I consider myself a libertarian and, in my opinion, one of the government's few responsibilities is to ensure the PHYSICAL SAFETY of its citizens. So, somebody tell me: WHY ISN'T THE NATIONAL GUARD (or even the Army) IN NEW ORLEANS? I've got this little devil whispering an answer in my ear, but I'd rather hear that I'm mistaken and that, in fact, there is an impressive military presence -- or that there's a good reason why this isn't possible.
Why Isn't the National Guard in New Orleans?
- Thread starter Bama_Dawg
- Start date
They are sending 1400 national guard over a day. They also have a naval ship in route to N.O. from Virginia. I also saw today where (I think) 20000 or so troops will be sent into N.O. We also have the Coast Guard that is heading up th rescue mission over there.
It is in the works, it is all a matter of getting the feet on the ground.
It is in the works, it is all a matter of getting the feet on the ground.
Well, from my point of view, Homeland Security flunked its first test. Also, I can tell you that I have several friends in the New Orleans area who saw their first National Guardsman TODAY. For the United States of America, that is embarassing. All this should have been done much sooner. For many people -- all of whom pay taxes, mind you -- whatever efforts we make at this point have come too late.TRUTIDE said:
after seeing bush dealing with Katrina's mess...
All you people like myself, that live near a nuclear plant, do you feel good about this administration's ability to handle a crisis? The Three Mile Island nuclear accident happened a long time ago, maybe most are too young to remember it. It was a scary time that would have been compounded by gross incompetence by the country's leaders.
If you live in an area that has large chemical plants, do you feel good about bush's crisis management ability should something bad happen?
If you live near a port city, are you feeling confident that the government is doing what they should to protect the homeland?
If you live near a border, is bush keeping them secure?
Now we've seen what we can expect under bush as far as rescue efforts in the face of a crisis. 5 days after the storm, bodies are being eaten by rats on the streets of New Orleans. Bill O'Rielly wonders why the Guard & other relief weren't waiting for the weather to clear & give immediate help. Why wait day after day after day before initiating any response? Vacation be damned, the country deserved better from our president.
All you people like myself, that live near a nuclear plant, do you feel good about this administration's ability to handle a crisis? The Three Mile Island nuclear accident happened a long time ago, maybe most are too young to remember it. It was a scary time that would have been compounded by gross incompetence by the country's leaders.
If you live in an area that has large chemical plants, do you feel good about bush's crisis management ability should something bad happen?
If you live near a port city, are you feeling confident that the government is doing what they should to protect the homeland?
If you live near a border, is bush keeping them secure?
Now we've seen what we can expect under bush as far as rescue efforts in the face of a crisis. 5 days after the storm, bodies are being eaten by rats on the streets of New Orleans. Bill O'Rielly wonders why the Guard & other relief weren't waiting for the weather to clear & give immediate help. Why wait day after day after day before initiating any response? Vacation be damned, the country deserved better from our president.
Last edited:
Since I'm pretty sure we don't live under an absolute dictatorship, I think it's a wee bit much to think that local, state and federal officials are sitting on their hands waiting for the President to direct their every move. Perhaps you'd feel better if Bush came on television with an "I feel your pain" speech, but that would not change the substance of the situation.Chukker Veteran said:
You forgot to blame Bush for the rat problem in New Orleans.
The President left Texas to go back to DC. Didn't you, on another post, criticize the President for not handling this problem from Texas?
bush cut short his vacation by a day to return to D.C. to manage the crisis. That implies he was unable to do as good a job in Crawford as he could in Washington. If he needed to return to the White House to get on top of things, why did he delay his return for several days?
He was willing to interrupt another vacation, flying back to Washington to "save" Terri S., in the middle of the night, but needs a few days to think it over before he shows the same concern for the entire Gulf Coast.
He was willing to interrupt another vacation, flying back to Washington to "save" Terri S., in the middle of the night, but needs a few days to think it over before he shows the same concern for the entire Gulf Coast.
It doesn't imply anything. You are infering what you want because you detest the President.Chukker Veteran said:
I imagine the concept of phone, fax and email exists in Crawford. It matters little where the President is.
You cannot have it both ways. (1) Bush is an idiot who cannot do anything. (2) Everyone else is an idiot an cannot do anything until Bush gives the marching orders. Just admit that you believe that whatever happens is Bush's fault and that whatever he does, he should have done the opposite.
Monday Morining Quaterbacks of the World, Unite!
I believe the President was playing Golf in Arizona the day after. No matter if you like the President or not that is unacceptable. 
