I never would have thought such a modern western country like this would have such scum living in it.
After the asian tsunami ya didn't hear of the people raping and murdering each other.
I really hope they find and bring justice to all the people who decided to miss-use the disaster like this.
I have a clan member in the US army that has been sent off and they are under orders to shoot to kill. I just never saw the US ending up like this just from a natural disaster :(.
New Orleans was the USA's most violent city before the hurricane.
The best thing to do at this stage is to permanently abandon the city. Plough it under. What happened was a statistical inevitability, and will continue to reoccur for so long as people live there.
I'm oddly desensitised to this sort of thing after reading Blindness by Jose Saramago for English... But nevertheless... this sort of thing proves how americans are just scum sucking bottom feeders at their very core :p
Well finally the dome? has been evacuated and some sort of security is taking place in the city now. Suprised Bush actually had the guts to admit it was a piss poor effort on his governments part..
that shit seriously isnt funny, what kinda sick pathetic people would do a thing like that? they should seriously be shot, killed or tortured, and america believes that australia has a higher rate of crime then they do
Happens in Australia quite a bit, we just dont hear about it. Actually, the number of serious crimes committed in Aus that you dont hear about would probably shock the average citizen.
Its just a way of life in America now, which is sad :(
It's not his job, the responsibility lay with the mayor of the city, and governer of the state, they were responsible for the evacuation. Bush isn't legally able to send troops in to help out unless requested by the governer, and that request for help came a little late. How that can be used to relate Bush to being a 'sick bastard' I do not know.
Stand by? He ordered a state of emergency two days before the hurricane struck.
Of course, you could say that he should have anticipated that the mayor of NO and the governer would fail to do their job properly, and thus override the American Constitution by sending in troops illegally to try and help everyone out, but he would be impeached and stripped of office soon afterwards.
Quote from Jaian: and thus override the American Constitution by sending in troops illegally to try and help everyone out, but he would be impeached and stripped of office soon afterwards.
Kidding right?..
I'm sure everyone would agree.. it'd be a far better thing to help his own country in a time of need.. screw the constitution, you shouldn't need a reason or any laws when it comes to helping your own country :(
I'm sure everyone would agree.. it'd be a far better thing to help his own country in a time of need.. screw the constitution, you shouldn't need a reason or any laws when it comes to helping your own country :(
Exactly...and any party that tried to argue the opposite would do more damage to themselves and only HELP Bush, so it'd be pretty safe to say that wouldn't happen.
Quote from OverDrive: If you seriously think they'd impeach a president for a humanitarian mission you need your marbles counted.
As an Australian you no doubt have no regard whatsoever for the American Constitution. Most Americans, however, do give a shit about that document.
Let's break this down;
For Bush to send in troops to Louisana without the governers request would require him to seek approval from Congress, and Congress would refuse (unless all the Democrats and half the Republicans were murdered). Thus Bush would have to overthrow a democratic government, impose a military dictatorship, and then send his (now) personal stormtroopers into Lousiana to help out.
You somehow believe after Bush becomes the first American president to shut down a democratic government and sends troops to do his bidding, he will NOT be arrested and stripped from office if he ever deigns to return the government to normalcy?
Okay, now let's forget about your delusions, and focus on who could have done what, and legally:
1. The mayor of NO could have used the public transport system to help evacuate people. This was not done.
2. The governer of Louisana could organised for buses to be used to help evacuate people. This was not done.
3. Bush cannot send in military help without overthrowing his own government, and invading another state. This was not done.
I'm struggling to understand this logic where you avoid blaming the two people whose jurisdiction this lay in, and go straight to Bush who is effectively powerless to act.
the constitution isn't (and shouldn't be) a document that can be ignored at a whim. doing so, and allowing it, would set an enormously bad precent for future 'whims'.
from the reports of the general behaviour level over there right now, it sounds like wiping out new orleans is a good thing.
Sounds pretty funny though, Bush and his government will go against the UN on an argument that was based on false premises and yet won't go against his one of his own mayors to directly save lives.
Well.. sounds kinda stupid in my opinion. Bush has more rights to go do stuff to other countries then the states within the country he represents? Ok...
How would you feel as a citizen of that state? Yes sure the govenor should have done a lot more for his people, I do agree.. but failing that.. what? Let's flood Darwin and leave you stranded there while the local government does sweet fck all.. while Howard sits back and does nothing because he is not allowed to.. got a whole Army ready to to be there.. but instead we'll only keep them in Iraq and various other places around the world protecting other people.. I know what i'd sure want..
