Discussion:
ot: katrina and the war.
(too old to reply)
ray o'hara
2005-09-02 00:55:14 UTC
Permalink
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?


from a news piece by neil irwin

New Orleans is underwater, and its future is uncertain -- as is that of the
$49 billion in goods, 60 percent of U.S. grain exports, and 26 percent of
the nation's natural gas supply and crude oil that flow through nearby ports
each year.

"The Mississippi River is the aorta of the American economy, and New Orleans
is the access point to it," said Al DeLattre, a supply-chain specialist with
consulting firm Accenture Ltd.
The damage might even be felt at the breakfast table. New Orleans warehouses
hold about a quarter of the nation's raw coffee, 211 million pounds.
Concerns that importers will have difficulty rerouting coffee shipments and
that large amounts of inventory have been lost pushed the price of coffee
for December delivery up to $1.01 a pound yesterday on the New York Board of
Trade, an increase of more than 3 cents, after gains Monday and Tuesday.

The sugar Americans add to their coffee could get more expensive too;
Department of Agriculture officials are sufficiently concerned about tight
sugar supplies because of Katrina that they raised import quotas on refined
sugar on Tuesday.

Exporters of U.S. goods, especially farmers in the Midwest, may have the
most to lose if New Orleans area ports are out of service for a prolonged
period. The harvest is just beginning -- the time when grain and other major
commodities for export are carried by barge down the Mississippi River, then
deposited in cargo ships to be carried overseas.
Exporters of manufactured goods might simply reroute and ship goods out of
Houston or Tampa. Agricultural exporters have fewer options in shipping
corn, wheat or soybeans. Moving the crops by train might cost up to five
times as much, and even then, other ports often lack the specialized
warehouses and equipment needed to handle the crops. If it takes more than a
few weeks to fix the ports, a glut of grain and widespread spoilage could
yield a disastrous season for farmers.

"If this is a week-long problem, it's probably not too damaging," said J.B.
Penn, undersecretary of agriculture for farm and foreign agricultural
services. "But if it's much longer, then it's a real problem."



back to my bitchin.
it will take more than a week. i think we all realize that.

an economic downturn means fewer taxes, fewer taxes means the deficit will
grow larger. that will use more money to just pay interest, the fact is that
the war is using more all the time{$200 billion so far} how will we pay for
iraq and clean up when we have less coming and we were borowing literally
like there is no tomorrow.
people see us make great efforts to help other countries now see the
government doing nothing for our own. that may be unfair and untrue but it
is the perception. the war is going to become a major domestic issue.


the u.s is at a crisis point and i have no faith in the chimpler to rise up
to the occasion.
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-02 05:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
the u.s is at a crisis point and i have no faith in the chimpler to rise up
to the occasion.
It is interesting to notice how between two adversaries (Mother Nature and
Saddam Hussein) he managed to attack the one WITHOUT weapons of mass
destruction. ^__^

The day that the damage due to the increase in heavy weather phenomena beats
the economic costs of the Kyoto Pact we could sound a gong or something.
Epi Watkins
2005-09-02 05:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by ray o'hara
the u.s is at a crisis point and i have no faith in the chimpler to rise
up
Post by ray o'hara
to the occasion.
It is interesting to notice how between two adversaries (Mother Nature and
Saddam Hussein) he managed to attack the one WITHOUT weapons of mass
destruction. ^__^
The day that the damage due to the increase in heavy weather phenomena beats
the economic costs of the Kyoto Pact we could sound a gong or something.
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.

Epi

----
Sometimes, you need to read past the headlines.
Not just literally, but everywhere. It would
really help me out.
----

http://www.curlesneck.com
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-02 06:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.

But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".

Let's hope that, like after 9/11, the actual disaster will bring some sense.
Epi Watkins
2005-09-02 06:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
Let's hope that, like after 9/11, the actual disaster will bring some sense.
One of the conservative talk-show hosts was getting upset with people
talking about global warming, and hurricanes. He made the point that
the hurricane didn't do anything to New Orleans anyway. It was the
lake. Uhmm...ok...

Epi

----
Sometimes, you need to read past the headlines.
Not just literally, but everywhere. It would
really help me out.
----

http://www.curlesneck.com
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-02 07:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Epi Watkins
One of the conservative talk-show hosts was getting upset with people
talking about global warming, and hurricanes. He made the point that
the hurricane didn't do anything to New Orleans anyway. It was the
lake. Uhmm...ok...
One could use the argument to free some guy from the death row: it was not
him to kill the other poor soul - it was the bullet ^__^
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 11:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
Yes, oh dear me, mustn't use the death of hundreds of innocent people to
make a cheap, fuckwitted political point...
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
...and yet, here is the cheap, fuckwitted political point.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-02 12:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
...and yet, here is the cheap, fuckwitted political point.
I agree that it is cheap - no need to use much political acume on this one.
Alan Bernardo
2005-09-02 20:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
Of course the current administration would support this. We pay taxes so
that in times of crisis the government can provide monetary, swift support.
What the administration hopes is that this apparent moral stand of "lets not
make this tragedy a platform (pun) for political badgering. What they hope
is that if this doesn't happen, the total ineptitude of the administration
will be forgotten once the storm has passed (pun II).

It's all rather pitiful, that the president, while wanting all Americans to
be honest and admit responsibility, refuses to do the same.

Alanb
ray o'hara
2005-09-02 20:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Bernardo
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
Of course the current administration would support this. We pay taxes so
that in times of crisis the government can provide monetary, swift support.
What the administration hopes is that this apparent moral stand of "lets not
make this tragedy a platform (pun) for political badgering. What they hope
is that if this doesn't happen, the total ineptitude of the administration
will be forgotten once the storm has passed (pun II).
It's all rather pitiful, that the president, while wanting all Americans to
be honest and admit responsibility, refuses to do the same.
Alanb
bush has never made a mistake.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 13:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.

Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?

Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?

Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.

Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Let's hope that, like after 9/11, the actual disaster will bring some sense.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 14:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
He's been pre-debunked in this instance. The actual numbers:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

...clearly show that hurricanes are less numerous and weaker than they
were in previous decades.

The only thing that's clearly growing in intensity is the dumbass
rhetoric of the treehuggers, and their disgusting proclivity to exploit
tragedy for political gain.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
IIRC, it wasn't "built" below sea level, but the land has a serious
subsidence problem - and the silting of the Mississippi delta has been
raising the waterway. As the land goes down and the waters go up,
levees have been necessary to ... well, you get the picture.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 15:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
...clearly show that hurricanes are less numerous and weaker than they
were in previous decades.
...The fact that the 2005 season will show an hurricane activity from
***180% to 270%*** above the average being a side note, while the fact that,
since 1995, all the season except two had been above the average not even
worth mentioning...

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 16:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
...clearly show that hurricanes are less numerous and weaker than they
were in previous decades.
...The fact that the 2005 season will show an hurricane activity from
***180% to 270%*** above the average being a side note, while the fact that,
since 1995, all the season except two had been above the average not even
worth mentioning...
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html
<laughter>

I wonder why they decided to exclude data prior to 1950 from these
percentage calculations?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-04 10:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
<laughter>
I wonder why they decided to exclude data prior to 1950 from these
percentage calculations?
Maybe because prior 1950 the technical means to register hurricane
activities (like, you know, SATELLITES) where more primitive, and so the
data gathered were based on empyrical expericence - thus not totally
reilable by modern standards. Which is, BTW, actually the case. And, please,
spare me the "cite?" stunt - put your back in gear and do your own research
like I did, if you want confirmation. You could ***even*** find facts that
support your point of view.
ray o'hara
2005-09-04 12:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
<laughter>
I wonder why they decided to exclude data prior to 1950 from these
percentage calculations?
Maybe because prior 1950 the technical means to register hurricane
activities (like, you know, SATELLITES) where more primitive, and so the
data gathered were based on empyrical expericence - thus not totally
reilable by modern standards. Which is, BTW, actually the case. And, please,
spare me the "cite?" stunt - put your back in gear and do your own research
like I did, if you want confirmation. You could ***even*** find facts that
support your point of view.
even when gifty gets his "cite" he disputes twists and turns. so its a
waste of time.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-04 12:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
I wonder why they decided to exclude data prior to 1950 from these
percentage calculations?
Maybe because prior 1950 the technical means to register hurricane
activities (like, you know, SATELLITES) where more primitive, and so the
data gathered were based on empyrical expericence - thus not totally
reilable by modern standards. Which is, BTW, actually the case.
Nice try, but if you're trying to prove that "there are more hurricanes
these days," you don't need any fancy space-based hardware, you just
need to *count them*. And deciding to eliminate from your counting
process some of the most active hurricane periods in recent history and
then claiming that hurricanes are on the increase compared to the
"quiet" periods somebody cherry-picked ... well, this looks kinda
disingenuous.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
And, please,
spare me the "cite?" stunt - put your back in gear and do your own research
like I did, if you want confirmation. You could ***even*** find facts that
support your point of view.
I don't have to "find facts." I don't have a claim on the table. You
do.

If you want to argue that (a) hurricanes are actually increasing in
numbers (or severity), and (b) that this increase is actually being
caused by "global warming," it's up to *you* to present your facts.

But no more of this weak-assed bullshit that relies on carefully-chosen
data to reach a carefully-chosen conclusion.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-04 13:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Nice try, but if you're trying to prove that "there are more hurricanes
Failed try, since you obviously did NO research at all on the matter
(research, at the very least, on *scientific* sites, not where people get up
in the morning looking about how to write an article with a "How Bush will
weasel away from this one too" theme).
Post by Giftzwerg
these days," you don't need any fancy space-based hardware, you just
need to *count them*.
Not at all. First, the problem with hurricanes is not only a growth in
number, but also in *strenght*. Should the average number of hurricanes be
halved, only to have two or three Katrinas every year, things will look ugly
anyway. Second, hurricanes are, and were, counted since the very first
colonies in the Americas, around 1500. But what matters in a problem of
"Man's impact on global climate" are the changes to global climate started
when Man *actively* started to have an impact on it - i.e. around the age of
Industrial Revolution. Third, as meteorologists well know, radical climatic
changes may happen in a very, very short time. A build up of favorable
conditions over centuries could well fluorish in a radical change over a
bunch of *years*.

So, even if a cyclic increase and decrease of hurricane activity is a known
fact, if there is a reasonable suspect that human's activities are
*exponentially* impacting the global climate *and* you see a steady increase
in weather patterns disruptions over a period of a decade, AT THE VERY LEAST
you should do some serious research on the matter. SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, not empty blathering based on political alignment or need to found
merry wars.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-04 14:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Nice try, but if you're trying to prove that "there are more hurricanes
Failed try, since you obviously did NO research at all on the matter
(research, at the very least, on *scientific* sites, not where people get up
in the morning looking about how to write an article with a "How Bush will
weasel away from this one too" theme).
I'm not interested in "doing research." I'm not trying to prove
anything.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
these days," you don't need any fancy space-based hardware, you just
need to *count them*.
Not at all. First, the problem with hurricanes is not only a growth in
number, but also in *strenght*.
Ah, so having failed miserably to show any increase in hurricane
numbers, you're now falling back on a claim that the severity is
increasing?

Next you'll be citing the ever-increasing monetary damages from
hurricanes as "evidence" that The Sky Is Falling.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Second, hurricanes are, and were, counted since the very first
colonies in the Americas, around 1500.
Yes. They were. And I have yet to see any evidence that the numbers
are increasing over this 500 year sample period.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But what matters in a problem of
"Man's impact on global climate" are the changes to global climate started
when Man *actively* started to have an impact on it - i.e. around the age of
Industrial Revolution.
Uhm, so any chance you'll be showing figures detailing how the numbers
(or severity) of hurricanes has increased since the start of the
industrial revolution?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Third, as meteorologists well know, radical climatic
changes may happen in a very, very short time. A build up of favorable
conditions over centuries could well fluorish in a radical change over a
bunch of *years*.
<laughter>

Ah, so perhaps these catastrophic changes will occur "real soon now?"
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
So, even if a cyclic increase and decrease of hurricane activity is a known
fact, if there is a reasonable suspect that human's activities are
*exponentially* impacting the global climate *and* you see a steady increase
in weather patterns disruptions over a period of a decade, AT THE VERY LEAST
you should do some serious research on the matter. SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, not empty blathering based on political alignment or need to found
merry wars.
<shrug>

People are doing SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH on this subject. They just
haven't found been able to remotely show any practical impact of human
activities on climate. And specifically, they haven't found any
evidence whatsoever that hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities.

And lose the accusations of "empty blathering," eh? The people most
responsible for the ridiculous politization of science are *your* little
pals on the left, who've been slanting facts and promulgating junk
science relentlessly on this issue.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-04 16:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
I'm not interested in "doing research." I'm not trying to prove
anything.
Sure it shows ^__^
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
these days," you don't need any fancy space-based hardware, you just
need to *count them*.
Not at all. First, the problem with hurricanes is not only a growth in
number, but also in *strenght*.
Ah, so having failed miserably to show any increase in hurricane
numbers, you're now falling back on a claim that the severity is
increasing?
In the real world I already pointed out in this thread how hurricanes are
showing a stead above average activity, both in numbers and in strenght,
since 1995. In the last post I simply pointed out to the very basic fact
that, even without the increase in *number*, the increase in *strenght* is
still a dangerous thing - maybe even more than an increase in number.
Post by Giftzwerg
Next you'll be citing the ever-increasing monetary damages from
hurricanes as "evidence" that The Sky Is Falling.
Actually no - except if you live in N.O. where the Sky, actually, Just Fell.
However, monetary damage at any level is not something I would take over,
let's say, a night with Jessica Alba.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Second, hurricanes are, and were, counted since the very first
colonies in the Americas, around 1500.
Yes. They were. And I have yet to see any evidence that the numbers
are increasing over this 500 year sample period.
This is understandable, since, as for your words, you are not interested in
doing research.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But what matters in a problem of
"Man's impact on global climate" are the changes to global climate started
when Man *actively* started to have an impact on it - i.e. around the age of
Industrial Revolution.
Uhm, so any chance you'll be showing figures detailing how the numbers
(or severity) of hurricanes has increased since the start of the
industrial revolution?
I could, yes, as I pointed you to sources of data for all the previous
topics in this thread. And any chance that ***for once*** you will do your
homework show figures ***proving*** the contrary? Put up or shut up.
Post by Giftzwerg
Ah, so perhaps these catastrophic changes will occur "real soon now?"
Maybe they are already occuring, this is the fear (I'm feeling a little
ridicolous to feed you with the very basics of this debate since global
warming become a widespread debate, but maybe you live on Uranus or
something - beside I keep forgotting that you are not interested in
researching facts).
Post by Giftzwerg
People are doing SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH on this subject. They just
haven't found been able to remotely show any practical impact of human
activities on climate. And specifically, they haven't found any
evidence whatsoever that hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities.
Cite?