A number of years ago (prior to Hurricane Andrew), I remember seeing a special on the Weather Channel about cities most at risk for a Hurricane disaster. I am not sure why the information has stuck with me so but I remember a lot of the information. I was living in the Tampa area at the time so I was paying attention.
In a nutshell, the show predicted with chilling accuracy just about everything we are now witnessing. A major hurricane changes direction and heads for New Orleans and there is not enough time to evacuate. Many people just choose not to or cannot evacuate. The storm does major damage to the infrastructure: No power, failed Levee system, failed pumps to get water out, limited access due to damaged bridges. The emergency response would be limited and would take time to mobilize. The show said it could take a number of days stabilize the situation. I don't think the show anticipated having to suspend evacuations due to snipers however.
We are now 4 days post-hurricane and 3 days post levee failure. Troops are beginning to move in. Maxwell Air Force base in Montgomery is a staging area for relief supplies and a couple of hundred trucks are moving in supplies but they can only get them in so fast due to the damage infrastructure.
This was prior to Bush, prior to Clinton. The problem has existed for years and blaming the current administration or previous administration is pointless.
In a nutshell, the show predicted with chilling accuracy just about everything we are now witnessing. A major hurricane changes direction and heads for New Orleans and there is not enough time to evacuate. Many people just choose not to or cannot evacuate. The storm does major damage to the infrastructure: No power, failed Levee system, failed pumps to get water out, limited access due to damaged bridges. The emergency response would be limited and would take time to mobilize. The show said it could take a number of days stabilize the situation. I don't think the show anticipated having to suspend evacuations due to snipers however.
We are now 4 days post-hurricane and 3 days post levee failure. Troops are beginning to move in. Maxwell Air Force base in Montgomery is a staging area for relief supplies and a couple of hundred trucks are moving in supplies but they can only get them in so fast due to the damage infrastructure.
This was prior to Bush, prior to Clinton. The problem has existed for years and blaming the current administration or previous administration is pointless.
I have no idea where the President was. My point is that it only matters in style, not substance. Should Bush look more presidential? Yes, I can't stand to watch the guy in action. But, if he had flown immediately to the Gulf Coast what would have changed? Probably nothing.fumblerooskie said:I believe the President was playing Golf in Arizona the day after. No matter if you like the President or not that is unacceptable.
I'm not a fan of Bush; I'm just tired of the blind bomb throwers.
Chucker, you hit the nail on the head. The government; federal, state, local, liberal, conservative, is totally unprepared to handle emergencies. Nuclear, chemical, biological, infrastructure, you name it. Terrorists have a smorgasborg of choices.
I agree Bod. What I think is a "blind bombshell" is blaming Bush, Clinton, etc., for this. But I want the President of the US to stop vacationing and address the problem immediately. I said this before, I dont want a speech, I want a short and long term plan.
I hear ya.fumblerooskie said:
Although, I sometimes think that the best government work is done when the President and Congress are on vacation.
THANK YOU!!!
NO has known about this situation for decades. The federal doesn't get involved until the local officials get their act together. They didn't, so now the feds have to clean up the mess. Tell me this, how quickly can you mobilize? Once mobilized, how do you get them in a city with no plan from local officials? Why wasn't more done to evacuate people without means before the hurricane hit? They have concentrated on the Superdome because that is where they told them to go.
Sheesh. If you want a scapegoat, look at the mayor, city council, and governor.
Despite all the Tidefans posters defending bush's response to the storm, bush himself agrees with me. This morning on tv, he said the response has "been unacceptable."
Let's give him a little credit when he shows he does understand what should be done verses what has been done.
Let's give him a little credit when he shows he does understand what should be done verses what has been done.
No doubt, the response has been less than what has proven necessary, but I think that Bush fell into a trap here. He has said that the effort is unacceptable. My question to him - Does he think that there are people sitting around on their a$$es, watching this happen? Does he think that they don't want to help even more than they are?
Poor planning and the decision of so many to stay led them to this point, not EFFORT!!!
Poor planning and the decision of so many to stay led them to this point, not EFFORT!!!
I think there are several misconceptions here
regarding the concept of just moving thousands of troops in.
First, the military is not a giant "meals on wheels" program. They are there to kill and destroy stuff. When folks talk about moving troops in (Regular Army), we're most often talking about infantry. While infantry can do basic law and order stuff, it's not really their mission and they're not that good at it. Again, it's there to kill and blow stuff up, not hand out pampers.
