Hurricane Katrina

[ShunNakamura]

*cough* there is not much one can do to prevent hurricanes from striking such an area as New Orleans except to move the city. Anything we put up, nature could have torn down. The damage New Orleans has is from being BROADSIDED. It was not struck directly. The power these storms weild are more then our structures can currently withstand.

What you can do is make sure you quickly and efficently respond to the threat of such a hurricane. Thus negating damage. True we could probably have done more, however the real power to stop this sort of situation comes from a powerful reactionary plan. Bush apparently didn't have one ready, in place, and ready to be quickly activated. Who knows Clinton may have done just as baddly.

[Shoden]

They should of evacuated before the storm hit.

[bipper]

They should of evacuated before the storm hit.

This is too easy to say in hind sight, and I LOVE the way everyone is nailing Bush here. Granted, he was lax and cumbersome in getting his ass in gear, but so was everyone else. Even the media coverage assumed New Orleans was fine and dandy for the first while. I was glued to teh weather channel at work, and they seemed more worried about the inner areas of the US.

Most of the problems happened after the main part of Katrina hit here. Levies began to fail, and the process became a slow massacre of mother nature's fury. So estimates on the delay of the Bush administration's lapse have been exadurated. Also note, that the levies were made to theoretically with stand a cat 3 hurricane; so evacuation extimates were slow to determine how severe the storm could really be. It is a known risk to all whom live there, but it will still always be a tragic loss of life.

All we can is get all the help we can, get the job DONE, and then learn from this tragity.

Bipper

[fire_of_avalon]

In response to MILF-ie, the levees haven't undergone and overhaul since the sixties because it's not economically wise to shut down our largest port of call for the several months or even years it would take to make them able to stand a Cat-5.

Regardless of what has been done thus far, it took 100 hours+ for our government to mobilize for this particular disaster. It didn't take them that long for 9/11, and this destruction is much, much more massive. I think any and everyone with a problem concerning how this situation was handled has more than enough evidence on their side. I really don't see any way you can say this was handled properly. The government should admit it's wrong immediately, and move on with the reconstruction.

[Cloud No.9]

okay i'm not going to give any wishes for the dead as that is pretty much expected and i don't think needs to be said. but at the end of the day a blame will need to be settled for this and that is what i want to talk about.

first of all the gulf of mexico. it is warmer now than it has eve been recorded. the reason for this is global warming and science tells us that that is being caused by the greenhouse effect and co2 emmissions. hurricanes thrive off warmer seas. it makes them fiercer, more frequent and longer lasting. the warmth of the gulf of mexico is part of the problem.

the levvy itself. poorly maintained especcially when compared to holland. too much money is being pumped into this war on terror and this was forgotten about. we knew this was a possible disaster. at the start of bush's forst term he ws told of the 3 worst case scenarios. a high strength earth quake in san fransisco, a large scale terrorist attacj on new york and a force 5 hurricane in new orleans. the concequences of this had been predicted and ignored. i am very suprised that any terrorist worth his salt had not seen those levvy's as a potential target and attacked upon it.

the evacuation scheme. ruled over by money. if you were rich you had the money to leave. if you were poor you were left. money bought live in new orleans. if you were poor you were abondoned and left to be swept away. the size of someone's bank account was deemed as their right to survive. nothing else matter when it came to getting those people out. the poor were left to die for being poor.

that is not to say that the people who did stay do not carry part of the blame themselves. it was possible to leave. on foot. millions of people walked across the sudanese desert to escape the genocide. starving the walked across their country. it was possible to do the same in new orleans.

the national guard. the main concern was not the dying poor. drowning, starving and dehydrated. their main concern was looting. the possessions of the rich. yes there was some opportunistic looting but alot of it was to survive, if you were hungry and thirsty and dying would you not go into your local wal market and take what you needed to keep on living. but the national guard decided that the possessions of the rich (who had been saved from this disaster purely by being so) were more important than the lives of the poor.