(I'm expecially curious about this one, since you admitted that doing
research doesn't interests you. BTW, just now there are a lot of scientific
models available around showing why human activities are increasing global
warming; the main debate is not on this issue at all: the main debate is
about *how much* these activities are impacting and will impact weather
patterns - exp. now that China and India are growing fast, and will soon add
a big contribution to the phenomenom)
Post by Giftzwerg
And lose the accusations of "empty blathering," eh? The people most
responsible for the ridiculous politization of science are *your* little
pals on the left
Actually I do speak for myself, as I always do, and I'm not particulary
leftist.
Post by Giftzwerg
who've been slanting facts and promulgating junk
science relentlessly on this issue.
...While when you find that WMD in Iraq had the solidity of aliens from vega
"s*it happens" ^__^
Giftzwerg
2005-09-04 18:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Ah, so having failed miserably to show any increase in hurricane
numbers, you're now falling back on a claim that the severity is
increasing?
In the real world I already pointed out in this thread how hurricanes are
showing a stead above average activity, both in numbers and in strenght,
since 1995.
...except that you based your "average" on a relatively quiet period,
which demolishes your point utterly. Compare the last decade to the
1940s, for instance, and you'll find that there are significantly fewer
and weaker storms.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In the last post I simply pointed out to the very basic fact
that, even without the increase in *number*, the increase in *strenght* is
still a dangerous thing - maybe even more than an increase in number.
You haven't shown either. Sorry.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Yes. They were. And I have yet to see any evidence that the numbers
are increasing over this 500 year sample period.
This is understandable, since, as for your words, you are not interested in
doing research.
Precisely. It's your theory. You prove it.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Uhm, so any chance you'll be showing figures detailing how the numbers
(or severity) of hurricanes has increased since the start of the
industrial revolution?
I could, yes, as I pointed you to sources of data for all the previous
topics in this thread.
You pointed me to a single source which claimed that the current year
*might* be a very active hurricane year, if someone's *prediction* pans
out.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
And any chance that ***for once*** you will do your
homework show figures ***proving*** the contrary? Put up or shut up.
I did that at the very outset, providing this chart:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Which demonstrates unequivocally - and using 150 years of data - that
the notion of "more, and more powerful" hurricanes is just bullshit.

But - again - it's not up to me to prove your theories for you. Or to
disprove them. That's your job.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
People are doing SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH on this subject. They just
haven't found been able to remotely show any practical impact of human
activities on climate. And specifically, they haven't found any
evidence whatsoever that hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities.
Cite?
Cite what? I'm saying there are *no* studies which have found
compelling evidence that, "hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
(I'm expecially curious about this one, since you admitted that doing
research doesn't interests you. BTW, just now there are a lot of scientific
models available around showing why human activities are increasing global
warming; the main debate is not on this issue at all: the main debate is
about *how much* these activities are impacting and will impact weather
patterns - exp. now that China and India are growing fast, and will soon add
a big contribution to the phenomenom)
Oh, please. The most elaborate "models" in the world can't tell me with
the slightest degree of precision if its gonna rain *next weekend*! And
you're proposing that we use these daffy, worthless "models" as a basis
to wreck the global economy?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-05 04:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
...except that you based your "average"
It is not mine, it is the official "average" used by NOAA - the same agency
you took data from in this thread.
Post by Giftzwerg
on a relatively quiet period,
Well, the last 25 years are the period of "high activity" as for the normal
hurricane activity cycles (spans of high activity followed by spans of low
activity) - the last ten being an "exceptional high period" within an
already high activity one. It is all to there be learned on sixth grade
school books, beside on the NOAA site.
Post by Giftzwerg
which demolishes your point utterly. Compare the last decade to the >
1940s, for instance, and you'll find that there are significantly fewer
Post by Giftzwerg
and weaker storms.
Er, you are talking of the 1940s, right? Well within the Industrial age, I
mean.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In the last post I simply pointed out to the very basic fact
that, even without the increase in *number*, the increase in *strenght* is
still a dangerous thing - maybe even more than an increase in number.
You haven't shown either. Sorry.
Uhm, I *think* that your national broadcasting channels are showing what an
hurricane making landfall at cat. 4 strenght (your words again) can do. Try
to turn on the TV.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
This is understandable, since, as for your words, you are not interested in
doing research.
Precisely. It's your theory. You prove it.
Please, you already ridiculed yourself enough in this thread. The theory is
not mine - it is the theory that led 153 countries to ratify the Kyoto
Protocols - you know, the ones that the leaders of a nation just nuked by
Mother Nature refused to ratify. All the data is openly available on the
internet: point to the site of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change", for example, to find what is currently endorsed not only by this
panel but by the national science academies of ***all*** the G8 members
(that includes the USA, should you do not know what the "G8" is). I.e. that
human activities are contributing to increase Global Warming (exponentially
since the last 50 years) with a projected rise in temperature within this
Century ranging from 1,5C° to 5,8C° - the results being significant
alteration of sea levels, shift towards a tropical climate (with the
migration of tropical diseases in temperate, populate areas et al.), and
major distruptions in weather patterns.

Beside, you could even find some ***serious*** objection to this theory,
just now voiced only by a small minority of scientists, but at least based
on their professional opinions and not some political bump in the head.
Post by Giftzwerg
You pointed me to a single source which claimed that the current year
*might* be a very active hurricane year, if someone's *prediction* pans
out.
The current year is ***already*** a very active hurricane year - the
remaining question being if we are going for the record.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
And any chance that ***for once*** you will do your
homework show figures ***proving*** the contrary? Put up or shut up.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Which demonstrates unequivocally - and using 150 years of data - that
the notion of "more, and more powerful" hurricanes is just bullshit.
Yeah, I saw that chart - the one you do seem to cling to like a lifeboat.
Well, maybe you missed the fact that the chart shows hurricane activity for
every decade ***except in the last line*** where it shows the activity for
2001-2004 - i.e. only four years, not ten - so, even a proportional
comparization shows that we actually are in one of the stormiest decades
ever.
Post by Giftzwerg
But - again - it's not up to me to prove your theories for you. Or to
disprove them. That's your job.
Good to know, since this is exactly what I do. BTW, science is not always
made of ***exact*** things. Sometimes a scientific research just shows that
we should be worried about something, and that more in-depth studies are
counseiled - like when spots appears on your nose, and it could only be bad
food, but it is more prudent to invest some time and money to check that it
is not somerhing worse.

Which, BTW, brings us back to all the spending done for a war whose "reason
d'etre" was never there at all in the first place. At least, regarding
Global Warming, a ***sane doubt*** remains.
Post by Giftzwerg
Cite what? I'm saying there are *no* studies which have found
compelling evidence that, "hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities."
Uhm, the quality of Beano Almanacs must have slipped in recent times, if
they give to you such fluff - since increase in ***global weather patterns
disruptions with increased heavy weather activity*** is a theory that not
only just now benefits of the general consensus of the scientific community,
but, as I told, is ***only one*** of the problems that we could face in the
next century. Again, there is a minority of qualified scientists contesting
these conclusions - but I see that you weren't able to put together not even
a short summary of what their objections are.
Post by Giftzwerg
Oh, please. The most elaborate "models" in the world can't tell me with
the slightest degree of precision if its gonna rain *next weekend*! And
you're proposing that we use these daffy, worthless "models" as a basis
to wreck the global economy?
Some estimates are saying that Katrina could put a dent of up to 4% in the
internal GDP of the United States. However, again you do not seem to have
the slightest clue about what meteorological sciences are about. The
statistical variability of meteorological phenomena on the short term time
range is very high, and it is a given fact that probably we will never be
able to predict exactly what will happen next week. But, on a very long
timespan, you can project averages, given the average conditions and the
projected changes. So, for example, you can safely says that, on the
average, in Irleand rains more than in Italy - and that, should a given
transformation of general climate happen, it is very well possibile that one
day Italy will be as rainy as Irlead, even if it will be still difficult to
predict what the weather will be on a given day.

Sorry Giftz, but like with that other fiasco, when you tried to "explain"
what WWII online was about to two people who had played the game whle you
never launched the exe, I counseil that you keep on the safe side, and give
opinions only about things you have ***real*** knowledge about.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-05 11:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
...except that you based your "average"
It is not mine, it is the official "average" used by NOAA - the same agency
you took data from in this thread.
There's nothing "official" about it, it's simply the data they presented
to examine one very narrow question - their *estimate* of the number of
storms that might be expected this year. *You* are making a
fantastically bigger argument based on this data - that hurricanes are
increasing in numbers and severity because of global warming caused by
human activities over a multi-century period.

I'm pointing out that this "official" data uses a *very* small sample
base - only 55 years - and that much of this 55 years was characterized
by relatively low hurricane activity when compared - properly - with a
larger data set.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
on a relatively quiet period,
Well, the last 25 years are the period of "high activity"
<laughter>

You mean, as opposed to the 25 years directly previous? One wonders
from this is you have the slightest conception of what the word
"average" means?

And you're full of shit here, in any event. Check:

http://tinyurl.com/apeqf

"The years 1995 to 2000 experienced the highest level of North Atlantic
hurricane activity in the reliable record. Compared with the generally
low activity of the previous 24 years (1971 to 1994), the past 6 years
have seen a doubling of overall activity for the whole basin, a 2.5-fold
increase in major hurricanes (50 meters per second), and a fivefold
increase in hurricanes affecting the Caribbean. The greater activity
results from simultaneous increases in North Atlantic sea-surface
temperatures and decreases in vertical wind shear. Because these changes
exhibit a multidecadal time scale, the present high level of hurricane
activity is likely to persist for an additional ~10 to 40 years. The
shift in climate calls for a reevaluation of preparedness and mitigation
strategies."

See that "compared with the generally low activity of the previous 24
years?" I guess you meteorologists can't get your stories straight even
about something so obvious, eh?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
as for the normal
hurricane activity cycles (spans of high activity followed by spans of low
activity) - the last ten being an "exceptional high period" within an
already high activity one. It is all to there be learned on sixth grade
school books, beside on the NOAA site.
<laughter>

Or, expressed another - equally valid - way, the current situation is
"entirely normal and quiet," and the previous years were "exceptionally,
incredibly, outstandingly quiet."

[I suppose you're the kind of guy who doesn't see anything funny about
condoms only coming in "Large," "Xtra-Large," and "Hugamongous" sizes,
eh?]
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
which demolishes your point utterly. Compare the last decade to the >
1940s, for instance, and you'll find that there are significantly fewer
Post by Giftzwerg
and weaker storms.
Er, you are talking of the 1940s, right? Well within the Industrial age, I
mean.
Exactly. So to show us *anything*, you'll have to present numbers,
charts, and graphs that go back well beyond the start of the Industrial
Age, and make comparisons between storm activity *then* and storm
activity *now*.

Are we any closer to seeing you produce this make-or-break data? Should
I just stamp this whole affair "Bullshit Until Proven" and move on?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
In the last post I simply pointed out to the very basic fact
that, even without the increase in *number*, the increase in *strenght*
is
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
still a dangerous thing - maybe even more than an increase in number.
You haven't shown either. Sorry.
Uhm, I *think* that your national broadcasting channels are showing what an
hurricane making landfall at cat. 4 strenght (your words again) can do. Try
to turn on the TV.
You mean, turn it on in 1969 and see an even *bigger* hurricane?

Here you're just playing the Chicken Little anecdote fallacy: "OmiGod!
A Big Hurricane! It's *GOTTA BE* 'global warming'!!!"

What horseshit.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
This is understandable, since, as for your words, you are not interested
in
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
doing research.
Precisely. It's your theory. You prove it.
Please, you already ridiculed yourself enough in this thread. The theory is
not mine - it is the theory that led 153 countries to ratify the Kyoto
Protocols - you know, the ones that the leaders of a nation just nuked by
Mother Nature refused to ratify.
What does this have to do with *hurricanes*?

[And are you flirting with a claim that if the USA had signed on to the
Kyoto Accords, we would have been *spared* Hurricane Katrina? Cuz it
kinda looks like you're implying that, in a roundabout way.]
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
You pointed me to a single source which claimed that the current year
*might* be a very active hurricane year, if someone's *prediction* pans
out.
The current year is ***already*** a very active hurricane year - the
remaining question being if we are going for the record.
Nah. It's a very normal hurricane year, you're just slanting the data
and comparing it to quiet years.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Which demonstrates unequivocally - and using 150 years of data - that
the notion of "more, and more powerful" hurricanes is just bullshit.
Yeah, I saw that chart - the one you do seem to cling to like a lifeboat.
Well, maybe you missed the fact that the chart shows hurricane activity for
every decade ***except in the last line*** where it shows the activity for
2001-2004 - i.e. only four years, not ten - so, even a proportional
comparization shows that we actually are in one of the stormiest decades
ever.
So what?

Use your cut and paste, Vinnie, and make a little Excel chart of this
data. Guess which way all the graphs point?

Down, down, down.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
But - again - it's not up to me to prove your theories for you. Or to
disprove them. That's your job.
Good to know, since this is exactly what I do. BTW, science is not always
made of ***exact*** things.
Yeah. Sometimes "science" is just pure bullshit.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Which, BTW, brings us back to all the spending done for a war whose "reason
d'etre" was never there at all in the first place. At least, regarding
Global Warming, a ***sane doubt*** remains.
That's my point; in 2002/2003 - *before Operation Iraqi Freedom* - there
was no doubt about Saddam's WMDs. Everyone assumed he had them.
Germany did. Italy did. The USA did. Pretty much everyone did. It
turns out that everyone was pretty much wrong.

Who cares? You can't send your magic crystal ball into the future and
bring back certainty.