I understand why the constitution is there.. it just seems sad it prevents help in a time of real need.. thats all :(
But yeah Paladin, kinda true hey.. it did sound like a pretty terrible place, as sad as it is to say.
Oh well.. what's it matter, whats done is done, just sad there wasn't help any sooner, and imo unfortunate and a bit silly Bush can't help at all..
All we can do is wait until Oliver Stone makes a movie about it to find out what really happened. And I bet the movie will have freakin Indians in it. Feather, not dot.
Quote from ruin: Sounds pretty funny though, Bush and his government will go against the UN on an argument that was based on false premises and yet won't go against his one of his own mayors to directly save lives.
Every country is willing to go against the wishes of the UN, Australia included. Most democratically elected leaders are chosen by the people of their own country to look after their own interests, not by people in other countries for other people's interests.
Quote from OverDrive: He could've just publicly asked the Gov if he really wanted to go in - no chance the Gov's going to say no in that situation.
No chance of Congress voting against Bush ripping up the constitution? That's a level of political analysis that's on the leven of the Japanese tourists who believed Pauline Hanson was the prime minister of Australia.
Quote from Jono: Well.. sounds kinda stupid in my opinion. Bush has more rights to go do stuff to other countries then the states within the country he represents? Ok...
When you put it that way, it's similar to how the UN functions; they cannot force their individual member states to do anything the member state doesnt want done, short of using force, and that's not particularly easy to do. Just look at how everyone stalls while genocide takes place in member states.
Quote: How would you feel as a citizen of that state? Yes sure the govenor should have done a lot more for his people, I do agree.. but failing that.. what?
Don't know, but after seeing the catastrophe for himself, Bush has taken action and is doing everything he legally can to help the victims of the hurricane out.
Quote: Let's flood Darwin and leave you stranded there while the local government does sweet fck all.. while Howard sits back and does nothing because he is not allowed to.. got a whole Army ready to to be there.. but instead we'll only keep them in Iraq and various other places around the world protecting other people.. I know what i'd sure want..
Of course we know what you'd want, but the rest of Australia might not necessarily agree if it meant making John Howard the King of Australia. I'm sure Schapelle Corby wouldn't mind if the Australian government invaded Indonesia and broke her free, in fact, she probably prays everyday for this too happen. It's her bad luck, but it won't ever happen.
Quote: I understand why the constitution is there.. it just seems sad it prevents help in a time of real need.. thats all :(
Quote from Jaian: Of course we know what you'd want, but the rest of Australia might not necessarily agree if it meant making John Howard the King of Australia. I'm sure Schapelle Corby wouldn't mind if the Australian government invaded Indonesia and broke her free, in fact, she probably prays everyday for this too happen. It's her bad luck, but it won't ever happen.
But why does that make him King? Just because he can use the army to help out his countrymen in a time of need? I don't see that needing any excuse.. i'd be damn proud of him and the government to use it to help another state or anyone in this country at least a damn lot more then for Iraq. There's a difference between needing to and wanting to.. and I think anyone with half a brain knows the differences. Yes there should be rules in place to prevent misuse of such a thing, but to be honest how would you miss use it? Take over your own states? :S
No chance of Congress voting against Bush ripping up the constitution? That's a level of political analysis that's on the leven of the Japanese tourists who believed Pauline Hanson was the prime minister of Australia.
FFS get a grip - where did I say he could ask congress to vote against the constitution. Get down off your horse.
What "I" said was, he could ask the Govenor if he needed help publicly (ie: in a media way where everyone knows he asked). That would both cover his arse, AND force the Gov's hand and allow him in.
Quote from OverDrive: What "I" said was, he could ask the Govenor if he needed help publicly (ie: in a media way where everyone knows he asked). That would both cover his arse, AND force the Gov's hand and allow him in.
When you said 'gov', I took that to mean government.
Also, his ass is already covered in that he declared a state of emergency before the hurricane struck, thus making it easier for the governor to do his job.
It's not like he can predict that the governor would **** up so badly.
Quote from Jono: But why does that make him King? Just because he can use the army to help out his countrymen in a time of need? I don't see that needing any excuse.. i'd be damn proud of him and the government to use it to help another state or anyone in this country at least a damn lot more then for Iraq. There's a difference between needing to and wanting to.. and I think anyone with half a brain knows the differences. Yes there should be rules in place to prevent misuse of such a thing, but to be honest how would you miss use it? Take over your own states? :S
That's the point, the rules that prevent him from making himself a dictator are what limits what he can do to help in this situation. If he ignores those rules, then it's pointless having them in the first place.
The governor of Louisana had the resources to do a better job, yet he failed to do so. After that failure, Bush was able to act.