organisation. it took a week for help to come for these people. many died because of that.

it is also a failure of morality in a way and not just in the protection of the rich. the us refused to help niger when 3 million people were starving to death, refused to help sudan, refused to help africa. but now comes to nato and the eu begging for help in the same way niger did. the richest and most powerful nation should not need help in dealing with this. it should not need hand outs. and it is hypocritical for it to ask for it.

if this had been an african country no help would be given. and this thread would have been filled with "they refuse to help themselves" "it's not our responsibility" "we give out too much money". but now the shoe is on the other foot. now bush is crying out for help. in the same way he was been cried to.

if these people weren't american and didn't talk english. if we couldn't understand what they said when they cried. we wouldn't care and this thread wouldn't have gained this amount of posts. it would have been a few more dead africans.

[Madame Adequate]

Well Cloud, I've been expecting you. Let's get down to business, shall we?

okay i'm not going to give any wishes for the dead as that is pretty much expected and i don't think needs to be said. but at the end of the day a blame will need to be settled for this and that is what i want to talk about.

What I'm reading from this is "Dumb Americans deserved it.".

first of all the gulf of mexico. it is warmer now than it has eve been recorded. the reason for this is global warming and science tells us that that is being caused by the greenhouse effect and co2 emmissions. hurricanes thrive off warmer seas. it makes them fiercer, more frequent and longer lasting. the warmth of the gulf of mexico is part of the problem.

Incorrect! Hurricans have been in pretty much a 50-year decline in terms of frequency. The 1940's had the highest number of hurricans for any decade on record. As you can see the number of hurricans is, on average, lower now than it was in the first half of the last century. Ok, it's not fallen by a massive amount next to say, the 1860's or the 1920's, but then look at the 1940's and the 1880's. There is, in truth, not a great deal of a pattern to be drawn from those. The number of major hurricanes, also, can see seen to have only once been freakishly high (1940's) and only once been freakishly low (1860's). There is no trend towards a higher occurance or frequency of hurricanes; indeed is it possible to see that the averages have fallen slightly in the last 50 years.

the levvy itself. poorly maintained especcially when compared to holland. too much money is being pumped into this war on terror and this was forgotten about. we knew this was a possible disaster. at the start of bush's forst term he ws told of the 3 worst case scenarios. a high strength earth quake in san fransisco, a large scale terrorist attacj on new york and a force 5 hurricane in new orleans. the concequences of this had been predicted and ignored. i am very suprised that any terrorist worth his salt had not seen those levvy's as a potential target and attacked upon it.

Agreed when it comes to there not being enough done here. Why did Clinton do nothing? He had eight years when he wasn't fighting a war on global terrorism. In actuality, the blame lies right back to the 19th century. Additionally, you show you don't know how the US system works - the levee's were the state's (Democrats) responsibility.

the evacuation scheme. ruled over by money. if you were rich you had the money to leave. if you were poor you were left. money bought live in new orleans. if you were poor you were abondoned and left to be swept away. the size of someone's bank account was deemed as their right to survive. nothing else matter when it came to getting those people out. the poor were left to die for being poor.

Bullhockey. As I said, unless you're old, young, or infirm, you can walk up I-10 with your thumb out. Also, you've apparently completely forgotten Biloxi, Gulfport, and the other places affected in the 300-miles along the Gulf Coast. There's a whole ton of small towns, suburbs, and suchlike (Have you even heard of, for example, Houma? Metarie?) affected as well as the ghettos in the middle of Nawleans.

that is not to say that the people who did stay do not carry part of the blame themselves. it was possible to leave. on foot. millions of people walked across the sudanese desert to escape the genocide. starving the walked across their country. it was possible to do the same in new orleans.