And your position is borderline insane. Having roundly chastised the
USA for believing what everyone else believed, and committing billions
of dollars to removing Saddam - in this other case you're infuriated
that we refuse to believe what everyone else "has sane doubts about" and
commit *trillions* of dollars to chase this chimera of "global warming."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Cite what? I'm saying there are *no* studies which have found
compelling evidence that, "hurricanes are increasing in numbers or
severity because of climate change caused by human activities."
Uhm, the quality of Beano Almanacs must have slipped in recent times, if
they give to you such fluff - since increase in ***global weather patterns
disruptions with increased heavy weather activity*** is a theory that not
only just now benefits of the general consensus of the scientific community,
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped
cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that
the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because
you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which
means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
- Michael Crichton
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
but, as I told, is ***only one*** of the problems that we could face in the
next century. Again, there is a minority of qualified scientists contesting
these conclusions - but I see that you weren't able to put together not even
a short summary of what their objections are.
I don't care what their objections are. I'm waiting to see clear,
unequivocal proof of the theory that (a) global warming is real, (b)
it's caused solely by human activity, and (c) that it's anything to
worry about.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Oh, please. The most elaborate "models" in the world can't tell me with
the slightest degree of precision if its gonna rain *next weekend*! And
you're proposing that we use these daffy, worthless "models" as a basis
to wreck the global economy?
Some estimates are saying that Katrina could put a dent of up to 4% in the
internal GDP of the United States.
And that little temporary bubble means we should put a permanent dent of
20 or 30 percent in our GDP by agreeing to those daffy Kyoto accords?

Yeah, that makes good fucking sense.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Sorry Giftz, but like with that other fiasco, when you tried to "explain"
what WWII online was about to two people who had played the game whle you
never launched the exe, I counseil that you keep on the safe side, and give
opinions only about things you have ***real*** knowledge about.
<laughter>

You mean, as opposed to your PHD in meteorology, comic-book boy?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-06 17:56:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
...clearly show that hurricanes are less numerous and weaker than they
were in previous decades.
Huh? That last entry is for a 5 year period, not a decade. If you
expand that to a full decade, you're right on the average.
Post by Giftzwerg
The only thing that's clearly growing in intensity is the dumbass
rhetoric of the treehuggers, and their disgusting proclivity to exploit
tragedy for political gain.
The fact tht it grew to that size due to high temperatures isn't
really open to debate. If the water temp in the gulf hadn't been
higher than normal, it wouldn't have grown into such a monster once it
passed Florida and entered the Gulf. The only question is whether
that's due to Global warming or a natural cycle still going on since
the last stone age.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
IIRC, it wasn't "built" below sea level, but the land has a serious
subsidence problem - and the silting of the Mississippi delta has been
raising the waterway. As the land goes down and the waters go up,
levees have been necessary to ... well, you get the picture.
Given that the older parts of the city (French Quarter) weren't
flooded, I'd guess that the original city was built on higher ground,
surrounded by swamps.

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2005-09-06 19:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
...clearly show that hurricanes are less numerous and weaker than they
were in previous decades.
Huh? That last entry is for a 5 year period, not a decade. If you
expand that to a full decade, you're right on the average.
<shrug>

I'd say that demolishes the Chicken Little position just as handily;
they can hardly pull off their doomsday bullshit if their battle cry is,
"HURRICANES ARE **AVERAGE** IN STRENGTH AND NUMBERS! ... uh ... THE SKY
IS FALLING!!!"

And sure, the first thing I did was interpolate the four-year incomplete
period to a full decade. My point here is that even figuring the
current decade as 22/8 minor/major hurricane strikes, it still compares
in an entirely un-armaggedonish fashion with, say, the 1940s peak.

Only when we assume that the four decades or so before 2001 were
representative of *average* hurricane numbers/intensity do the current,
interpolated numbers start to look alarming.

[So, of course, this is exactly what the doomsayers promptly do.]
Post by Frank E
The only thing that's clearly growing in intensity is the dumbass
Post by Giftzwerg
rhetoric of the treehuggers, and their disgusting proclivity to exploit
tragedy for political gain.
The fact tht it grew to that size due to high temperatures isn't
really open to debate. If the water temp in the gulf hadn't been
higher than normal, it wouldn't have grown into such a monster once it
passed Florida and entered the Gulf. The only question is whether
that's due to Global warming or a natural cycle still going on since
the last stone age.
Given the fact like the titanic sheets of ice that covered much of the
earth long before Chimpy Bushitler invented greenhouse gases, I'd say
the smart money is on "cycles" ... until such time as somebody *proves*
a better theory, that is.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-06 20:11:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:21:23 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
And sure, the first thing I did was interpolate the four-year incomplete
period to a full decade. My point here is that even figuring the
current decade as 22/8 minor/major hurricane strikes, it still compares
in an entirely un-armaggedonish fashion with, say, the 1940s peak.
It's a 5 year period so the numbers come out even better for you.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
The fact tht it grew to that size due to high temperatures isn't
really open to debate. If the water temp in the gulf hadn't been
higher than normal, it wouldn't have grown into such a monster once it
passed Florida and entered the Gulf. The only question is whether
that's due to Global warming or a natural cycle still going on since
the last stone age.
Given the fact like the titanic sheets of ice that covered much of the
earth long before Chimpy Bushitler invented greenhouse gases, I'd say
the smart money is on "cycles" ... until such time as somebody *proves*
a better theory, that is.
The problem is that either way, the proof won't be there for another
50 to 100 years. So if you're wrong, it's gonna be too late to do
anything about it. You won't be re-freezing the ice caps at that
point. .

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2005-09-07 01:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
And sure, the first thing I did was interpolate the four-year incomplete
period to a full decade. My point here is that even figuring the
current decade as 22/8 minor/major hurricane strikes, it still compares
in an entirely un-armaggedonish fashion with, say, the 1940s peak.
It's a 5 year period so the numbers come out even better for you.
Uh, 2001-2004 is a *four* year period.

2001. 2002. 2003. 2004.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-07 11:11:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:01:56 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
And sure, the first thing I did was interpolate the four-year incomplete
period to a full decade. My point here is that even figuring the
current decade as 22/8 minor/major hurricane strikes, it still compares
in an entirely un-armaggedonish fashion with, say, the 1940s peak.
It's a 5 year period so the numbers come out even better for you.
Uh, 2001-2004 is a *four* year period.
2001. 2002. 2003. 2004.
Math > Me
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 14:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
Uhm, OK, while I make use of my time, please use the same time to link
Saddam with weapons of mass destruction - which is the whole point. Two
differences: one, the role of man in the increased disruption of global
weather pattern is still debated, the "potential to do big evil of Saddam"
is a recognized flop and a closed chapter; two: Mother Nature just proved
that it is able to use WMD agains an American target, Saddam never did. I
after New Orleans I would apply a little bit of the vaunted "preventive
strike doctrine" in some more scientific research. Just my two cents.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?
Well, it wasn't my wish to go too hard on G.W. ^__^ Let's stay just now that
it is the "uh?" spending that has the honor to be under the spotlight.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
You do not "prevent" them - you try to make sure that, should one of them
(or any other natural or man-made catastrophe) hit, you have the monetary
and material resources to do your best to lessen its impact. Mobilizing
money big and men to chase unexistant WMD on the other side of the globe
(I'm quoting the party line re: the reason the war was made).
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.
Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New Orleans after
making landfall, but the collateral strenght was still enough to breach the
levees. As a fact, there was a temporary moment of relief when it was clear
that the hurricane had slacked and changed path - the breaching of the
levees being almost an afterthought...

...But still something that hade been predicted in exact detail. See, for
example, this study published in 2003 --->
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 15:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
Uhm, OK, while I make use of my time, please use the same time to link
Saddam with weapons of mass destruction - which is the whole point.
In *your* daffy version of reality there's some sort of parallel here -
but those of us with both oars in the water have pretty much figured out
that there's no connection whatsoever between Saddam and hurricanes.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Two
differences: one, the role of man in the increased disruption of global
weather pattern is still debated,
Nice try, but saucer aliens are "still debated" in some circles - and
that doesn't release those proposing the theory from their positive duty
to supply us with the proof.

Got any?

You can't even show that hurricanes *are* increasing in either numbers
or severity - to say nothing of linking this entirely fictional increase
in hurricanes to "global warming."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?
Well, it wasn't my wish to go too hard on G.W. ^__^ Let's stay just now that
it is the "uh?" spending that has the honor to be under the spotlight.
<laughter>

Sure, but only because very, very stupid leftists in the media have made
the conscious decision to turn their loopy spotlight on it.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
You do not "prevent" them - you try to make sure that, should one of them
(or any other natural or man-made catastrophe) hit, you have the monetary
and material resources to do your best to lessen its impact. Mobilizing
money big and men to chase unexistant WMD on the other side of the globe
(I'm quoting the party line re: the reason the war was made).
Nah. You're quoting your dumbass strawman.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.
Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New Orleans after
making landfall, but the collateral strenght was still enough to breach the
levees.
It was a category 4 storm when it made landfall.

(Nice try, though...)
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
And somehow, of course, Chimpy Bushitler will be responsible for that,
too, right?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 16:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
In *your* daffy version of reality there's some sort of parallel here -
but those of us with both oars in the water have pretty much figured out
that there's no connection whatsoever between Saddam and hurricanes.
...And that neither there is between "Saddam" and "going to war in 2003"
(I'm talking, too, about what those with two oars in the water pretty much
figured out).
Post by Giftzwerg
Nice try, but saucer aliens are "still debated" in some circles - and
that doesn't release those proposing the theory from their positive duty
to supply us with the proof.
Got any?
Uhm, no, sorry. I have a whole hurricane destroying New Orleans with more of
them causing destruction in the past, if you wish, but no flying saucer
nuking Washington "Independence Day" style. I counseil against investing
money in research and defences against the aliens.
Post by Giftzwerg
You can't even show that hurricanes *are* increasing in either numbers
or severity - to say nothing of linking this entirely fictional increase
in hurricanes to "global warming."
Well, if we star the debate of *whole wars* started without nothing to show,
we would head in Iraq very fast. But the link mentioned in another post is
worth to be repeated here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html

An huricane season for 2005 that will be from 180% to 270% above the
average, with nine hurricane seasons since 1995 being above the average.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Well, it wasn't my wish to go too hard on G.W. ^__^ Let's stay just now that
it is the "uh?" spending that has the honor to be under the spotlight.
<laughter>
Sure, but only because very, very stupid leftists in the media have made
the conscious decision to turn their loopy spotlight on it.
Oh, booooh, it is all a conspiracy by the media. Why to cover a major war
and its aftermath when you could very well cover springtime in Iowa? Maybe
it is them, too, that hide the existence of UFOs nuking Washington D.C.,
following instructions coming from the Pleiads.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
You do not "prevent" them - you try to make sure that, should one of them
(or any other natural or man-made catastrophe) hit, you have the monetary
and material resources to do your best to lessen its impact. Mobilizing
money big and men to chase unexistant WMD on the other side of the globe
(I'm quoting the party line re: the reason the war was made).
Nah. You're quoting your dumbass strawman.
Yeah, you are right, being caught pants down in money, logistical resources
and just sheer leadership while N.O. is flooded and the Louisiana National
Guard has 3000 men on the other side of the planet is simply a big gamble
that failed. Well, this is why it is called "gamble".
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New Orleans after
making landfall, but the collateral strenght was still enough to breach the
levees.
It was a category 4 storm when it made landfall.
Which part of "Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New
Orleans ***after***
making landfall" you were unable to read?
Post by Giftzwerg
And somehow, of course, Chimpy Bushitler will be responsible for that,
too, right?
No. And I do not wish ill to LA and SF, of course. I only hope that whoever
will be in charge would such a disaster happen is slightly smarter. The good
news is that the laws of probability are with us.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 16:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
In *your* daffy version of reality there's some sort of parallel here -
but those of us with both oars in the water have pretty much figured out
that there's no connection whatsoever between Saddam and hurricanes.
...And that neither there is between "Saddam" and "going to war in 2003"
(I'm talking, too, about what those with two oars in the water pretty much
figured out).
You can't see any connection between Saddam and the war that deposed his
regime?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
You can't even show that hurricanes *are* increasing in either numbers
or severity - to say nothing of linking this entirely fictional increase
in hurricanes to "global warming."
Well, if we star the debate of *whole wars* started without nothing to show,
we would head in Iraq very fast. But the link mentioned in another post is
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html
An huricane season for 2005 that will be from 180% to 270% above the
average, with nine hurricane seasons since 1995 being above the average.
Sure, but *only* if you start your data collection in 1950. Include
data from the amazingly active hurricane periods from 1900-1950, and see
what happens to this Oh, So *Scary* Looking "270%."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Sure, but only because very, very stupid leftists in the media have made
the conscious decision to turn their loopy spotlight on it.
Oh, booooh, it is all a conspiracy by the media. Why to cover a major war
and its aftermath when you could very well cover springtime in Iowa? Maybe
it is them, too, that hide the existence of UFOs nuking Washington D.C.,
following instructions coming from the Pleiads.
A "major war?" On what scale are you basing that judgement? By any
reasonable standard I can think of, it's rather a minor war.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Nah. You're quoting your dumbass strawman.
Yeah, you are right, being caught pants down in money, logistical resources
and just sheer leadership while N.O. is flooded and the Louisiana National
Guard has 3000 men on the other side of the planet is simply a big gamble
that failed. Well, this is why it is called "gamble".
You know, it's funny, but when Hurricane Camille smashed into the same
area of the USA and caused widespread devastation back in 1969, I don't
recall anyone wringing their hands and sobbing about the hundreds of
thousands of American troops camped out "on the other side of the
planet" defending your neck of the woods from Soviet Russia.

I guess your outrage about this kind of thing is rather selective.


Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
In *your* daffy version of reality there's some sort of parallel here -
but those of us with both oars in the water have pretty much figured out
that there's no connection whatsoever between Saddam and hurricanes.
...And that neither there is between "Saddam" and "going to war in 2003"
(I'm talking, too, about what those with two oars in the water pretty much
figured out).
You can't see any connection between Saddam and the war that deposed his
regime?
and you can't come up with any reason to have attacked saddam other than it
is really cool.
i suppose this will at least end war cries from your ilk to attack iran now.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
An huricane season for 2005 that will be from 180% to 270% above the
average, with nine hurricane seasons since 1995 being above the average.
Sure, but *only* if you start your data collection in 1950. Include
data from the amazingly active hurricane periods from 1900-1950, and see
what happens to this Oh, So *Scary* Looking "270%."
if you had half a brain it would be. it is amazing how easily you swallowed
thw wmd,err, he was a bad guy,errr.. bring freedom ,yeah that's the ticket
freedom, , errr .... line.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Sure, but only because very, very stupid leftists in the media have made
the conscious decision to turn their loopy spotlight on it.
Oh, booooh, it is all a conspiracy by the media. Why to cover a major war
and its aftermath when you could very well cover springtime in Iowa? Maybe
it is them, too, that hide the existence of UFOs nuking Washington D.C.,
following instructions coming from the Pleiads.
A "major war?" On what scale are you basing that judgement? By any
reasonable standard I can think of, it's rather a minor war.
200 bil is quite a "minor"investment.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Nah. You're quoting your dumbass strawman.
Yeah, you are right, being caught pants down in money, logistical resources
and just sheer leadership while N.O. is flooded and the Louisiana National
Guard has 3000 men on the other side of the planet is simply a big gamble
that failed. Well, this is why it is called "gamble".
You know, it's funny, but when Hurricane Camille smashed into the same
area of the USA and caused widespread devastation back in 1969, I don't
recall anyone wringing their hands and sobbing about the hundreds of
thousands of American troops camped out "on the other side of the
planet" defending your neck of the woods from Soviet Russia.
camille only hit one city, biloxi. this has devestated the entire coast
from fla to la.
those troops are still over there defending against ,hmm , who are they
defending against?
it's all the troops from here that are deployed over in iraq.
Post by Giftzwerg
I guess your outrage about this kind of thing is rather selective.
i guess you are a wholly owned mind od neo-con propaganda.
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:34:09 UTC
Permalink
"Giftzwerg" <***@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@news-east.giganews.com...
now.
Post by Giftzwerg
In *your* daffy version of reality there's some sort of parallel here -
but those of us with both oars in the water have pretty much figured out
that there's no connection whatsoever between Saddam and hurricanes.
you are supposed to have your oars on different sides of the boat , gifty ,
you are going around in circles.
Post by Giftzwerg
Nice try, but saucer aliens are "still debated" in some circles - and
that doesn't release those proposing the theory from their positive duty
to supply us with the proof.
typical reupugnut style argument, add an extreme and argue against that.
when that is all you have to bagkyou ,you have nothing.
Post by Giftzwerg
Got any?
You can't even show that hurricanes *are* increasing in either numbers
or severity - to say nothing of linking this entirely fictional increase
in hurricanes to "global warming."
no other than the damage we've been suffering.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?
Well, it wasn't my wish to go too hard on G.W. ^__^ Let's stay just now that
it is the "uh?" spending that has the honor to be under the spotlight.
<laughter>
like idiots do when exposed
Post by Giftzwerg
Sure, but only because very, very stupid leftists in the media have made
the conscious decision to turn their loopy spotlight on it.
yes , the war should be allowed to go on unexamined.
only blowjobs deserved to be spotlighted
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
You do not "prevent" them - you try to make sure that, should one of them
(or any other natural or man-made catastrophe) hit, you have the monetary
and material resources to do your best to lessen its impact. Mobilizing
money big and men to chase unexistant WMD on the other side of the globe
(I'm quoting the party line re: the reason the war was made).
Nah. You're quoting your dumbass strawman.
strawman. bush got his war because he played the wmd card. he's moved the
goalpost and you keep following. saddam was the strawman.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.
Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New Orleans after
making landfall, but the collateral strenght was still enough to breach the
levees.
It was a category 4 storm when it made landfall.
and it was the storm surge not the wind that caused the damage.
Post by Giftzwerg
(Nice try, though...)
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
And somehow, of course, Chimpy Bushitler will be responsible for that,
too, right?
no but we know he will bungle those relief efforts too. all that money for
homeland security. what did it buy us? baggage checks at subways and shoe
checks at airports. if this had been an attack with nukes or toxins we'd be
even mre fucked .




--
Post by Giftzwerg
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
if we followed mt steyns advice the oil flow would be totally disrupted,
that would be terrible.
once again you have let your anti-arab racism trump any common sense.
you are trully a fool.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-05 15:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
Uhm, OK, while I make use of my time, please use the same time to link
Saddam with weapons of mass destruction - which is the whole point.
It's a pity you never mentioned WMD then. So it wasn't you're whole
point.

Two
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
differences: one, the role of man in the increased disruption of global
weather pattern is still debated, the "potential to do big evil of Saddam"
is a recognized flop and a closed chapter;
As if. He terrorised and murdered in Iraq for years. The prospect of
him doing exactly the same thing for another twenty years, before
handing over to one of his sons, is well night unarguable. It may
eventually dawn on you that Saddam didn't need WMD to be worthy of
ousting.

two: Mother Nature just proved
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
that it is able to use WMD agains an American target, Saddam never did.
You mean he didn't even fire at the planes in the no-fly zone?

I
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
after New Orleans I would apply a little bit of the vaunted "preventive
strike doctrine" in some more scientific research. Just my two cents.
Both turn out to be bad pennies.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?
Well, it wasn't my wish to go too hard on G.W. ^__^ Let's stay just now that
it is the "uh?" spending that has the honor to be under the spotlight.
Why? Why not put social welfare payments under the spotlight?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
You do not "prevent" them
I see.

- you try to make sure that, should one of them
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
(or any other natural or man-made catastrophe) hit, you have the monetary
and material resources to do your best to lessen its impact.
Define what *your best* is. If so much hadn't been wasted by the
goverment on social welfare and other inanities for decades, you
could've built a levee around New Orleans that was five times as high.

Mobilizing
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
money big and men to chase unexistant WMD on the other side of the globe
(I'm quoting the party line re: the reason the war was made).
*The* reason? Assuming you actually looked up anything before you found
this "quote", did you come across any other stated reasons for the
invasion?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.
Katrina lessened in strenght (to cat. 3 IIRC) and missed New Orleans after
making landfall, but the collateral strenght was still enough to breach the
levees.
My point exactly. It was still powerful enough to breach the levees. If
they'd been as high as was intended, it wouldn't have made a
difference.

As a fact, there was a temporary moment of relief when it was clear
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
that the hurricane had slacked and changed path - the breaching of the
levees being almost an afterthought...
You mean the hurricane actually *thought*?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
...But still something that hade been predicted in exact detail. See, for
example, this study published in 2003 --->
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html
I'm sure it was predicted. Which is why I wonder what the hell New
orleans was built in a hole for.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
And if the shit was shaken out of them tomorrow, you'd still blame Bush.
ray o'hara
2005-09-05 16:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by c***@yahoo.com
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
Uhm, OK, while I make use of my time, please use the same time to link
Saddam with weapons of mass destruction - which is the whole point.
It's a pity you never mentioned WMD then. So it wasn't you're whole
point.
Two
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
differences: one, the role of man in the increased disruption of global
weather pattern is still debated, the "potential to do big evil of Saddam"
is a recognized flop and a closed chapter;
As if. He terrorised and murdered in Iraq for years. The prospect of
him doing exactly the same thing for another twenty years, before
handing over to one of his sons, is well night unarguable. It may
eventually dawn on you that Saddam didn't need WMD to be worthy of
ousting.
Then why not North Korea? myanmar{burma},and many other countries? are we to
indulge in nation building everywhere? why only iraq? tere are many worthy
targets.
butr that excuse is just goal post moving. nobody would have authorized the
war if that was the stated goal.



During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in
Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used
for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is
convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of
nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
Giftzwerg
2005-09-05 19:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
And if the shit was shaken out of them tomorrow, you'd still blame Bush.
...and it still wouldn't change the painful truths about logistics and
manpower in a country as big as the USA. Buried at the end of a
Washington Post article about the disaster is this interesting
revelation:

"Other federal and state officials pointed to Louisiana's failure to
measure up to national disaster response standards, noting that the
federal plan advises state and local emergency managers not to expect
federal aid for 72 to 96 hours, and base their own preparedness efforts
on the need to be self-sufficient for at least that period."

[ http://tinyurl.com/dzym4 ]

This "delay" - 72 to 96 hours - seems entirely reasonable and
inevitable. Indeed, speaking for myself, I expect to *personally* be on
my own for that kind of period. What kind of ignorant, unprepared
shithead doesn't can't put aside *three days* of essential supplies[1]
when he's been watching a hurricane inch towards his hometown for a
fucking *week*?!?!?

Cripes, what was their *personal* disaster plan?[2] Ignore the
evacuation order, sprawl on the livingroom couch, pop open your last
beer, and hope for the best?

[1] Particularly since the average healthy adult only needs about five
gallons of decent water to easily survive for 72 hours. Whew, that's
tough to come by; you need to own a whole *plastic jug*.

[2] Up here in Podunk, the problem is snow and ice, which can be as
scary in their own right as hurricanes. I mean, we're completely used
to spending *five months a year* in an environment where an unprepared
person would die in a few hours just by going outdoors. And I can
expect a week without power every couple of years, no problem.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-05 20:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Cripes, what was their *personal* disaster plan?[2] Ignore the
evacuation order, sprawl on the livingroom couch, pop open your last
beer, and hope for the best?
Very elder people, elders living in community houses, hospital patients,
crippled, people poor enough not to have a car or some other method of
personal transportation in an emergency where public transport is
overcrowded... You name it.

A lot of N. Orleaners actually evacuated with only a two days warning - 90%
according to some. This still leaves a 10% of "statistical leftovers", with
among them also the people who decided to stay because they are morons, of
course.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-05 23:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Cripes, what was their *personal* disaster plan?[2] Ignore the
evacuation order, sprawl on the livingroom couch, pop open your last
beer, and hope for the best?
Very elder people, elders living in community houses, hospital patients,
crippled, people poor enough not to have a car or some other method of
personal transportation in an emergency where public transport is
overcrowded... You name it.
Sure, but I'm not talking about these folks. I'm talking about the
obviously able-bodied jamoches so in evidence in all sorts of films from
the rescue-phase.

A few years ago, we had a terrific ice-storm up here in Podunk. Roads
closed, power lines down, nobody moving in or out. It went on for more
than a week, until the temperature inversion blew off and winter went
back to normal.

It astounded me how few of my neighbors were even *remotely* prepared
for meeting their basic needs for even a ridiculously short period of
time. I mean, I'm no survivalist, by any means, but I did have answers
for the obvious questions like water (water filters for backwoods
hiking), food (pantry, staples, and a few cases of MREs and hiking
foods), heat (woodstove and kerosene heater), and cooking (woodstove and
camp stove).

A couple of our neighbors are elderly, and we ended up taking them in
for the duration. But able-bodied bozos? What am I gonna do with them?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
A lot of N. Orleaners actually evacuated with only a two days warning - 90%
according to some. This still leaves a 10% of "statistical leftovers", with
among them also the people who decided to stay because they are morons, of
course.
Or predators. Enough of them in every city, I imagine.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-06 20:25:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 15:10:11 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
On this I agree. But San Francisco and Los Angeles, too, with their "Big
One" are sitting on a potential destructive event just now.
And if the shit was shaken out of them tomorrow, you'd still blame Bush.
...and it still wouldn't change the painful truths about logistics and
manpower in a country as big as the USA. Buried at the end of a
Washington Post article about the disaster is this interesting
"Other federal and state officials pointed to Louisiana's failure to
measure up to national disaster response standards, noting that the
federal plan advises state and local emergency managers not to expect
federal aid for 72 to 96 hours, and base their own preparedness efforts
on the need to be self-sufficient for at least that period."
[ http://tinyurl.com/dzym4 ]
This "delay" - 72 to 96 hours - seems entirely reasonable and
inevitable.
Oh please. Where the feds too damn stupid to turn on the TV Tuesday
morning and figure out that things in New Orleans were gonna get real
serious, real quick. They wasted 2 days, people died because of it and
part of that blame goes to Bush. .
Post by Giftzwerg
[2] Up here in Podunk, the problem is snow and ice, which can be as
scary in their own right as hurricanes. I mean, we're completely used
to spending *five months a year* in an environment where an unprepared
person would die in a few hours just by going outdoors. And I can
expect a week without power every couple of years, no problem.
Methinks you've never been through a hurricane.

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2005-09-07 00:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
This "delay" - 72 to 96 hours - seems entirely reasonable and
inevitable.
Oh please. Where the feds too damn stupid to turn on the TV Tuesday
morning and figure out that things in New Orleans were gonna get real
serious, real quick. They wasted 2 days, people died because of it and
part of that blame goes to Bush.
They "wasted two days?"

I guess it's escaped your notice, but between "Tuesday morning" and
"Thursday morning" - when federal help started to significantly appear -
there are 48 hours. Two days. If you want to argue that these two days
were *wasted*, you'd have to argue that the actual, practical time
necessary to move this federal help from where it was to New Orleans is
*zero*.

In other words, to avoid you snarling that they were "wasting time,"
federal help would have to have arrived *on Tuesday morning*. Maybe in
an episode of "Star Trek," Captain Kirk can *beam* a hospital ship from
Baltimore to New Orleans in *zero time*, but I kinda think anywhere but
your bizzarro planet works just a little differently.

[PS: With regard your silly claim that "part of the blame goes to
Bush," I have to answer, "How so, Kemosabe?" In a purely political
sense, I'm - once again - laughing my nuts off at the Democrats. For
the zillionth time, the dumbass Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has
let their looney case of Bush Derangement Syndrome cause them to open
fire on just about the *one* person in this whole drama who is
Constitutionally precluded from every facing the voters again.