Second, some here seem to think that regular Army troops (again, infantry primarily) are just sitting around eating cheetos all day with nothing else to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. They spend almost all of their days training, sometimes out in the middle of nowhere on a base for days, maybe weeks at a time. They're not incommunicado but you can't just have them stop on a dime and jump on a plane. It doesn't work that way.
Third, the same thing goes for aircraft. They're committed to other missions and not just lounging around doing nothing all day. Some of these missions are vital to U.S. Security issues and cannot be diverted. Believe it or not, it takes some planning.
Fourth, from what I understand, the airport in NO is a total mess with debris all over the place and a good bit of water on the runways. For the most part, it's not usable at this point and that makes a HUGE difference if you can't land fixed wing aircraft on it. Until it's cleared and the water drained, it's not much use.
Do I think more can be done? Probably but I think it's grossly inaccurate to assume we could have 250,000 troops in there overnite.
regarding the concept of just moving thousands of troops in.
First, the military is not a giant "meals on wheels" program. They are there to kill and destroy stuff. When folks talk about moving troops in (Regular Army), we're most often talking about infantry. While infantry can do basic law and order stuff, it's not really their mission and they're not that good at it. Again, it's there to kill and blow stuff up, not hand out pampers.
Second, some here seem to think that regular Army troops (again, infantry primarily) are just sitting around eating cheetos all day with nothing else to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. They spend almost all of their days training, sometimes out in the middle of nowhere on a base for days, maybe weeks at a time. They're not incommunicado but you can't just have them stop on a dime and jump on a plane. It doesn't work that way.
Third, the same thing goes for aircraft. They're committed to other missions and not just lounging around doing nothing all day. Some of these missions are vital to U.S. Security issues and cannot be diverted. Believe it or not, it takes some planning.
Fourth, from what I understand, the airport in NO is a total mess with debris all over the place and a good bit of water on the runways. For the most part, it's not usable at this point and that makes a HUGE difference if you can't land fixed wing aircraft on it. Until it's cleared and the water drained, it's not much use.
Do I think more can be done? Probably but I think it's grossly inaccurate to assume we could have 250,000 troops in there overnite.
Chukker,
I don't see where alot of people in political office can go unblamed. This is a situation that has been known about for sometime. The problem is that this admin, the previous admin, the one before that, the one before that and the ones before that knew of it and little was done. The same goes for the politicians in louisianna and if anything should be held to a higher reponsibility than anyone since it is their state and they should have made an issue out of it.
All in all, I do not see what good it is doing to try and point the finger at anyone in particular. All of our leaders have failed on this. What we need to make sure of is to make sure that given a similar situation the same results are not repeated. That will be up to us in making sure that we are more knowledgeable of who we vote for and instead of trying to argue back in forth over who is better, Dem or Repub, we need to make sure that whoever is in office and at whatever level, are doing what is best for us and not for the party.
I see extremist from both sides that want to blame everything on Clinton or on Bush. I was not a fan of Clinton but I do not think that he was Satan just because some political hack from my party says he was. I am not the biggest Bush fan but he is not Satan just because Michael Moore or Howard Dean says that he is.
Instead of fighting in this time of need we need to be pulling together and making things better.
I don't see where alot of people in political office can go unblamed. This is a situation that has been known about for sometime. The problem is that this admin, the previous admin, the one before that, the one before that and the ones before that knew of it and little was done. The same goes for the politicians in louisianna and if anything should be held to a higher reponsibility than anyone since it is their state and they should have made an issue out of it.
All in all, I do not see what good it is doing to try and point the finger at anyone in particular. All of our leaders have failed on this. What we need to make sure of is to make sure that given a similar situation the same results are not repeated. That will be up to us in making sure that we are more knowledgeable of who we vote for and instead of trying to argue back in forth over who is better, Dem or Repub, we need to make sure that whoever is in office and at whatever level, are doing what is best for us and not for the party.
I see extremist from both sides that want to blame everything on Clinton or on Bush. I was not a fan of Clinton but I do not think that he was Satan just because some political hack from my party says he was. I am not the biggest Bush fan but he is not Satan just because Michael Moore or Howard Dean says that he is.
Instead of fighting in this time of need we need to be pulling together and making things better.
Latest threads
-
New healthcare thread (part II)- Started by crimsonaudio
- Replies: 0
-
No. 23 Alabama to Resume Series with No. 6 Georgia on Sunday- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
No. 23 Alabama Drops First Game of Friday’s Weather-Affected Twin Bill
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
News Article: Ms. State building $60M indoor practice facility- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 0
-