Fair enough, you recognize this. Consider my earlier point blunted.

the national guard. the main concern was not the dying poor. drowning, starving and dehydrated. their main concern was looting. the possessions of the rich. yes there was some opportunistic looting but alot of it was to survive, if you were hungry and thirsty and dying would you not go into your local wal market and take what you needed to keep on living. but the national guard decided that the possessions of the rich (who had been saved from this disaster purely by being so) were more important than the lives of the poor.

You're joking, aren't you? You have no clue what you're on about. Now, there's not many people who say there's anything wrong with looting food and water and shoes and such (That was nasty water, they needed shoes, believe me.) to survive. And those who do say tolerance of one form of looting leads to other kinds of looting, which there may or may not be weight in. But there's no need to loot TVs, radios, whatever. Of course, preventing people from taking whatever possessions the dastardly oppressors have and that the poor crushed proletariat want doesn't exactly fit in with your *ahem* 'redistribution' plans.

Oh, yeah. There was also the way looters were shooting at doctors.

organisation. it took a week for help to come for these people. many died because of that.

Fully agreed. WTF? This better lead to some major changes in how emergency situations are handled.

it is also a failure of morality in a way and not just in the protection of the rich. the us refused to help niger when 3 million people were starving to death, refused to help sudan, refused to help africa. but now comes to nato and the eu begging for help in the same way niger did. the richest and most powerful nation should not need help in dealing with this. it should not need hand outs. and it is hypocritical for it to ask for it.

That is an absolutely insane claim. Your audacity in suggesting the massive amounts of contribution the US has given to nations all around the world (Remember, they pretty much paid for rebuilding Europe after WW2.), and the fact that they were pretty much the first and largest responders to the Asian Tsunami. The US in 2003 gave US$16.25 billion in foreign/development aid. The entire combined EU (At the time, 15 nations) gave US$37.14 billion. Now, I can say it's not fair to expect massive amounts from say, Austria or Luxembourg, but France, Germany, and Britain should all be easily up there. At any rate, just because the US (And the UN...) didn't pounce immediately upon whatever pet project you're using to bash them today and fix it doesn't mean they've no right to ask for help from anyone, ever. The US has shown itself over - what 250+ years? Something like that - to be a progressive and forward moving nation. Africa has spend their time being free from (European) imperialism fighting ethnic and civil wars and generally doing sod all in the way of progress. Even when a nation does well they let some crackpot in and it falls to pieces. Africa can have all the help she needs once she shows herself willing and able to make use of it. America can, and will. She gets aid.

if this had been an african country no help would be given. and this thread would have been filled with "they refuse to help themselves" "it's not our responsibility" "we give out too much money". but now the shoe is on the other foot. now bush is crying out for help. in the same way he was been cried to.

Erm, might I remind you of this? I seem to remember... yes, it's coming to me now... I think I recall a massive charitably aid effort! My God, why, it's inhuman! How dare the Americans donate almost $2 billion, much more than any other nation? That will totally wreck up your portrayal of them! Wait, wait, I know. Just ignore it. Pretend it never happened. Focus on Niger, focus on Niger, focus on Niger. Indonesia? What's that? Why aren't you talking about Africa?

[Cloud No.9]

no MILF i'm not saying they deserved it but at the end of the day blame needs to be rested as this was a preventable tragedy.

the national geographic will proof you wrong on hurricanes going down.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2438.htm

you can note that that article is 4 years old. so we are well in the increase. there is a cycle but we are speeding it up and making it fiercer. before it was justa question of weather cycles we are now adding extra ocean heat into the equation.

and why does the most powerful nation on earth now need aid? i'm sorry but it seems absurd. africa i can understand, partsof asia i can understand. but america? with all it's might and money? and i do hope that the immense interest put on other loans and aid is shoved on anything that america gets. the same way it is on africa.

the asian tsunami required media attention unlike niger and sudan and ethiopia. it was on a tremendous scale. it was unavoidable. the resulting aid was not from the governments but from charities.