<huge grin>

Nice shootin', Tex.]
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
[2] Up here in Podunk, the problem is snow and ice, which can be as
scary in their own right as hurricanes. I mean, we're completely used
to spending *five months a year* in an environment where an unprepared
person would die in a few hours just by going outdoors. And I can
expect a week without power every couple of years, no problem.
Methinks you've never been through a hurricane.
And I don't plan to - not being a *fucking moron* who's stupid enough to
ignore a *week's notice*, flout a mandatory evacuation order, and get
nailed by a windstorm that moves *15 miles an hour*.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
JP
2005-09-07 03:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
This "delay" - 72 to 96 hours - seems entirely reasonable and
inevitable.
Oh please. Where the feds too damn stupid to turn on the TV Tuesday
morning and figure out that things in New Orleans were gonna get real
serious, real quick. They wasted 2 days, people died because of it and
part of that blame goes to Bush.
They "wasted two days?"
I guess it's escaped your notice, but between "Tuesday morning" and
"Thursday morning" - when federal help started to significantly appear -
there are 48 hours. Two days. If you want to argue that these two days
were *wasted*, you'd have to argue that the actual, practical time
necessary to move this federal help from where it was to New Orleans is
*zero*.
In other words, to avoid you snarling that they were "wasting time,"
federal help would have to have arrived *on Tuesday morning*. Maybe in
an episode of "Star Trek," Captain Kirk can *beam* a hospital ship from
Baltimore to New Orleans in *zero time*, but I kinda think anywhere but
your bizzarro planet works just a little differently.
[PS: With regard your silly claim that "part of the blame goes to
Bush," I have to answer, "How so, Kemosabe?" In a purely political
sense, I'm - once again - laughing my nuts off at the Democrats. For
the zillionth time, the dumbass Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has
let their looney case of Bush Derangement Syndrome cause them to open
fire on just about the *one* person in this whole drama who is
Constitutionally precluded from every facing the voters again.
<huge grin>
Nice shootin', Tex.]
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
[2] Up here in Podunk, the problem is snow and ice, which can be as
scary in their own right as hurricanes. I mean, we're completely used
to spending *five months a year* in an environment where an unprepared
person would die in a few hours just by going outdoors. And I can
expect a week without power every couple of years, no problem.
Methinks you've never been through a hurricane.
And I don't plan to - not being a *fucking moron* who's stupid enough to
ignore a *week's notice*, flout a mandatory evacuation order, and get
nailed by a windstorm that moves *15 miles an hour*.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.
Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
One point I find interesting, that I have yet to see mentioned. The
place where the hurricane actually hit land (Mississippi, etc.) hasn't
raised a peep of bitching about no help, etc..............

Granted, NO is a larger pop base density-wise (I imagine ?), but still.
Only NO was bitching.

Things that make you say "hmmmmm". Damage control/cya me thinks.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-07 11:51:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <k1tTe.969$***@eagle.america.net>, ***@nicetry.com
says...
Post by JP
One point I find interesting, that I have yet to see mentioned. The
place where the hurricane actually hit land (Mississippi, etc.) hasn't
raised a peep of bitching about no help, etc..............
Granted, NO is a larger pop base density-wise (I imagine ?), but still.
Only NO was bitching.
Things that make you say "hmmmmm". Damage control/cya me thinks.
Thieves fall out, though. I watched yesterday as Mayor Ray "I forgot
about those 2,000 school buses we had" Nagin decided to roll over on
Governor Kathleen "Let me ponder that for 24 hours" Blanco. Delightful
stuff.

Ultimately, though, the Democrats are just fucking themselves. If
(*if*) it turns out that the Federal Government's response to the crisis
was "slow," it's likely that the Republican response will be:

"We told you so. We've been telling you so for *years*. Titanic,
ponderous government organizations employing thousands of bureaucrats
and lawyers are *never* able to respond quickly in a crisis. And this
time, liberal insistence on centralized <everything> got lots of people
killed. Next question?"
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-07 11:36:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:58:46 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
This "delay" - 72 to 96 hours - seems entirely reasonable and
inevitable.
Oh please. Where the feds too damn stupid to turn on the TV Tuesday
morning and figure out that things in New Orleans were gonna get real
serious, real quick. They wasted 2 days, people died because of it and
part of that blame goes to Bush.
They "wasted two days?"
I guess it's escaped your notice, but between "Tuesday morning" and
"Thursday morning" - when federal help started to significantly appear -
there are 48 hours. Two days. If you want to argue that these two days
were *wasted*, you'd have to argue that the actual, practical time
necessary to move this federal help from where it was to New Orleans is
*zero*.
In other words, to avoid you snarling that they were "wasting time,"
federal help would have to have arrived *on Tuesday morning*. Maybe in
an episode of "Star Trek," Captain Kirk can *beam* a hospital ship from
Baltimore to New Orleans in *zero time*, but I kinda think anywhere but
your bizzarro planet works just a little differently.
Yup. On my bizzarro planet I would have expected the Pres to make
action on Tuesday. Ya know, like announcing that troops, hospital
ships, rescue helicopters were being sent down to New Orleans because
there was a pretty major disaster in the making.
Post by Giftzwerg
[PS: With regard your silly claim that "part of the blame goes to
Bush," I have to answer, "How so, Kemosabe?"
I didn't see anyone from the mayor through the governor through the
pres show any kind of leadership. Why does Bush share part of the
blame, because even he admits that the fed's response was inadequate
and ya know, he's supposed to be the guy in charge.
Post by Giftzwerg
In a purely political
sense, I'm - once again - laughing my nuts off at the Democrats.
I'm sure the idealogue democrats will gleefully blame Bush and and
people like you will blame the the mayor and governor. Why let a few
thousand corpses get in the way of the important stuff, like scoring
some political points. The rest of us don't really care, there's
plenty of blame to go around.

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2005-09-07 12:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Yup. On my bizzarro planet I would have expected the Pres to make
action on Tuesday. Ya know, like announcing that troops, hospital
ships, rescue helicopters were being sent down to New Orleans because
there was a pretty major disaster in the making.
Ah. So all you were really looking for was a little lip-service to
disaster relief on Tuesday.

Well, heck, gotta agree with you there. Bill Clinton wouldn't have been
able to get the bureaucracy moving any faster - but I'm absolutely
certain he would have been in front of the television cameras (biting
his lip and emoting furiously...) as soon as possible.

Yeah. That'll help.
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
[PS: With regard your silly claim that "part of the blame goes to
Bush," I have to answer, "How so, Kemosabe?"
I didn't see anyone from the mayor through the governor through the
pres show any kind of leadership. Why does Bush share part of the
blame, because even he admits that the fed's response was inadequate
and ya know, he's supposed to be the guy in charge.
What I'm asking is whether we should have any reasonable expectation
that, if a disaster strikes our hometown *tomorrow*, we should expect
the 4th Infantry Division to arrive to save our asses *tomorrow* - or if
mobilizing that kind of national infrastructure should be expected to
take significantly longer.

All I'm saying is that the current federal plan, as I've heard it,
essentially says to local and state authorities, "You're on your own for
72 to 96 hours. That's how long it *really* takes to do things like fly
in 400 helicopters, sail in hospital ships and aircraft carriers, and
truck in thousands of soldiers."

I find that entirely reasonable, and on that basis, I find the federal
response in this case to be fairly *fast*.
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
In a purely political
sense, I'm - once again - laughing my nuts off at the Democrats.
I'm sure the idealogue democrats will gleefully blame Bush and and
people like you will blame the the mayor and governor. Why let a few
thousand corpses get in the way of the important stuff, like scoring
some political points. The rest of us don't really care, there's
plenty of blame to go around.
"If everyone is guilty ... then no one is."
- Hannah Arendt

It's a sort of noble idiocy to suggest that blame be apportioned
evenhandedly ("There's plenty of blame to go around"); that lets
*everyone* off the hook, quite neatly.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Frank E
2005-09-07 15:47:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:13:21 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Yup. On my bizzarro planet I would have expected the Pres to make
action on Tuesday. Ya know, like announcing that troops, hospital
ships, rescue helicopters were being sent down to New Orleans because
there was a pretty major disaster in the making.
Ah. So all you were really looking for was a little lip-service to
disaster relief on Tuesday.
Nah, there was plenty of lip service already, that seems to be the one
thing all the politicians are good at. I was looking for someone to
recognize the fact that things were spiraling out of control and give
people a kick in the ass to get them moving. From local governments to
State to Fema to the Pres, that didn't seem to happen till Thursday.
Post by Giftzwerg
Well, heck, gotta agree with you there. Bill Clinton wouldn't have been
able to get the bureaucracy moving any faster - but I'm absolutely
certain he would have been in front of the television cameras (biting
his lip and emoting furiously...) as soon as possible.
I wouldn't have expected any better from Clinton either. So your new
rallying cry is 'Clinton wouldn't have handled it any better!'? :p
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
I didn't see anyone from the mayor through the governor through the
pres show any kind of leadership. Why does Bush share part of the
blame, because even he admits that the fed's response was inadequate
and ya know, he's supposed to be the guy in charge.
What I'm asking is whether we should have any reasonable expectation
that, if a disaster strikes our hometown *tomorrow*, we should expect
the 4th Infantry Division to arrive to save our asses *tomorrow* - or if
mobilizing that kind of national infrastructure should be expected to
take significantly longer.
If people see the disaster coming almost a week ahead of time, have
already declared a disaster area and Fema supposedly has people in
place, what else do you need? I could excuse a lot of what happened
but the fact that they didn't have rescue helicopters there en mass by
Wed. is inexcusable and shows me they were too slow to react overall.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
In a purely political
sense, I'm - once again - laughing my nuts off at the Democrats.
I'm sure the idealogue democrats will gleefully blame Bush and and
people like you will blame the the mayor and governor. Why let a few
thousand corpses get in the way of the important stuff, like scoring
some political points. The rest of us don't really care, there's
plenty of blame to go around.
"If everyone is guilty ... then no one is."
- Hannah Arendt
That only works for politicians. I'm sure when they write a report on
this in a couple of months, that's exactly what the conclusion will
be. That doesn't keep me from making my own judgements.
Post by Giftzwerg
It's a sort of noble idiocy to suggest that blame be apportioned
evenhandedly ("There's plenty of blame to go around"); that lets
*everyone* off the hook, quite neatly.
It's equally as idiotic to suggest that just because others fucked up
worse, Bush couldn't have handled it better.

Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
2005-09-07 16:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
Well, heck, gotta agree with you there. Bill Clinton wouldn't have been
able to get the bureaucracy moving any faster - but I'm absolutely
certain he would have been in front of the television cameras (biting
his lip and emoting furiously...) as soon as possible.
I wouldn't have expected any better from Clinton either. So your new
rallying cry is 'Clinton wouldn't have handled it any better!'? :p
Actually, my "new" rallying cry is, "Don't wait for the Feds to help in
a disaster, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are pulling
the strings - best to look out for one's self."

It's the same as my "old" rallying cry.
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
What I'm asking is whether we should have any reasonable expectation
that, if a disaster strikes our hometown *tomorrow*, we should expect
the 4th Infantry Division to arrive to save our asses *tomorrow* - or if
mobilizing that kind of national infrastructure should be expected to
take significantly longer.
If people see the disaster coming almost a week ahead of time, have
already declared a disaster area and Fema supposedly has people in
place, what else do you need?
Obviously the first thing you need is the precise location of the actual
disaster; it's worse-than-useless to dispatch a thousand truckloads of
supplies to, say, the Florida panhandle only to see the hurricane change
course and wreck the Texas gulf coast. *After* the hurricane hits, you
can reasonably start moving, say, the Texas State Police into Louisiana
to help out - but if you're the governor of Texas, are you going to send
anything to Louisiana *before* you know Texas is safe?

[And I get the impression that some people think that FEMA actually has
helicopters, trucks, and troops at its disposal; it doesn't. FEMA is
nothing more than a structure to coordinate resources that others are
primarily in charge of.]
Post by Frank E
I could excuse a lot of what happened
but the fact that they didn't have rescue helicopters there en mass by
Wed. is inexcusable and shows me they were too slow to react overall.
Hmmmm. Should I ask my cousin how long it would take to move the HH-60J
rescue helicopter he crew chiefs on from their home base in Ohio to,
say, New Jersey if disaster threatened?

Because it's not really as simply as jumping into the chopper and
fluttering off to Bergen County, is it? The helicopter is pretty much
just a few million dollars worth of scrap metal without a full aircrew,
complete ground crew, thousands of gallons of fuel, all sorts of spare
parts, and about a thousand and one other things.

If my cousin told me that on Tuesday, his unit got the call to redeploy
to New Jersey for rescue operations, and that by Friday his aircraft was
actually flying those rescue missions, I would consider that a fucking
*miracle* of military efficiency. Medals and promotions for all
concerned.
Post by Frank E
Post by Giftzwerg
It's a sort of noble idiocy to suggest that blame be apportioned
evenhandedly ("There's plenty of blame to go around"); that lets
*everyone* off the hook, quite neatly.
It's equally as idiotic to suggest that just because others fucked up
worse, Bush couldn't have handled it better.
Feh. Things can always be "handled better." The question is whether
having significant federal help flowing to an area within 48 hours
represents some sort of failure on the part of the federal government.
I say no.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
ray o'hara
2005-09-07 20:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Actually, my "new" rallying cry is, "Don't wait for the Feds to help in
a disaster, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are pulling
the strings - best to look out for one's self."
It's the same as my "old" rallying cry.
yeah so what if you don't have a car{1/3rd of the city}
Post by Giftzwerg
Obviously the first thing you need is the precise location of the actual
disaster; it's worse-than-useless to dispatch a thousand truckloads of
supplies to, say, the Florida panhandle only to see the hurricane change
course and wreck the Texas gulf coast. *After* the hurricane hits, you
can reasonably start moving, say, the Texas State Police into Louisiana
to help out - but if you're the governor of Texas, are you going to send
anything to Louisiana *before* you know Texas is safe?
but you've been claiming they knew it was coming and that they should have
been ready, now its they can't react because they don't know where it will
hit.
which is it?
Giftzwerg
2005-09-08 12:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Actually, my "new" rallying cry is, "Don't wait for the Feds to help in
a disaster, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are pulling
the strings - best to look out for one's self."
It's the same as my "old" rallying cry.
yeah so what if you don't have a car{1/3rd of the city}
Then you ride out of town in one of the city's 2,000 buses, which have
an aggregate per-trip capacity of 132,000 people. You know, like it
says in the official State of Louisiana disaster plan:

"5. The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles.
School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles
provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for
individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in
evacuating."[1]

I wonder who's responsible for letting those buses sit, unused, until
the floodwaters closed over them?[2]

(For the moonbats, of course, the answer must be "Chimpy Bushitler.")
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Obviously the first thing you need is the precise location of the actual
disaster; it's worse-than-useless to dispatch a thousand truckloads of
supplies to, say, the Florida panhandle only to see the hurricane change
course and wreck the Texas gulf coast. *After* the hurricane hits, you
can reasonably start moving, say, the Texas State Police into Louisiana
to help out - but if you're the governor of Texas, are you going to send
anything to Louisiana *before* you know Texas is safe?
but you've been claiming they knew it was coming and that they should have
been ready, now its they can't react because they don't know where it will
hit.
which is it?
Nice try, dumbass, but there's more than one "they" referred to in your
dishonest little sentence. Properly break out individual response,
local/state response, and federal response, and you'll be on the road to
having your first shiny clue about the topic.