You gotta remember, the constitution, like ours, was written with an 'intent' for alot of things including protecting it's own citizen's, and alot of it was written a long time ago. Unfortunately 'intent' goes out the window as documents are followed by the letter, or people find loopholes in them, again by the wording. The intent of the constitution was not even considered as those who it's designed to protect were left for dead.
Taken from article linked by OD. He and others are calling the debacle the "anti 9-11": "The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled," he wrote on Sunday.
Any man worth being president would have sacrificed his own career to save lives in such a catastrophic disaster, but there will never be people voted in with that moral fortitude.
The responsibilty 'in the end' of every citizen of the USA is the presidents charge. He clearly failed in his duty, regardless of the consequences. I even suspect if he did something unlawful, in this instance he would have been praised, and maybe? the constitution ammended accordingly.
Whilst I'm not necessarily pro-america, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a corrupt nation... Corrupt probably would have been the situation that occured if he had broken the laws set out in the constitution. IF you want to talk about corrupt nations, I'd suggest you go take a look at Zimbabwe...
Quote from Frenzy: Any man worth being president would have sacrificed his own career to save lives in such a catastrophic disaster, but there will never be people voted in with that moral fortitude.
Yes, but he would also have to overthrow his own government to send in the military.
Quote: The responsibilty 'in the end' of every citizen of the USA is the presidents charge. He clearly failed in his duty, regardless of the consequences.
No, that responsibility lies with the state, not the federal government. We're not talking about Australia, we're talking about a country where the different states have at times gone to war with each other. Each state is responsible for it's own people. This is why every state teaches evolutionary theory in class, instead of teaching that God created man in 7 days like Bush wants taught in class. Bush isn't a dictator, he can't do what he wants without approval from Congress.
Quote: I even suspect if he did something unlawful, in this instance he would have been praised, and maybe? the constitution ammended accordingly.
This would be similar to Howard closing down the Senate and sending in Australians troops into New Zealand uninvited, to help out in the event of a natural disaster. Do you honestly believe the Australian people will praise him for that? Think of the consequences, regardless of the humanitarian benefits.
Bush did what he could, he declared a state of emergency in advance, and asked Congress to get 10 billion dollars in aid money for Louisana (he has no authority to just hand over money). Other states also offered troops to go over, but the paperwork involved meant they couldn't get their in time. Who's to blame? The state government of Louisana.
Yet everyone wants to blame Bush, for something that wasn't in his power to do.
"US President George W Bush has issued a state of emergency in Louisiana and Mississippi, freeing the path for federal aid." - BBC News
"The Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said at the same news conference that President Bush had called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation." - BBC News
This was before the hurricane hit New Orleans. Remember, Bush can't order an evacuation, but he asked the governor of Louisiana to order it. Many states (not the federal government) offered troops to help out, but they couldn't send any until the paperwork was cleared. Bush also asked for billions in aid for the victims, yet he couldn't do anything until Congress approved.
I'm still waiting for any of the critics in this thread to explain why they choose to blame Bush instead of the mayor of NO or the governor of Louisiana, the people in who's jurisdiction it lay, the people who were voted in to take care of New Orleans, the people who actually had the power to help the victims and prepare them.
Or you could just insult President Bush if it makes you feel better.
It sure is one ****ed up situation. Poor city planning in a guaranteed hurricane zone. Local government who say they couldn't fix it because they didn't have the funding. A 'relief effort' worth billions that doens't relieve because of bureaucratic hurdles. Your nation's leader, who's prevented by the same bureaucracy that he's sworn to uphold from doing anything useful when it's needed. It's like.. murphey's law times infinity.
"Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has refused to sign over National Guard control to the federal government and has turned to a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run relief efforts." - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002474644_katnotes06.html
Let's blame Bush for not overthrowing her government and taking control. After all, overthrowing the government of the world's largest economic and military superpower will not affect the world at all.
Let's not forget, he also failed to overthrow the Australian government after Cyclone Tracy, or the Indonesian government after the tsunami. What a vicious selfish prick he is.
"Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has refused to sign over National Guard control to the federal government and has turned to a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run relief efforts." - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002474644_katnotes06.html
... and further on down the article...
"Blanco, a Democrat, was not informed of the timing of Bush's visit, nor was she immediately invited to meet him or travel with him. In fact, Blanco's office didn't know when Bush was coming until told by reporters."
Re: why...
"FEMA, which was elevated to cabinet-level status under Bill Clinton, was demoted to undersecretary status after the creation of DHS, which placed higher priority on countering terrorism than planning for natural disaster. Some members of the International Association of Emergency Managers had predicted that FEMA could not adequately respond to a catastrophe, citing flaws in other disaster responses since 9/11.