[Cuchulainn]

I don't think it's appropriate to play the blame-game just yet. What is needed now it herlp, aid & people ready to act. Once things settle down & the area is secured then we can start asking why the world's richest nation could not respond to its own citizens immediately & left them stranded for almost a week.

The rescue workers themselves were excellent, I believe it was down to the organisation of it. A German General once said of the British Army 'They are lions led by donkeys', I hear that echoing in my ears right now.

The African-American lobby is already playing the race card, this may, or may not turn out to be fact, but I don't believe it's as simple as that. I believe it's a financial thing. Those who could afford to leave, left, those who couldn't or wouldn't, didn't. It's a tragedy of immense proportions & now that America has asked for NATO & UN help I doubt they'll have trouble getting it.

If I may contradict myself & hint on the blame-game just a bit, I believe the mistakes & lack of action go no further than State level. Local Government etc.. Whilst Bush didn't exactly handle thing ideally, he cannot be solely blamed for the inadequent barriers around the city, they have been there for more than 10 Presidencies. Once the dust clears & we get immediate help to those who need it, get them re-housed & the city secured & work started, then we can, if we wish, point fingers.

PS: Cloud as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, your stance is eternally Anti American on every matter known to man. You live in a country that has perpetrated more war crimes, more deaths & hardships on the world than Americans have time for & you won't hear a bad word said against it, unless it's Tony Blair. As much as I respect the UK as it is now & respect your opinion, your opinion now seems to be repeating itself over & over and everytime you post users are expecting the same old same old. Maybe focus on some constructive critisisms instead of just pointing out problems.

[Rye]

and why does the most powerful nation on earth now need aid? i'm sorry but it seems absurd. africa i can understand, partsof asia i can understand. but america? with all it's might and money? and i do hope that the immense interest put on other loans and aid is shoved on anything that america gets. the same way it is on africa.

Because it's kind to help? I know this is falling on deaf ears because as Cuchulainn said, you're completely anti-american, but America has helped a lot of countries and though America hasn't asked other countries for help, it's kind to receive help. Lives are in danger and more die everyday so help is very nice. It makes me sad when people and their opinions and politics get in the way of helping people, because the latter should come first.

[Cloud No.9]

first things first. i'm not anti-american per se. america just has a habit of alot of things i am against. and i criticise my own country quite enough. i'm by no way a nationalist or patriot i was happy enough to criticise over the new terror laws and de menesez. i criticised over g8. that and most people here are american and so to use america as an example for things like the g8 is best.

it's not kind to help when it's not needed. and i don't belief it is. what is lacking is organisation, common sense and man power. you can't buy them.

[Endless]

no MILF i'm not saying they deserved it but at the end of the day blame needs to be rested as this was a preventable tragedy.

the national geographic will proof you wrong on hurricanes going down.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2438.htm

you can note that that article is 4 years old. so we are well in the increase. there is a cycle but we are speeding it up and making it fiercer. before it was justa question of weather cycles we are now adding extra ocean heat into the equation.

and why does the most powerful nation on earth now need aid? i'm sorry but it seems absurd. africa i can understand, partsof asia i can understand. but america? with all it's might and money? and i do hope that the immense interest put on other loans and aid is shoved on anything that america gets. the same way it is on africa.

the asian tsunami required media attention unlike niger and sudan and ethiopia. it was on a tremendous scale. it was unavoidable. the resulting aid was not from the governments but from charities.

You do realize that neither article even suggests that there may be a link between the increase in the hurricane frquency/strength and "global warming"? The first one says we entered a new high cycle, the second says that 2005 is going to be an above avrage year. That's all. Global warming, assuming it's something we cause, has been going on for more than 5 years (more like about half a century to a full century), yet until 1995, there were less hurricanes than average.

[Cloud No.9]

it's a progressive thing. and it takes alot of other things into consideration really. global warming isn't the only cause. it's a contributing cause. but it's the only cause we can actually fight.