[1] [ http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf ]

[2] [ http://tinyurl.com/72ss5 ]
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Major H
2005-09-08 13:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
I wonder who's responsible for letting those buses sit, unused, until
the floodwaters closed over them?[2]
Perhaps a cousin of the local who decided to build the bus dispatch lots on
low ground. :)

Best regards, Major H.

ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Epi Watkins
Whether Bush bears guilt or not, it's probably not the right time to get
political about the hurricane.
I fully agree, and I'm actually hating those seeing the hurricane as an
opportunuty of "political explanation" - like if Bush could have stopped it
or if things like these happen every other day and only America seem unable
to cope.
nobody is blaming bus for the hurricane, it's his slow response that is
pissing people off
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
But I feel that it is also true that the "preventive measures" doctrine -
i.e. "We will attack them before they attack us" was always applied with a
double-stardard - to say the least. Those warning about Saddam Hussein were
"patriots", those warning against increased global weather patterns
disruption were "treehuggers".
saddam was no threat, and we found nothing in the way of wmds.
the weather is a threat as we have just seen..
Post by c***@yahoo.com
For this argument to be of use, you'd have to be able to show that the
"treehuggers" were right, i.e. you have to link this *specific
hurricane* to global weather patterns disruption (whatever that is),
and second, you have to prove a causal link between that and human
activity. Your time starts now.
the planet is getting hotter, human caused desertification is growing at an
astronomical rate.
greehouse gases which are quite measurable are soaring and the glaciers are
receading at a greater rate than before. the tundra is thawing. as to proof.
nothing will ever satisfy you.
you'll wait until everything is irretrievably fucked and then still deny.
the long term is for those folks not yet born to worry about, we only live
for tady.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Second, you seem to be painting a picture of the war being the only
thing dragging money away from potentially being spent on this. What
about all the other stuff that money *really is* wasted on?
200 billion for the war. its not createing many jobs except replacement
infantryman.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Third, how do you "prevent" hurricanes?
you don't shithead, but you can prepare for them. why do you repugnuts
always take every thing to absurd lengths?
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Fourth, even if the levees were all built up as high as was being
demanded, what about the fact that Katrina was a category 5. It burst
through the high levees in any case.
it didn't burst through. it overtopped them, any dam overtopped will fail.
they wanted to make them higher, a lot of adminisrations share blame for the
funding cuts, starting with reagan, bush 1 clinton and bush2, bush 2 was
merely the worst.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which brings me to fifth - isn't the biggest single contributory factor
in the destruction of New Orleans the fact that New orleans is built
beow sea level in a country with a massive land mass? Sorry, but it's
the city itself that strikes me as being the biggest mistake.
and here you further show your ignorance. new orleand wasn't built below sea
level. it has been sinking. this because of the "taming "of the
mississippi. the annual floods would drop silt on the ground and maintain a
certain ground level. with the levees that were built along it starting in
the mid-19th century has stopped this process, so the city has been sinking.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Let's hope that, like after 9/11, the actual disaster will bring some sense.
as long as the "what! me worry?" gang is in power that is extremely
doubtful. all attempts to point out the way nature works is dismissed as
"fuzzy science"


and as to politicizing this. the repugnut propaganda machine has shifted
into high gear.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 11:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
ray o'hara
2005-09-02 13:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
J***@compuserve.com
2005-09-02 16:28:41 UTC
Permalink
I think Paul Krugman's editorial in todays NY Times hits the nail on
the head. We currently have a govenmernt that is lead by a "private
sector" "tax cuts" for the wealthy mentality. This disaster is an
example of what happens when the federal government is stretched to the
limit (Iraq) and under funded (tax cuts). He points out that many
National Guard units that would normally be able to jump right in and
help are in Iraq. (Shouldn't the regular army be there and the National
Guard here)? Given that in the days leading up to landfall everyone
knew what could happen, its amazing that seemingly the worst case
scenario was not expected. I guess when the hurricane "missed" N.O.
everyone was thinking the worst was avoided, but why didn't they
already have a response to a worst case scenario already on the table?
They were talking about this scenario just a year ago when NO was
threatened. They had an extra year to plan and it looks like no one did
any planning.
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
ray o'hara
2005-09-02 18:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@compuserve.com
I think Paul Krugman's editorial in todays NY Times hits the nail on
the head. We currently have a govenmernt that is lead by a "private
sector" "tax cuts" for the wealthy mentality. This disaster is an
example of what happens when the federal government is stretched to the
limit (Iraq) and under funded (tax cuts). He points out that many
National Guard units that would normally be able to jump right in and
help are in Iraq. (Shouldn't the regular army be there and the National
Guard here)? Given that in the days leading up to landfall everyone
knew what could happen, its amazing that seemingly the worst case
scenario was not expected. I guess when the hurricane "missed" N.O.
everyone was thinking the worst was avoided, but why didn't they
already have a response to a worst case scenario already on the table?
They were talking about this scenario just a year ago when NO was
threatened. They had an extra year to plan and it looks like no one did
any planning.
the way our army is constituded theses days is that the regular army is
heavy in combat units and most of the rear area functions like
supply,transport and gerneral engineers are guard units. so if we have a
major deployment we need to tap the guard. nowadays if you are in the guard
you will be sent overseas. the guards recruitment is thus falling even worse
than the regular army's is.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 18:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
the guards recruitment is thus falling even worse
than the regular army's is.
Cite?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Briarroot
2005-09-02 23:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
the way our army is constituded theses days is that the regular army is
heavy in combat units and most of the rear area functions like
supply,transport and gerneral engineers are guard units. so if we have a
major deployment we need to tap the guard.
The size of the Regular Army was cut by more than 30% during the
*Clinton* administration as a cost saving measure.
Post by ray o'hara
nowadays if you are in the guard
you will be sent overseas. the guards recruitment is thus falling even worse
than the regular army's is.
Recruitments may be down, but re-enlistments are up.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 18:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@compuserve.com
I think Paul Krugman's editorial in todays NY Times hits the nail on
the head.
*plonk*
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 13:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@compuserve.com
I think Paul Krugman's editorial in todays NY Times hits the nail on
the head. We currently have a govenmernt that is lead by a "private
sector" "tax cuts" for the wealthy mentality. This disaster is an
example of what happens when the federal government is stretched to the
limit (Iraq) and under funded (tax cuts). He points out that many
National Guard units that would normally be able to jump right in and
help are in Iraq. (Shouldn't the regular army be there and the National
Guard here)? Given that in the days leading up to landfall everyone
knew what could happen, its amazing that seemingly the worst case
scenario was not expected. I guess when the hurricane "missed" N.O.
everyone was thinking the worst was avoided, but why didn't they
already have a response to a worst case scenario already on the table?
They were talking about this scenario just a year ago when NO was
threatened. They had an extra year to plan and it looks like no one did
any planning.
This is precisely why taxes are low, you dope. Governments are
*historically* shit at planning or doing anything, so it's better not
to steal it out of peoples' pockets to begin with. If anything, the
Iraq War is a rare occasion on which money was well spent by a
government. It's *not* amazing that "seemingly the worst case scenario
was not expected" - why, can you think of a government that *does/did*
regularly expect worse case scenarios and act on them? This is
run-of-the-mill government inaction. It happens all the time.

Furthermore, you seem to be giving the impression that if only the US
wasn't in Iraq, then somehow the government would have used that money
for better disaster planning. It wouldn't have. It would have splurged
it on something totally wasteful. Like I said, the Iraq war is a rare
case in which a government did spend money wisely. And even then it
could have done better.
Post by J***@compuserve.com
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by J***@compuserve.com
I think Paul Krugman's editorial in todays NY Times hits the nail on
the head. We currently have a govenmernt that is lead by a "private
sector" "tax cuts" for the wealthy mentality. This disaster is an
example of what happens when the federal government is stretched to the
limit (Iraq) and under funded (tax cuts). He points out that many
National Guard units that would normally be able to jump right in and
help are in Iraq. (Shouldn't the regular army be there and the National
Guard here)? Given that in the days leading up to landfall everyone
knew what could happen, its amazing that seemingly the worst case
scenario was not expected. I guess when the hurricane "missed" N.O.
everyone was thinking the worst was avoided, but why didn't they
already have a response to a worst case scenario already on the table?
They were talking about this scenario just a year ago when NO was
threatened. They had an extra year to plan and it looks like no one did
any planning.
This is precisely why taxes are low, you dope. Governments are
*historically* shit at planning or doing anything, so it's better not
to steal it out of peoples' pockets to begin with. If anything, the
Iraq War is a rare occasion on which money was well spent by a
government. It's *not* amazing that "seemingly the worst case scenario
was not expected" - why, can you think of a government that *does/did*
regularly expect worse case scenarios and act on them? This is
run-of-the-mill government inaction. It happens all the time.
Furthermore, you seem to be giving the impression that if only the US
wasn't in Iraq, then somehow the government would have used that money
for better disaster planning. It wouldn't have. It would have splurged
it on something totally wasteful. Like I said, the Iraq war is a rare
case in which a government did spend money wisely. And even then it
could have done better.
highways aren't money well spent? schools are monwey well spent? but a
discretionary war for an imaginary reason is?

you repugnuts think government can't work or solve problems and you have an
amazing ability to elect leaders who'll prove that true.
JP
2005-09-02 21:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
Of course, like so many things, you're ignoring a few basic facts about
the levee funding.

1. The funding started in 1995.

2. No cuts took place until 2003.

So, doing the math (let me help you there), that means for eight years the
funding was there. Now, anyone with an ounce of common sense, (leaves you
out, sorry) would wonder:

a. what was done with that money in those eight years, regarding levees.
Maybe a lot, maybe nothing but non-levee related pork projects, who knows.
But it'd be interesting to find out.

And I won't mention why the NO city govt, after ordering a mandatory
evacuation, did nothing to help the folks who couldn't on their own. Oops,
guess I did.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 22:05:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <493Se.708$***@eagle.america.net>, ***@nicetry.com
says...
Post by JP
Post by ray o'hara
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it
for
Post by ray o'hara
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
Of course, like so many things, you're ignoring a few basic facts about
the levee funding.
From the Chicago Tribune:

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a
lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did
not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane
Katrina.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that
although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the
levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the
city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3
hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from
Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the
coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was
made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis."

[http://tinyurl.com/akzfr]

So much for the left's latest hobbyhorse, eh? They'll have to fall back
on "Global Warming."
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
JP
2005-09-02 22:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
says...
Post by JP
Post by ray o'hara
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it
for
Post by ray o'hara
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
Of course, like so many things, you're ignoring a few basic facts about
the levee funding.
"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a
lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did
not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane
Katrina.
In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that
although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the
levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the
city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.
However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3
hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from
Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the
coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was
made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis."
[http://tinyurl.com/akzfr]
So much for the left's latest hobbyhorse, eh? They'll have to fall back
on "Global Warming."
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Yep. Glad you found a reference to their catagory specs too; I thought I
had read that the funding didn't even cover for a C4, but wasn't sure. So
tell me, how deep in the Tribune was this tidbit buried ?
Giftzwerg
2005-09-02 22:40:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <Tf4Se.713$***@eagle.america.net>, ***@nicetry.com
says...
Post by JP
Yep. Glad you found a reference to their catagory specs too; I thought I
had read that the funding didn't even cover for a C4, but wasn't sure. So
tell me, how deep in the Tribune was this tidbit buried ?
I got it off their website.

No matter. The leftist meme-machine is already in full roar. I even
saw this:

"It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun
eating corpses to survive. Four days after the storm, thousands of
blacks in New Orleans are dying like dogs. No-one has come to help
them."

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-robinson/new-orleans_b_6643.html]

...at the incredibly silly Huffington Post.

Even there, it didn't take *too* long for someone to point out that
three days is a kinda short period for resorting to actual cannibalism.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
JP
2005-09-02 22:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
says...
Post by JP
Yep. Glad you found a reference to their catagory specs too; I thought I
had read that the funding didn't even cover for a C4, but wasn't sure.
So
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by JP
tell me, how deep in the Tribune was this tidbit buried ?
I got it off their website.
No matter. The leftist meme-machine is already in full roar. I even
"It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun
eating corpses to survive. Four days after the storm, thousands of
blacks in New Orleans are dying like dogs. No-one has come to help
them."
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-robinson/new-orleans_b_6643.html]
...at the incredibly silly Huffington Post.
Even there, it didn't take *too* long for someone to point out that
three days is a kinda short period for resorting to actual cannibalism.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Incredible.
Michael A. Oberly
2005-09-03 01:53:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Even there, it didn't take *too* long for someone to point out that
three days is a kinda short period for resorting to actual cannibalism.
Hilarious. Even at Stalingrad, it took more than a month on starvation
rations for cases to pop up.
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 05:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
So much for the left's latest hobbyhorse, eh? They'll have to fall back
on "Global Warming."
More to the point, fall back to the "Bush spent - and is spending - a
s*itload of money and human resources to fight one man who couldn't have
caused the kind of devastation that Mother Nature did". While the experts
still debate if global warming is a possible reason for the increase of
hurricane activity (and this is a question that should have remained
*scientific*, not political), I see no more debate about if oldie Saddy
could have nuked New Orleans.

Hey, it happens also at family level: try to spend a wagon of money in
unproductive activities (marketed as "patriotic", of course), all the while
obscuring the the weather channel on TV - only to be caught penniless when a
merry storm tears your roof off, and you will have a very angry missus and a
big debt.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 11:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
So much for the left's latest hobbyhorse, eh? They'll have to fall back
on "Global Warming."
More to the point, fall back to the "Bush spent - and is spending - a
s*itload of money and human resources to fight one man who couldn't have
caused the kind of devastation that Mother Nature did".
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?