George W. Bush has also been criticized for his choice of Michael Brown as FEMA head. Prior to joining FEMA, Brown had no experience whatsoever in disaster relief. Brown had even been fired from his previous job as a supervisor of judging at the International Arabian Horse Association." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina#Criticisms
No wonder she didn't stick with the failed horsey critic :)
Quote from OverDrive: "Blanco, a Democrat, was not informed of the timing of Bush's visit, nor was she immediately invited to meet him or travel with him. In fact, Blanco's office didn't know when Bush was coming until told by reporters."
Um, and...?
Quote: which placed higher priority on countering terrorism than planning for natural disaster.
In hindsight, that was still a good decision. Catastrophes like the effects of Hurricane Katrina are once in a lifetime dangers - which is why so many people in New Orleans chose to stay in the city rather than evacuate as ordered to; they simply refused to believe that such a danger could happen. Terrorist threats however, are a daily danger. Believe it or not, terrorism should take a greater priority.
So tell me, is this really your best excuse to blame Bush instead of the people in charge of the rescue operation, the same people who specifically refuse to allow Bush to take control of the relief operations?
Of course, you can just keep pasting links to op-ed pieces rather than using the facts to present an arguement of your own. It would save you having to justify your blaming the wrong people for this.
Quote from OverDrive: He could've just publicly asked the Gov if he really wanted to go in - no chance the Gov's going to say no in that situation.
Do you wanna take a bet on that?
"Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has refused to sign over National Guard control to the federal government and has turned to a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run relief efforts." - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002474644_katnotes06.html
Please, do continue with your subtle insights on American politics.
Quote from OverDrive: What's the date today, and when that statement was made? And when was "I" talking about?
Does it matter? You claim that there was 'no chance' that the governor would have refused Bush, a patently absurd and childish comment if you have the slightest clue regarding anything about American politics (which you obviously don't). I've provided evidence that she would, and has refused Bush in handing over control to him/the federal government.
Quote: It's easy to bring up your "refusal facts" after everythings been sorted and they are looking at longterm control rather than shorttem survial.
What are you on about? Bush started preparing for the effects of the hurricane since at least 12 days ago, yet you accuse him of standing by doing nothing. You can choose to admit you were mistaken, or continue trying to obscure this with your Chewbacca Defence.
Quote: Anyway, why is it that you are so upset by my comments that you seem to take them personally?
Deliberate ignorance and pettiness irritate me, regardless of the issue. You seem to revel in both.
I never thought I would... but I agree with Jaian.
Blanco controls the National Guard for her state. Blaming Bush for not acting soon enough (when he was the one that urged the Governor to evacuate the state - which is taken directly from the article that you are referring to OD) is a blatant denial of how the US political system works.
But then you say, he should've just strode in there like a Knight in Shining Armour. Well, at first I thought that he should have, but, not being from the US that's understandeable.
Just like every society on the planet - the United States has a different mentality to Australia. You're basing your judgement on how things should have played out based on your experience as an Australian, which is quite a different experience to that of a US Citizen.
YES, things could have been done sooner. But overthrowing the power of an elected society (whether it be within the US borders or not) is the same as what Bush has done with Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Whilst going into the state may have been humanitarian its still a show of force directly contravening the Governor.
The only question that should've been asked is: What was the Governor doing instead of going to a higher power for assistance? Probably playing WoW.
In reference to Australia as a comparison. Can't be done. The US constitution is so vehemently defended by the majority of the US population... whereas Aussies really don't give a rats arse. Remember, they were prudish christian missionaries when they landed on US soil... we were frigging convicts ;)
Well, lets leave it there shall we - it's obvious we are never going to agree. Suffice to say that I was not the one that started the attack on bush - I just piped in when he was defended to such a level where it appear he'd done no wrong. There are a raft of things wrong here - and they are ALL caused by bureaucracy. I'd rather be raging AGAINST that then defending it in a situation like this - but hey, each to their own.
i dont blame bush for the failure in how he responded to the crisis i blame him for his administration leading to a poorer situation then what could have been. His obsession with iraq meant less funding was available for infrastructure upgrades and 1/3 of the national guard that could have been of assistance was serving in Iraq. And if you disagree that if this wouldnt have happened if the infrastruture that had protected them from this in the past from this kinda thing had been properly maintaned then youve lost all objectivity in this matter.
Quote from Jaian: Please, do continue with your subtle insights on American politics.
Quote from Jaian: Deliberate ignorance and pettiness irritate me, regardless of the issue. You seem to revel in both.