[bipper]

Hye cloud, first off welcome back. Secondly, I do agree that the situation as a whole was handled carelessly. It has been since the day they threw up the first levey. They new what it could take, and they built the equivilant of a giant trailer home in tornado alley.

I must disaprove of your out look on America Charaty though. When you or your country dishes out mor per capita than we do, then I think you could start telling us where to throw our money. Milf was right about the tsunami. I also must say that as the other thread on Niger was discussed I walked away from it with the belief that we can throw money and food at them all we want, what they need more than anything would be a revolution. Which I don;t think you would agree with. When Americans invest (for a less charitable word) in aiding a country, they would like to see thier money being used wiseley. It makes a lot of relevant sence when you think about it. It's just not as easy to help as it should be.


I do not think it is too early to play the blame game. I think its essential that we get straight into it before teh government and other parties start playing thier political dance music to change the light on the situation. What else are we doing anyways? Sides donating what we can.


I seen the Revrend Jessie Jackson on CNN today doing his thing. He had some good experiences of how helpless even the people who have been pulled out of the Nawlans area. He also whiped the anchor woman for calling them refugees That man is hilarious to watch; I gotta say I love'em.

Bipper

[Madame Adequate]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

Apparently, Cloud No.9 is illiterate, which would explain plenty. "It's part of a natural cycle, and it's going to be a real eye-opening for the people living on the coasts who have never seen a hurricane before."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2438.htm

Which says very little, other than this year will likely be a spike. Heaven forefend that is simply a contrivance of events, instead of Coca-Cola's Air Poisoning Concern.

[quote]you can note that that article is 4 years old. so we are well in the increase. there is a cycle but we are speeding it up and making it fiercer. before it was justa question of weather cycles we are now adding extra ocean heat into the equation.[/quote

I'll wait until all the data from the 2000's are tabulated (The decade, not the millennium, that is.) before we see what it was like. To be fair, there may be evidence that they are becoming more ferocious - whether or not this has anything to do with us is unverifiable.

and why does the most powerful nation on earth now need aid? i'm sorry but it seems absurd. africa i can understand, partsof asia i can understand. but america? with all it's might and money? and i do hope that the immense interest put on other loans and aid is shoved on anything that america gets. the same way it is on africa.

Because 'most powerful' does not eqaute to 'powerful enough to handle anything'. And nobody considers most donations in the interests of disaster relief efforts to be loans.

the asian tsunami required media attention unlike niger and sudan and ethiopia. it was on a tremendous scale. it was unavoidable. the resulting aid was not from the governments but from charities.

So now 3 million starving folks from Niger aren't on a tremendous scale? I don't actually know what you're trying to say with the first part there. Anyways, governments and private charities both contributed to it, but as ever, the private sector showed it's efficiency and desire for real help instead of political good will or whatever.

[Cloud No.9]

this hurricane seems bigger because it's america and they speak english. people have a hard time empathising with crying women on tv when they have no idea what they are saying. niger seems a whole world away. and everything appears smaller. on the same day remember 1000 iraqis died in a stampede and there was a typhoon in asia. and 30,000 children starved to death. again.

the plight of africa is on a tremendous scale but noone gives a damn. we can be told about niger one day and the next day will be some famous guy's death. we shrug it off. africa seems smaller because it is relentless. it's not a one off. it is a constant and growing problem and makes this hurricane look like peanuts. it really makes every other thing on this earth look like peanuts.

but because it is so big and so constant people refuse to help as it has worn off years ago and they haven't seen an instant solution.

fast destructive things like the tsunami and this hurricane are better news. even better if they speak english and we are closer to them (both geographically and politically).

and the news will dictate what people support and what people donate to.

but back to a different point. is america so poor and powerless that they need our help to deal with this? did they go to the un? i never heard of that. it would seem hypocritical for me if they did and cutting their nose off despite their face if they didn't.