"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
While the experts
still debate if global warming is a possible reason for the increase of
hurricane activity (and this is a question that should have remained
*scientific*, not political), I see no more debate about if oldie Saddy
could have nuked New Orleans.
Who cares?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Hey, it happens also at family level: try to spend a wagon of money in
unproductive activities (marketed as "patriotic", of course), all the while
obscuring the the weather channel on TV - only to be caught penniless when a
merry storm tears your roof off, and you will have a very angry missus and a
big debt.
Fascinating how the only relationship you folks appear to be able to
draw is between "The War" and Katrina. Why can't we argue that if only
we hadn't pissed away several trillion dollars on failed, useless social
welfare programs over the past four decades we'd have had enough money
to build a 200 foot wall of solid gold around New Orleans?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 12:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?
No, since this was not the argument. Had Saddam *really* had WMD, and the
ability to nuke, let's say, Seattle, it would have been criminal not to stop
it (nuking Seattle is something evil N. Korea boasts about openly, BTW, but
poor Saddie was tackled first anyway - the unfairness :^/)

The argument is that a lot of people, just now, are changing the big
question from "What Are We Doing in Iraq?" to "What Are We Doing in Iraq
INSTEAD OF HERE?" After the "reasons for the war deflated" (AKA the "Saddam
is coming to nuke YOU!" fiasco) the fallback line of the warmongers ("He was
an evil man tyranizing a poor country!") became as brittle as the levees in
New Orleans: i.e. ready to crumble at the first real storm.
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Hitler could have mustered up at the very least a new European War - which
would have meant millions of victims like in WWI. This was well known and
predictable. For some reasons I do not see Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as of
2003 invading Poland, Norway and France - actually, not even San Marino.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 12:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?
No, since this was not the argument. Had Saddam *really* had WMD, and the
ability to nuke, let's say, Seattle, it would have been criminal not to stop
it (nuking Seattle is something evil N. Korea boasts about openly, BTW, but
poor Saddie was tackled first anyway - the unfairness :^/)
Seldom have I seen so much plain stupidity tucked into a single
paragraph. Essentially, you're arguing:

(1) We *must* immediately make war on *everyone* with the ability to
"nuke Seattle." That's going to make the world kinda hot in the next
few years, since simultaneously invading Russia, Red China, Britain,
France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea is going to ruffle a
few feathers.

(2) We're not allowed to make war on *anyone* who doesn't have the
capacity to "nuke Seattle." Mr. Clinton's horrific war on helpless,
innocent Serbia must have *really* sent you 'round the twist, eh?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The argument is that a lot of people, just now, are changing the big
question from "What Are We Doing in Iraq?" to "What Are We Doing in Iraq
INSTEAD OF HERE?" After the "reasons for the war deflated" (AKA the "Saddam
is coming to nuke YOU!" fiasco) the fallback line of the warmongers ("He was
an evil man tyranizing a poor country!") became as brittle as the levees in
New Orleans: i.e. ready to crumble at the first real storm.
I count 23 separate "Whereas" clauses in the Congressional Resolution
authorizing war to remove Saddam. If a couple of them have "crumbled"
*in hindsight*, there are ample others to take up the slack.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Hitler could have mustered up at the very least a new European War - which
would have meant millions of victims like in WWI. This was well known and
predictable. For some reasons I do not see Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as of
2003 invading Poland, Norway and France - actually, not even San Marino.
At this point, I guess it's useful to ask what - *exactly* - is your
gold-standard for going to war. Watching you try to torture out a
logical position that will leave Mr. Clinton's war on Serbia "in" while
ruling Mr. Bush's war on Iraq "out" should be very interesting.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 15:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Seldom have I seen so much plain stupidity tucked into a single
(1) We *must* immediately make war on *everyone* with the ability to
"nuke Seattle."
No, I'm arguing that someone *bragging* about it should get SLIGHTLY more
consideration that someone else under embargo and with weapon inspectors
repeatedly saying that there was no proof in sight.
Post by Giftzwerg
That's going to make the world kinda hot in the next
few years, since simultaneously invading Russia, Red China, Britain,
France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea is going to ruffle a
few feathers.
A good alternative could be stopping invading at all, except if you have a
good reason - unlike the last fiasco.
Post by Giftzwerg
(2) We're not allowed to make war on *anyone* who doesn't have the
capacity to "nuke Seattle." Mr. Clinton's horrific war on helpless,
innocent Serbia must have *really* sent you 'round the twist, eh?
If you think that Clinton's war was purely "altruistic" you live in a world
of dreams. Since the very beginning the Balkan mess was the result of A) The
EU wishing to prove its ability to deal alone with "European problems"
(another big fiasco, that time on this side of the pond), B) bickering among
EU patners (Germany recognizing Croatia alone and out of the blue et al).

Beside, Serbia wasn't neither innocent nor, and this is the point, helpless.
It was the Musilm community in Bosnia, for example, that was under a weapon
embargo from the west - something so idiotic that nobody still really
understands how it happened. It was when other Musilm countries, like Iran,
started to make rumbles about the situation, that the western leaders really
started to fear that the "Balkan problem" could spill over and be no more
contained.

Re: the Kosovo war, it represented a major source of potential
destabilization in Europe. The flow of refugees from Albania to Macedonia
made the risk of a civil war between Slavs and Albanians in that province a
serious threat. Had a civil war broken out, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Bulgary
and even Turkey would have been forced to "do something" to protect their
security interests (the first four countries having also territorial claims
on Macedonia, all of them). The resulting destabilization of a major portion
of Southern Europe was not accetable neither by the EU nor by NATO, and,
after the usual futile efforts to sort out things diplomatically, the
bombing campaign against Serbia started.
Post by Giftzwerg
I count 23 separate "Whereas" clauses in the Congressional Resolution
authorizing war to remove Saddam. If a couple of them have "crumbled"
*in hindsight*, there are ample others to take up the slack.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Yeah, a pair of ***very important ones*** crumbled, while a lot of other
"whereas" could be applied to other countries too. However there is a
particular "whereas" that can speak optimistically for the future:

"Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ
those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its
Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,
and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United
States to defend itself;"

Since Mother Nature Herself just did this, let's see if the United States
will put up a similar effort - in money and resources - to lessen the impact
of similar events in the future - or at very least to understand ***why***
they happen and ***what*** can be done.
Post by Giftzwerg
At this point, I guess it's useful to ask what - *exactly* - is your
gold-standard for going to war.
My gold standard for going to war is that you gain more on the long distance
than what you lose (usually in big scores) on the short one: lands,
resources, stability, whatever (it is true also for tyrants).
Post by Giftzwerg
Watching you try to torture out a
logical position that will leave Mr. Clinton's war on Serbia "in" while
ruling Mr. Bush's war on Iraq "out" should be very interesting.
No need to torture anybody: the reasons for NATO going to war in 1998 are,
at least, formally known, and debated in a lot of books and published
articles. I found useful reading "The Yugoslavian Wars, 1991-1999" by Joze
Pirievec (dunno if it is available in English, but the Italian edition is
very good), and there are many others. I basically agree with them.

...As I basically agreed - you may be surprised - with Bush going agains
Iraq, my line of reasoning being: "They cannot be ***so*** stupid to attack
the country "because", can't they? At the very least, they will place some
fake nuke here and there just to cover their tracks..." As you can imagine,
I was very disappointed.
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 15:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
At this point, I guess it's useful to ask what - *exactly* - is your
gold-standard for going to war.
My gold standard for going to war is that you gain more on the long distance
than what you lose (usually in big scores) on the short one: lands,
resources, stability, whatever (it is true also for tyrants).
This is a ridiculous standard. By these lights, we should invade
*Canada*.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Watching you try to torture out a
logical position that will leave Mr. Clinton's war on Serbia "in" while
ruling Mr. Bush's war on Iraq "out" should be very interesting.
No need to torture anybody: the reasons for NATO going to war in 1998 are,
at least, formally known, and debated in a lot of books and published
articles.
<laughter>

And the reasons for going to war in Iraq are ... still somehow
informally unknown to you?

I mean, in *hindsight* it's clear that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles
of WMDs that virtually everyone (including your own governmental and
intelligence assets, eh, Vinnie?) assumed he did - but that doesn't mean
that the rationale for war wasn't extensively debated and entirely
known.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
I found useful reading "The Yugoslavian Wars, 1991-1999" by Joze
Pirievec (dunno if it is available in English, but the Italian edition is
very good), and there are many others. I basically agree with them.
Well, golly, what a carefully-reasoned and articulately expressed
argument:

"I agree with some nameless book you've probably never heard of."
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Vincenzo Beretta
2005-09-03 16:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
This is a ridiculous standard. By these lights, we should invade
*Canada*.
I counseil against doing it - I do not think that the political fallout will
be worth the cost.
Post by Giftzwerg
And the reasons for going to war in Iraq are ... still somehow
informally unknown to you?
Some are debunked, about some others, I never agreed with them.
Post by Giftzwerg
I mean, in *hindsight* it's clear that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles
of WMDs that virtually everyone (including your own governmental and
intelligence assets, eh, Vinnie?)
Thanks to God I'm not forced to agree with my own governmental and
intelligence assets (the same assets, BTW, that published a report on the
death of Nicola Calipari stating that, basically, the average US Soldier in
Iraq as of 2005 hasn't a clue - I mention this since you do seem to have a
good consideration of their opinion).

Anyway, whad does mean in *hindsight*? That they made a war to check if the
weapons were there??? Shouldn't be the very job of intelligence agencies to
discover, for example, if Russia has some Akula sub still functioning
without having to conquest Murmansk in the process? They started a war
without even having - dunno - a picture of Saddam kissing a phial of plague,
a piece of nuke with "made in Baghdad" printed on it, something? Wow.

If there is someone for whom I do feel sadness and sympathy he is Colin
Powell. His "demonstration" at the ONU is still a painful memory. In
*hindsight* of course.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
I found useful reading "The Yugoslavian Wars, 1991-1999" by Joze
Pirievec (dunno if it is available in English, but the Italian edition is
very good), and there are many others. I basically agree with them.
Well, golly, what a carefully-reasoned and articulately expressed
I summarized the reasons for the war in a short paragraph - and, as I said,
I agreed with them. With the real ones, I mean, not only with the usual
"humanitarian help" shroud.
Post by Giftzwerg
"I agree with some nameless book you've probably never heard of."
You sure seem to do so ^___^
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 16:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
I mean, in *hindsight* it's clear that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles
of WMDs that virtually everyone (including your own governmental and
intelligence assets, eh, Vinnie?)
Anyway, whad does mean in *hindsight*?
I mean that prior to the war, the consensus of virtually all
intelligence organs was that Saddam had maintained stocks of WMDs and
materials for their production.

Have you ever heard of a fellow named "Hans Blix?" Why was he in Iraq
if *not* because there was widespread agreement that Iraq was in a state
of noncompliance?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
That they made a war to check if the
weapons were there??? Shouldn't be the very job of intelligence agencies to
discover, for example, if Russia has some Akula sub still functioning
without having to conquest Murmansk in the process? They started a war
without even having - dunno - a picture of Saddam kissing a phial of plague,
a piece of nuke with "made in Baghdad" printed on it, something? Wow.
They (partly) made a war because Saddam hadn't complied with his
*positive* duty to provide proof that his known stockpiles had been
destroyed.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
If there is someone for whom I do feel sadness and sympathy he is Colin
Powell. His "demonstration" at the ONU is still a painful memory. In
*hindsight* of course.
Powell is that last person I feel any sympathy towards. His
contribution to the drama was a wrongheaded reliance on the UN - which
led directly to the silly notion that "WMDs" was the *only* rationale
for war, a daffy notion that persists to this day with some idiots.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 18:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
I mean, in *hindsight* it's clear that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles
of WMDs that virtually everyone (including your own governmental and
intelligence assets, eh, Vinnie?)
the inspectors who were there said he didn't , they were in postion to know
and it turns out they were right{the chief inspector was an american by the
way} but we didn't like their conclusions, fuzzy inspections or something.
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?
No, since this was not the argument. Had Saddam *really* had WMD, and the
ability to nuke, let's say, Seattle, it would have been criminal not to stop
it (nuking Seattle is something evil N. Korea boasts about openly, BTW, but
poor Saddie was tackled first anyway - the unfairness :^/)
Seldom have I seen so much plain stupidity tucked into a single
(1) We *must* immediately make war on *everyone* with the ability to
"nuke Seattle." That's going to make the world kinda hot in the next
few years, since simultaneously invading Russia, Red China, Britain,
France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea is going to ruffle a
few feathers.
no gifty that is your argument.
Post by Giftzwerg
(2) We're not allowed to make war on *anyone* who doesn't have the
capacity to "nuke Seattle." Mr. Clinton's horrific war on helpless,
innocent Serbia must have *really* sent you 'round the twist, eh?
horrific? the bombing campaign was successful , incurred few u.s.
casualties, it was part of a larger international effort and it killed very
few civilians, we didn't kill over 100,000.
and we didn't suffer losses approaching 60,000.{or don't our wounded and
maimed count}
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The argument is that a lot of people, just now, are changing the big
question from "What Are We Doing in Iraq?" to "What Are We Doing in Iraq
INSTEAD OF HERE?" After the "reasons for the war deflated" (AKA the "Saddam
is coming to nuke YOU!" fiasco) the fallback line of the warmongers ("He was
an evil man tyranizing a poor country!") became as brittle as the levees in
New Orleans: i.e. ready to crumble at the first real storm.
I count 23 separate "Whereas" clauses in the Congressional Resolution
authorizing war to remove Saddam. If a couple of them have "crumbled"
*in hindsight*, there are ample others to take up the slack.
the main ones crumbled, and if the truth was known by congress instead of
the lies used by bush , the resolution would never have passed.WMDs were the
reason. the rest is just filler.
removeWMDs and there is no war.
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Hitler could have mustered up at the very least a new European War - which
would have meant millions of victims like in WWI. This was well known and
predictable. For some reasons I do not see Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as of
2003 invading Poland, Norway and France - actually, not even San Marino.
At this point, I guess it's useful to ask what - *exactly* - is your
gold-standard for going to war. Watching you try to torture out a
logical position that will leave Mr. Clinton's war on Serbia "in" while
ruling Mr. Bush's war on Iraq "out" should be very interesting.
getting attacked or a major ally gwetting attacked.
clintons bombing campaign was a nato led affair with a nato{non-american}
commander.
it is an apples and oranges comparison, and you know it, that's why you piss
me off gifty. you toadys briar ans cavallo are pure idiots but you have a
smidgeon of a brain.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 12:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?
No, since this was not the argument.
But you just said "Bush spent - and is spending - a s*itload of money
and human resources to fight one man who couldn't have caused the kind
of devastation that Mother Nature did". This directly implies that you
should only fight enemies who can cause more devastation than Mother
Nature. Explain to me why you think I've interpreted you incorrectly.