This was a semi good debate until this comment. Dunno if it's a reflection of your personality but there is no need for this. You were not attacked as far as i know(correct me if im wrong). If there is such a thing as 'winning' a debate(difference of opinion) you should definately not resort to insults. But then again this IS the internet, where anonymity > all actions.
Quote from Frenzy: This was a semi good debate until this comment.
Couldn't agree more. Previously you came across as a well-informed person putting across valid arguments, but ruined it by coming across as a bigoted individual who cannot accept that somebody actually has a different point of view to them.
I know OD, and as heated as he gets in arguments, I know he will still listen to the opposition and take their comments on board.
Shit, I've even seen him in a heated argument with El Pres re politics, and because El Pres kept his head, and didn't take anything personally, OD actually praised him for that (although by that stage he was also pretty drunk, but anyway...;-))
Quote from Xaine: I know OD, and as heated as he gets in arguments, I know he will still listen to the opposition and take their comments on board.
I don't know him, so I can't comment on that. I can only judge his opinion by the facts (or lack thereof) he presents, and his ability to hold a coherent position.
You'd think they'd be better prepared for a disaster like that, what with all their satellites and equipment giving them forewarning. It's disgusting to read what they're reduced to. How could they do things like that in a natural disaster situation? They're acting like animals.
well heres an reason y i think hurricane katrina was used for govenment conspiracies and large payouts
Ruptured New Orleans Levee had help failing
By: Hal Turner http://www.halturnershow.com/DiversFindExplosiveResidueOnRupturedLevy.html September 9, 2005 - 3:36 PM EDT
New Orleans, LA -- Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest: Burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall!
One diver, a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them. He secreted a small chunk of the cement inside his diving suit and later arranged for it to be sent to trusted military friends at a The U.S. Army Forensic Laboratory at Fort Gillem, Georgia for testing.
According to well placed sources, a military forensic specialist determined the burn marks on the cement chunks did, in fact, come from high explosives.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity said "We found traces of boron-enhanced fluoronitramino explosives as well as PBXN-111. This would indicate at least two separate types of explosive devices."
The levee ruptures in New Orleans did not take place during Hurricane Katrina, but rather a day after the hurricane struck. Several residents of New Orleans and many Emergency Workers reported hearing what sounded like large, muffled explosions from the area of the levee, but those were initially discounted as gas explosions from homes with leaking gas lines.
If these allegations prove true, the ruptured levee which flooded New Orleans was a deliberate act of mass destruction perpetrated by someone with access to military-grade UNDERWATER high explosives.
I would tend to take that with a very large grain of salt Dragon. Just because it's on the net doesn't make it so. And yes, I realise you are not advocating the truth of this article, I'm just saying not all that glitters is gold.
BTW that web site won't load any more - eeeek CONSPIRACY!!!!
THe page is back up now.. With some more links on it!!
Quote:
NOTE: This story has been UPDATED as of Saturday, September 10, 2005 @ 11:40 PM EDT The updated info is incorporated into the story and appears in bold type SECOND UPDATE: Monday Sept. 12, 2005 @ 8:23 AM ABC News Video with Ear Witness to Explosions and states emphatically "They blew this levee" Click the link below the story New Orleans, LA -- Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest: Burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall! One diver, a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them. When he surfaced and showed the evidence to his superior, the on-site Coordinator for FEMA stepped-in and said "You are not here to conduct an investigation as to why this rupture occurred, but only to determine how best to close it." The FEMA coordinator then threw the evidence back into the water and said "You will tell no one about this."At that point, the diver went back down to do more inspection of the levee. On the second dive, he secreted a small chunk of the debris inside his wet suit and later arranged for it to be sent to trusted military friends at a The U.S. Army Forensic Laboratory at Fort Gillem, Georgia for testing. According to well placed sources, a military forensic specialist determined the burn marks on the cement chunks did, in fact, come from high explosives. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity said "We found traces of boron-enhanced fluoronitramino explosives as well as PBXN-111 embedded in the debris. This would indicate at least two separate types of explosive devices." The levee ruptures in New Orleans did not take place during Hurricane Katrina, but rather a day after the hurricane struck. Several residents of New Orleans and many Emergency Workers reported hearing what sounded like large, muffled explosions from the area of the levee, but those were initially discounted as gas explosions from homes with leaking gas lines. If these allegations prove true, the ruptured levee which flooded New Orleans was a deliberate act of mass destruction perpetrated by someone with access to military-grade UNDERWATER high explosives. More details as they become available . . . . . http://www.halturnershow.com/EarWitnessVideo.html - video links