A second primary function of FEMA is to make quickly low interest loans to people who have lost or damaged property due to a disaster. This is to tide them over until insurance claims are paid by the insurance companies. It also will implement or coordinate implementation of other, mostly financial, federal level programs.

I see many who see these levels of government as being encumbering when disasters strike, with excessive delay, and you and they are right. If local and/or state government fails, it certainly adds significant duration until emergency supplies are to be had by victims. The plain fact is, this is how a vast majority of US citizens want it to be . . . not the time lost before supplies can be furnished, but the local and state control issues. We Americans are proud , and justly so, of having local and state control. Our Constitution, as mentioned, has local and state control as its very basis. Please note that when Governor Blanko was asked why she didn't ask for federal aid sooner, she replied that she didn't want to give the federal government control of any part of her state. I would suggest that any other state governor wouldn't want to either. I certainly thought and think that she should have done so earlier, when it became evident that the local and state governments had indeed failed in their duty to their people, but nevertheless, the state legislature considered relinquishment of such federal control and rejected it. (the state legislature actually has to meet and pass legislation asking for "take control" federal government action. Only when the legislature is unable to meet does that authority pass to the governor.)

We are a nation of law, and that law does in fact has as its very basic level, state and local control, and protection from the federal government taking over whenever it wishes. We like it that way too, the vast majority of us, and are willing to put up with whatever we have to put up with in able to retain it. Many of us will complain loudly when plans go awry, but a vast majority will still always vote to keep state and local control, no matter how much it inconveniences us.

Edited September 8, 2005 by LarryOldtimer

[Faeden]

LOL I found something that sums it all up, you have to love Sky News.

Oh and Eric I am anti Saddam too that doesn’t and didn’t make me Anti Iraq or Iraqi.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Faeden

[Apparition]

Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush's Iraq war.

This is just plain stupid. Anyone who believes this is also ...just plain stupid.

822008[/snapback]

That about sums it up joc. Agree.

833164[/snapback]

I agree as well. It all sounds extremely contradictory to me.

Morons: 'It took too long for them to help people in one of the largest natural disasters in our countries history.'

It was ALOT of problems and ALOT of damage. If he went in right away, you same people would have titled this exact post with this quote instead.

Morons if he went right in: 'Bush went into New Orleans without a proper plan!'.

Just give it a rest and quit looking for sh** to complain and point fingers.

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

Same exact thing happened on 9/11.

Morons: "He just sat there with the kids!"

Although if he got up and went to take care of business you damn well know it would have been this nonsense

Morons if he got up instead: "He left those kids while he was reading to them! What an evil b******!"

Makes me sick.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Apparition

[LarryOldtimer]

Had Bush sent in federal troops to maintain law and order in New Orleans, without state legislature requesting it, he would haver seriously broken the law and would have been subject, and reasonably so, to impeachment. Those who are carping so much that "Bush didn't do enough," would be the first in line to impeach him.

[Apparition]

Had Bush sent in federal troops to maintain law and order in New Orleans, without state legislature requesting it, he would haver seriously broken the law and would have been subject, and reasonably so, to impeachment.  Those who are carping so much that "Bush didn't do enough," would be the first in line to impeach him. 

834089[/snapback]

Exactly. Thank you for posting that info. I didnt want to go into any of that since i didnt know all the details and did not want to be flamed for mis-info. Thanks Larry.

[Fluffybunny]

Had Bush sent in federal troops to maintain law and order in New Orleans, without state legislature requesting it, he would haver seriously broken the law and would have been subject, and reasonably so, to impeachment.  Those who are carping so much that "Bush didn't do enough," would be the first in line to impeach him. 

834089[/snapback]

Very true...No matter what a person in charge does, there will always be the ability to bash them for it. Had Clinton been in office and done the same exact thing, the republicans would have bashed him for taking too long. It is just rediculous the way those kinds of things work.

I love how supporters of Bush (or Clinton or whoever) tell folks to lay off, that they did the best they could given the situation; yet when the table is turned there is indignant outrage at the lack of leadership, or nazi-like marshall law...

I am so glad I am neither party...

[Faeden]

Apparition! you cant compare 9/11 with this hurricane, the people in 9/11 where all dead, there where 1000s of survivors in the aftermath of the hurricane, which is the point many are trying to get through. Using 9/11 and Katrina for that argument is null and void.

All the best

Faeden

[sanchera1978]

LOL I loved that pic. Go Sky.

larry who has the authority to declare marshall law?

[sanchera1978]

But Faedan to be fair to Bush he as a person isnt directly responsible for the slow response. Mr. Brown the FEMA director is however responsible. I dont care what excuses people make up, 5 days to have people waiting for real help is unexcusable.

[rachelkleypassparrow]

I was born and live in the UK; however, I have family in the US and not far from the texarkana border, which includes Louisiana.

I was shocked to say the least; not so much by the devastation of the hurricane. The Thailand tsunami (please correct me to it's exact name) proved the destructive powers of the sea.

What shocked me was that when 9/11 happened and the tsunami-aid was there almost immediately and the bodies quickly recovered before they could decompose.

What is going on in New Orleans, or what is left of it-I asked myself? Was I looking at a state that was part of the 52 states of the US, or was I looking at a third world nation in despair.