Had Saddam *really* had WMD, and the
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
ability to nuke, let's say, Seattle, it would have been criminal not to stop
it (nuking Seattle is something evil N. Korea boasts about openly, BTW, but
poor Saddie was tackled first anyway - the unfairness :^/)
I think the reason for this is that it has occured to Bush that the
fact that NK has *already* developed a nuclear weapon gives Kim a
pretty big trump card. The fact that Saddam hadn't perfected his nuke
by the time of the invasion made that invasion all the more attractive
- i.e. let's do it while we still can.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The argument is that a lot of people, just now, are changing the big
question from "What Are We Doing in Iraq?" to "What Are We Doing in Iraq
INSTEAD OF HERE?"
Yeah. That's the argument of "a lot of people". It's also not a very
sound argument.

After the "reasons for the war deflated" (AKA the "Saddam
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
is coming to nuke YOU!" fiasco) the fallback line of the warmongers ("He was
an evil man tyranizing a poor country!")
It's interesting that this "fallback line" was being used as a
justification from the start.

became as brittle as the levees in
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
New Orleans: i.e. ready to crumble at the first real storm.
You don't don't agree that Saddam was evil? That he was terrorising a
poor country? How exactly has this justification crumbled?
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Hitler could have mustered up at the very least a new European War - which
would have meant millions of victims like in WWI. This was well known and
predictable. For some reasons I do not see Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as of
2003 invading Poland, Norway and France - actually, not even San Marino.
Ah, so what you're saying is that while big wars can be fought, small
wars of liberation shouldn't be fought because we might need the money
for New Orleans. And you're also saying that we shouldn't cut back of
wastage of money in any other area of government spending as an
alternative means of funding disaster relief. Can I ask you why the
funding for disaster prevention/recovery HAS to come solely out of the
war kitty?
ray o'hara
2005-09-03 17:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
Yeah, but this is an appallingly stupid argument; are you seriously
suggesting that we ignore *every* human evil on the basis that it can't
match the "kind of devastation that Mother Nature" is capable of?
No, since this was not the argument. Had Saddam *really* had WMD, and the
ability to nuke, let's say, Seattle, it would have been criminal not to stop
it (nuking Seattle is something evil N. Korea boasts about openly, BTW, but
poor Saddie was tackled first anyway - the unfairness :^/)
if n korea had oil we would seriously think about invading.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
The argument is that a lot of people, just now, are changing the big
question from "What Are We Doing in Iraq?" to "What Are We Doing in Iraq
INSTEAD OF HERE?" After the "reasons for the war deflated" (AKA the "Saddam
is coming to nuke YOU!" fiasco) the fallback line of the warmongers ("He was
an evil man tyranizing a poor country!") became as brittle as the levees in
New Orleans: i.e. ready to crumble at the first real storm.
Post by Giftzwerg
"Hitler? Nope. Mustn't fight him. He can't muster up earthquakes,
typhoons, and asteroid strikes."
Hitler could have mustered up at the very least a new European War - which
would have meant millions of victims like in WWI. This was well known and
predictable. For some reasons I do not see Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as of
2003 invading Poland, Norway and France - actually, not even San Marino.
the absurd is gifty's main style, saddam didn't declare on us hitler did,
until he did we were more than happy to sit it out.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 12:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Post by Giftzwerg
So much for the left's latest hobbyhorse, eh? They'll have to fall back
on "Global Warming."
More to the point, fall back to the "Bush spent - and is spending - a
s*itload of money and human resources to fight one man who couldn't have
caused the kind of devastation that Mother Nature did".
Firstly, why you you focusing solely on what has been spent on the
war?? What about all the much vaster sums that are *actually* wasted on
people who don't deserve handouts, and on things that private
enterprise would supply much more efficiently? It strikes me that the
war in Iraq is a rare occasion on which a government actually *did*
spend some money wisely.

While the experts
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
still debate if global warming is a possible reason for the increase of
hurricane activity (and this is a question that should have remained
*scientific*, not political), I see no more debate about if oldie Saddy
could have nuked New Orleans.
Why would he need to nuke it? I'm no expert, but it strikes me that as
few as ten well-placed car bombs would have done a nice job on those
levees.

On a more general point, I'm at a bit of a loss about these levees to
begin with. With so much land to build on above sea-level, why in the
flamin' fuck is New Orleans there anyway? I live in Ireland, which is
smaller than a huge percentage of the individual counties in most US
states, and we yet don't have a single road or street or building in
the entire country that we've been forced to build below sea-level. A
lot of people, in their haste to blame Bush or global-warming or even
the hurricane for that matter, seem to be overlooking the possibility
that "New Orleans" was an amazingly stupid idea in the first place.
Post by Vincenzo Beretta
Hey, it happens also at family level: try to spend a wagon of money in
unproductive activities (marketed as "patriotic", of course), all the while
obscuring the the weather channel on TV - only to be caught penniless when a
merry storm tears your roof off, and you will have a very angry missus and a
big debt.
This analogy would work is this family was spending its entire budget
on paint-balling or on building a giant replica catapult from Lord of
the Rings or something genuinely inane. But for starters, the US hasn't
spent its entire budget on the war in Iraq. Also, it's spent the money
in Iraq far more wisely than it has on, say, social welfare payments.
There's your "real" replica catapult.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 13:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement has been to say"nobody imagined the
levees would break".
Where did you get this quote from? Where and when did Bush say this?

actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
Post by ray o'hara
his war {i'm glad you now recognize its illegality} and his response has
been sloooow.
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-03 14:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by ray o'hara
can we afford the war and the cleanup rebuild cost?
Brilliant point. How dare Chimpy Bushitler hold a hurricane before he
finished his illegal war.
--
Giftzwerg
he's the president. his only statement
Stop right there. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and find out what the
President has *actually* being saying. there's even a nice letter
addressed to Capitol hill asking for billions in aid.

has been to say"nobody imagined the
Post by ray o'hara
levees would break". actually they did, and he kept cutting funds to it for
his war
Show me the figures you're referring to here.

{i'm glad you now recognize its illegality}

I'm glad you recognise that Bush has never made a mistake.

and his response has
Post by ray o'hara
been sloooow.
Yes, it has. But then, he's the head of a *government*, you moron.
Governments are generally rubbish at responding to crises, regardless
of who's in charge.
Post by ray o'hara
i loved it when he said that they had supplies already ready ,well why
aren't they being sent?
Did you see the trucks on the TV today? Or do you think that was all
just faked by CNN?
Giftzwerg
2005-09-03 15:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by ray o'hara
and his response has
been sloooow.
Yes, it has. But then, he's the head of a *government*, you moron.
Governments are generally rubbish at responding to crises, regardless
of who's in charge.
The federal government is actually doing quite well at rushing relief to
the affected areas. The state and local governments in Louisiana and
New Orleans, however, have reacted abysmally. Indeed, it was only the
personal intercession by the president to the mayor of NO on the eve of
the storm that made the evacuation mandatory, and there would be
thousands more dead and tens of thousands more helpless in the disaster
zone otherwise.

And I'm not sure what *realistic* expectations with respect to federal
disaster relief should be. Personally speaking, if disaster struck my
home area, I would expect to be strictly on my own for 72 hours or so,
and survive only by the resources I, myself, had prudently amassed.
After that, I would expect to see local or state resources being
carefully marshalled. Only after some time - a week or more - had
passed would I expect federal help.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
c***@yahoo.com
2005-09-05 16:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giftzwerg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by ray o'hara
and his response has
been sloooow.
Yes, it has. But then, he's the head of a *government*, you moron.
Governments are generally rubbish at responding to crises, regardless
of who's in charge.
The federal government is actually doing quite well at rushing relief to
the affected areas. The state and local governments in Louisiana and
New Orleans, however, have reacted abysmally. Indeed, it was only the
personal intercession by the president to the mayor of NO on the eve of
the storm that made the evacuation mandatory, and there would be
thousands more dead and tens of thousands more helpless in the disaster
zone otherwise.
And I'm not sure what *realistic* expectations with respect to federal
disaster relief should be. Personally speaking, if disaster struck my
home area, I would expect to be strictly on my own for 72 hours or so,
and survive only by the resources I, myself, had prudently amassed.
After that, I would expect to see local or state resources being
carefully marshalled. Only after some time - a week or more - had
passed would I expect federal help.
I think a great story that's come out of this is that one about the 15
year old who broke into a school, stole a bus, and drove it all the way
to Texas, filling it up with people along the way. He didn't wait
around for the government.
Post by Giftzwerg
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If Baathist dead-enders and imported Islamonuts from Saudi and Syria
want to make Iraq ungovernable, the country will dissolve into a
democratic Kurdistan, a democratic Shiastan, and a moribund Sunni squat
in the middle. And, in the grander scheme of things, that wouldn't be so
terrible either."
- Mark Steyn
Giftzwerg
2005-09-05 18:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Giftzwerg
And I'm not sure what *realistic* expectations with respect to federal
disaster relief should be. Personally speaking, if disaster struck my
home area, I would expect to be strictly on my own for 72 hours or so,
and survive only by the resources I, myself, had prudently amassed.
After that, I would expect to see local or state resources being
carefully marshalled. Only after some time - a week or more - had
passed would I expect federal help.
I think a great story that's come out of this is that one about the 15
year old who broke into a school, stole a bus, and drove it all the way
to Texas, filling it up with people along the way. He didn't wait
around for the government.
If he had waited, that bus would have been another sad exhibit in what's
being called "The Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool:"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Nice, eh? In the satellite image of this very lot, enterprising
bloggers have counted no fewer than *255* buses, all gassed up and ready
for the first day of school, and with a capacity of 66 adults each;
that's 16,830 poor, transportationless souls saved *per trip*...

...if Mayor Ray "The Feds Ain't Helping Us Po' Black Folks" Nagin had
thought of using the district's school buses, rather than just pissing
and moaning about the performance of others, that is.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Is there not something bizarre about [the left's] willingness to fire
off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The
disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the
environment from global warming ... no, no, it was caused by the
administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more
levees to control the Mississippi River ... it's Iraq, no it's budget
cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.

Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see
somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political
opportunity?"
- David Frum
Alan Bernardo
2005-09-03 17:53:32 UTC
Permalink
The Bush Administration was slow to respond but now things are looking good.
I doubt Bush, seriously, acted slowly intentionally. These things do happen
and generally Bush does care. Now I'm one of the most anti-Bush you'll
find, but looking at this objectively (objectivity not being a strong point
for many here), things happen. All that can be hoped for is that if America
encounters a similar situation, the same mistakes won't be made.

But all in all what most angers me is how now the government and everyone
else wants the common people to start donating all this money. I smell
scam. Let the government take care of it, along with the cooperations which
have the cash to expend. Though asking for donations from common America
can build a sense of unity, I think in cases like these it's the government
that has to put up the money. We spend (and I'll add, waste) trillions on
waging war but then we need money from everyone else in order to help
domestically. That's what I pay taxes for, and that's a whole bunch of
money, all told.


Alanb
JP
2005-09-03 21:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Bernardo
The Bush Administration was slow to respond but now things are looking good.
I doubt Bush, seriously, acted slowly intentionally. These things do happen
and generally Bush does care. Now I'm one of the most anti-Bush you'll
find, but looking at this objectively (objectivity not being a strong point
for many here), things happen. All that can be hoped for is that if America
encounters a similar situation, the same mistakes won't be made.
But all in all what most angers me is how now the government and everyone
else wants the common people to start donating all this money. I smell
scam. Let the government take care of it, along with the cooperations which
have the cash to expend. Though asking for donations from common America
can build a sense of unity, I think in cases like these it's the government
that has to put up the money. We spend (and I'll add, waste) trillions on
waging war but then we need money from everyone else in order to help
domestically. That's what I pay taxes for, and that's a whole bunch of
money, all told.
Alanb
I understand your point, but personally, I'd rather have myself/private
sources kick in money, etc. Less waste, more efficient, etc. It's my
money; let me decide what to do with it. And of course, taxes are our money
anyway, but you know bureaucracies; if it takes x dollars to do item z
privately, it'll take x+ dollars for a govt. agency to do the same thing.
Briarroot
2005-09-03 23:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Bernardo
But all in all what most angers me is how now the government and everyone
else wants the common people to start donating all this money. I smell
scam.
LMAO You smell a scam in everything, don't you, dipshit?

"The internet has turned into one big scam. The money-grubbers have
gotten a-hold of it and turned it into one big advertisement." (Alan
Bernardo, csipgw-h, July 18, 2005)
Post by Alan Bernardo
Let the government take care of it,
Government money is *our* money, funneled through a wasteful labyrinth
of bureaucratic agencies before it arrives at a place where it may
actually do some good.
Post by Alan Bernardo
along with the cooperations which have the cash to expend.
There you go again, railing against those 'evil' corporations as if the
drive for corporate profit *wasn't* the engine which powers our economy
and enables us to enjoy a high standard of living. Sheesh, what an idiot!

"The internet has turned into one big giant Wal-Mart" (Alan Bernardo,
csipgw-h, July 16,2005)

"All I'm saying is that nearly all that is done is done because it
benefits the person and that person's intentions are to make as much
money as possible with the least bit of strain or good intentions."
(Alan Bernardo, csipgw-h, July 18, 2005)

"Of course I have nothing against someone making money. What I do
despise are those who say they are doing some common good while they
make money, when in fact they have no interest but to make money." (Alan
Bernardo, csipgw-h, July 18, 2005)

"All I'm looking for is a little honesty. I'm not expecting anyone to
say, "Buy my product, even though it will cost you 20 times over what it
costs me to produce it; and though I could sell it for less, I'm not
going to, because I want to make as much money as possible. I am not
concerned with your pocketbook, only with mine."" (Alan Bernardo,
csipgw-h, July 18, 2005)

"But I don't expect people to say they are selling something because
they care about someone's wellfare [sic], when in fact all they care
about is making a quick buck." (Alan Bernardo, csipgw-h, July 18, 2005)
Post by Alan Bernardo
Though asking for donations from common America
can build a sense of unity, I think in cases like these it's the government
that has to put up the money.
It's *our* money, and collecting that money and redistributing it is a
wasteful process.
Post by Alan Bernardo
We spend (and I'll add, waste) trillions on waging war
Only billions, so far. Are you willfully stupid, or just ignorant?
Post by Alan Bernardo
but then we need money from everyone else in order to help
domestically. That's what I pay taxes for, and that's a whole bunch of
money, all told.
You mean, that's what *your mommy* pays taxes for, don't you?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...