Chilly Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 The problem with all of these opinions is that we are seeing the same problems arise that we saw with Hurricane Andrew - and nothing was improved from everything I've seen. The closest disaster that we've seen in recent history is Hurricane Andrew, and the same stuff went on this time that was supposed to be fixed. To consider a rescue effort to have been done "well", when you see the same things that happened in Andrew, stuff that they assured the public would be corrected and that they would have drills on, is giving them way too much credit. To consider a rescue effort to have been done "well", when you have former FEMA directors saying that they could have done more and much better, is giving them way too much credit. Did they do their jobs? Well, technically they did. Should we have seen at least some improvement from Hurricane Andrew (like they promised after Andrew)? Yes. We didn't - and we have a right to ask why. In fact, you can go so far as to say that this was a WORSE rescue effort given that they were supposedly correcting mistakes made when Andrew hit land, yet they didn't. The title of my thread was more sarcastic then anything, I don't personally blame it on Bush. However, even the President realizes there was a problem, and that there was fixing to be made. Thats the point I'm making - this wasn't a "good" rescue mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 The closest disaster that we've seen in recent history is Hurricane Andrew, and the same stuff went on this time that was supposed to be fixed. 440852[/snapback] But this was a much bigger disaster than Andrew. New Orleans was underwater. It still is, weeks later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 OK, you win. I invite you as well to tell everyone how to make it better, Bluefire? What's your plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 On the contrary, I see every indication that things will deteriorate further in 2008. POTUS is exactly the type of job where the people who are qualified are smart enough to know they don't want that crappy job. 440833[/snapback] E.g. Colin Powell. The candidates we get these days make me pine for the Frank Zappa/Joe Walsh ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 OK, you win. I invite you as well to tell everyone how to make it better, Bluefire? What's your plan? 440900[/snapback] Nice Linen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Nice Linen? 440934[/snapback] Has to be cotton though. I hear BiB likes cotton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 OK, you win. I invite you as well to tell everyone how to make it better, Bluefire? What's your plan? 440900[/snapback] If I was an expert in this area, I wouldn't be in college. Rather, I would be working and getting a salary. But as a citizen of the country, if I am told by the experts that there are correctable problems, they are spending billions of dollars to correct these problems, and then the same problems occur, I have a right to be upset. I don't care who is in charge - that shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 If I was an expert in this area, I wouldn't be in college. Rather, I would be working and getting a salary. But as a citizen of the country, if I am told by the experts that there are correctable problems, they are spending billions of dollars to correct these problems, and then the same problems occur, I have a right to be upset. I don't care who is in charge - that shouldn't happen. 441333[/snapback] Where did you hear them say that they spent billions on a correctaable answer? Where did you hear there are answers? Hell the mayor of San Fran came out yesterday and said if an earthquake with the same effect that this hurricane hit. That people should even expect to se local help for 72 hours and longer for the state and federal to mobilize and get in there. Samething was said in DC yesterday, and this is where everyone is HQ'ed. They said expect at least 48 hours for help. DO you make this stuff up as you go or are you listening to your academic teachers who never figured out how to do, so they teach and lecture, but no real world experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 Where did you hear them say that they spent billions on a correctaable answer? Where did you hear there are answers? Hell the mayor of San Fran came out yesterday and said if an earthquake with the same effect that this hurricane hit. That people should even expect to se local help for 72 hours and longer for the state and federal to mobilize and get in there. Samething was said in DC yesterday, and this is where everyone is HQ'ed. They said expect at least 48 hours for help. DO you make this stuff up as you go or are you listening to your academic teachers who never figured out how to do, so they teach and lecture, but no real world experience? 441346[/snapback] Neither. I read some articles comparing Katrina to Andrew and the federal responses, then went and looked up articles talking about all the money that FEMA was spending after Andrew's poor response to make sure that the next big hurricane would be responded to lots, lots better. Unfortunately I don't have the links on the computer I am at though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Neither. I read some articles comparing Katrina to Andrew and the federal responses, then went and looked up articles talking about all the money that FEMA was spending after Andrew's poor response to make sure that the next big hurricane would be responded to lots, lots better. Unfortunately I don't have the links on the computer I am at though. 