Now, tonight on our cable news network-one of the news channels on cable. Eleven days later and bodies are rotting in the streets. What about thier loved ones who survived. Who is going to break it to them that they were allowed to lay in the open sun and excuse me, but rot.

I am being open and frank here as a child I am a survivor of a killer tornado, which nearly wiped out our town and killed a friend of mine. That stays with me even now and at least action was quickly taken.

What about the children of Katrina? At least, I had the knowledge that my friends body wasn't allowed to rot, but was dealt with quickly and with respect. Who will tell the orphans of Katrina the truth about thier parents when they are old enough to find out the truth for themselves.

Too much money on the war; and not enough on sea defences. Shame.

My heart goes out to all the survivors and the children not just of Katrina, but everywhere that has to live with the tragedy of seeing thier loved ones lying in the streets.

Is Bush thinking of the children? There are many orphans and I pray that most of the children are reunited with thier parents like my brother and I were reunited with ours and our baby sister.

love, light and peace to everybody here at the forum

[StalingradK]

... AH, scary thoughts, MAKE IT GO AWAY PRECIOUS! rahhhhhh. And the situation could have been handled a lot better by Bush and the Admin..

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Apparition! you cant compare 9/11 with this hurricane, the people in 9/11 where all dead, there where 1000s of survivors in the aftermath of the hurricane, which is the point many are trying to get through. Using 9/11 and Katrina for that argument is null and void.

All the best

Faeden

834098[/snapback]

911 Was in small areas. Easier deal with. The hurricane affected 190 miles of coast line. That is a little harder to deal with.

[StalingradK]

52 States? Subtract 2 from that number dude

[Kismit]

Faeden,

I would like to make clear my original comment toward your posts, It is not your stance which is the issue. And It is certainly not you that is the issue. On the internet it is difficult for anyone to guage how we are actually feeling when we post, because facial expressions are limited to this sort of thing. So it is allways better to address the issues and not attack the person. You still get the same message across but without making people defensive.

Larry it is not difficult for me to understand your laws. I read them I understood what you were saying. However it does not change the fact that the first call to action by the state government when they were capable was, Soldiers with Guns and a shoot to kill order, not Armed Soldiers with food and water.

In times of a disaster like this. The President is yes answerable to his nation, if the law states that he could be impeached. Yes maybe he should abide by the law. But if your people were dying, wouldn't you face the impeachment charge later and at least ready the troops. I would.

As I have mentioned earlier the New Zealand Government could of had our troops in place within the first 24 hours. With food and water and medical aid. This could have been a handy loophole for the president to use, I think.

George Bush's first choice after 9/11 was to start an actual war against terror, which involves Guns and bombs and death and dimemberment. He never swayed from this, that was the choice he thought best. I won't claim to know the reason behind it. But I find it interesting that his first reaction to helping the people of New Orleans was also one of violent means. I just wonder surely there must be other ways of handling situations that don't actually involve shooting and killing people.

History will judge George Bush I do not need to, Me Again said it well when she said that there must have been people around who thought Hitler was doing the right thing at the time. And there where, lot's of them. These days they are considered the lunatic fringe.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Kismit

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

LOL I found something that sums it all up, you have to love Sky News.

Oh and Eric I am anti Saddam too that doesn’t and didn’t make me Anti Iraq or Iraqi.

834066[/snapback]

How about" Faden one of the worst disasters to hit the UM forums."lol

Sorry couldn't help mystelf.

Yes. well it might be better if you do learn to help yourself.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Kismit

[Apparition]

Wasnt a comparison of the situation kiddo. Simply pointing out that no matter what certain people will blame the same person over and over no matter what the outcome.

In fact you pointing out the differences in them just proves that point futher, thanks.

[Fluffybunny]

One thing I just found on Snopes.com was about this photo:

With the thousands of people that did not have the ability or resources to be able to get out of the area(How many folks do not have a vehicle?), it is sad to think that there were hundreds of school buses fueled up and ready to drive people out of the area that just ended up getting flooded and destroyed.

How many people have been killed, that could have been saved? I do not know and it is going to take some time to be able to get an idea of how many people died. Regardless it is a horrible event. I do not know if the local government did not realize the seriousness of the coming storm and therefore didn't bother to draw together every resource available to get people out.

I think in the future many people are going to have to answer some very serious questions in regards to their choices made during the time before the storm.

Very very sad...

[LarryOldtimer]

LOL I loved that pic. Go Sky. 

larry who has the authority to declare marshall law?

834115[/snapback]

Simple enough question. Martial Law is just fancy words for "temporary military rule". The concept of civil rights goes out the window when this happens. So, someone who has command of troops is the answer. That would be either the Governor (with National Guard troops, which he/she controls) or the President of the US, since he/she is Commander in Chief of all the regulary military forces, and National Guard forces which have been called to active duty. These would be the legal authorities. In time of extreme emergency situations, martial law has been declared and enforced by other military officers, but I am somewhat doubtful of the legality of that. Probably only OK if approved by the proper civilian authorities after the fact.

[Celumnaz]

I feel better. The ppl that blame bush are ppl that think there's 52 states, think marshal law has to be over a whole state, needs pictures to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy... but they have the audacity without substance to still hate Bush (and maybe even America.. just a little...) Better for a laugh than M. Moore!