441362[/snapback] Part of the problem with Katrina is the scale. Andrew, as devestating as it was turned out to be a very compact storm, and moved laterally through the state. Much smaller footprint. Katrina was much more massive, and moved inland. No comparrison on the water damage and flooding, either. There have been many hurricanes and other events since Andrew that have been dealt with pretty well. We are talking several thousands of square miles being affected, all the way into Georgia. I have a feeling that by the time it's over and done with, things will get re-organized again, but there's a point where you just can't afford to plan past a certain level. Somewhere, someone has to make a call on acceptable risk, in many different areas. It's very touchy to try to explain things that way, because they can be made to sound awfully bad when they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Part of the problem with Katrina is the scale. Andrew, as devestating as it was turned out to be a very compact storm, and moved laterally through the state. Much smaller footprint. Katrina was much more massive, and moved inland. No comparrison on the water damage and flooding, either. There have been many hurricanes and other events since Andrew that have been dealt with pretty well. We are talking several thousands of square miles being affected, all the way into Georgia. I have a feeling that by the time it's over and done with, things will get re-organized again, but there's a point where you just can't afford to plan past a certain level. Somewhere, someone has to make a call on acceptable risk, in many different areas. It's very touchy to try to explain things that way, because they can be made to sound awfully bad when they are not. 441387[/snapback] Good way of explaining it to a point. However, to add to it. It's one thing to have a general plan in place but that's where local and states have to specifically plan for and do first reactions there. The response to a hurricane in Miami, who won't have the flooding problems will be different then NOLA. These plans will be entirely different then a major forest fire in California or earthquake. Just like the reaction to a blizzard in Buffalo will be different then all of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 But...But...HE READ SOME ARTICLES!!!!! BUSH BAD!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washingtonAnd you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well. 440411[/snapback] Way to see the big picture, as usual. All the President did was give the lemmings out there a single place to focus blame, diffusing the situation almost entirely. Way to buy in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 If I was an expert in this area, I wouldn't be in college. Rather, I would be working and getting a salary. But as a citizen of the country, if I am told by the experts that there are correctable problems, they are spending billions of dollars to correct these problems, and then the same problems occur, I have a right to be upset. I don't care who is in charge - that shouldn't happen. 441333[/snapback] Government doesn't fix problems. It just creates different ones and spends alot of money doing so. Until people realize that government isn't ever coming to the rescue, they'll continue to be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 The one who destroyed any respect most of this country and the rest of the world ever had for the American Presidency. 440728[/snapback] What's Nixon got to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Clinton's entire term was about avoiding responsibility...hell, he couldn't even take responsibility for playing "hide the salami" with a fat broad. 440714[/snapback] Who would? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Pretty much. But there are a heck of a lot of people here and there that do some pretty good work, for not much pay, horrendous hours and I'm sure they would all get spit on because they are "Bush supporters" if they ever tried to explain anything, even though they may have been doing the same job under Clinton. 440458[/snapback] No one is "spitting on" federal employees in general. I'm just critical of the federal employee in charge who downgraded FEMA and didn't react appropriately, resulting in numerous unnecessary deaths and great unnecessary discomfort for a lot of people. I'm just as critical of the mayor and governor by the way. I don't vote for the Mayor or New Orleans or the Governor of Louisiana. The position I have some very limited input in the selection of (voter fraud in Florida notwhithstanding.) is the President of the United States. And...despite the federal sycophants who defend the indefensible (hell...even HE isn't defending it anymore) he did a pisspoor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 No one is "spitting on" federal employees in general. I'm just critical of the federal employee in charge who downgraded FEMA and didn't react appropriately, resulting in numerous unnecessary deaths and great unnecessary discomfort for a lot of people. I'm just as critical of the mayor and governor by the way. I don't vote for the Mayor or New Orleans or the Governor of Louisiana. The position I have some very limited input in the selection of (voter fraud in Florida notwhithstanding.) is the President of the United States. And...despite the federal sycophants who defend the indefensible (hell...even HE isn't defending it anymore) he did a pisspoor job. 441729[/snapback] That would be the democrats in office who forced it to be moved under DHS as part of the 9-11 over reaction. Against the Presidents wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 That would be the democrats in office who forced it to be moved under DHS as part of the 9-11 over reaction. Against the Presidents wishes. 441752[/snapback] no... much as you would like to think so, I believe the Bushter made that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 no... much as you would like to think so, I believe the Bushter made that call. 441943[/snapback] And you would be wrong. It was directed by the Hart-Rudman Commission, and pretty much forced by the Democrats to fully implement a full DHS type organization. It's purpose was to help lines of communications in reacting to attacks primarily and less so on "natural disasters". In addition, it called for limiting NSC's role and only giving them limited planning and coordination roles. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/BG1571.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts