It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Katrina Victims: More Human Sacrifice for Iraq War

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Here shots listen to this hart warming feed from Vals POD,



I tried to listen to it earlier, but unfortunately she is so soft spoken it is not ledgable here even with a hi powered amp for some reason.


Now will you answer my question or are you unable; just what you would have done that the president did not?




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I can't help to wonder if all this is being ALLOWED to happen for a reason. I'm not screaming HAARP, but rather using the situation as a reasoning to put further wheels in motion. If you're as skeptical as I am then you know what I am talking about.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Basically giving Bush another 9/11? Date is pretty close.... Give him another 9/11 to rally the moral of the people, show he can lead kind of sort of. He even interuppted his vacation! 9/11 couldn't even do that!



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The difference here is that the FEMA report warned of 9/11, more or less, as well as a hurricane in New Orleans.



In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war.


You would think that a president who claims to care about the safety of Americans would place such a report on the top of his "to-do" pile.

Instead he shelved it in favor of Iraq.

Anyone who still believes Bush gives a flying rats ass about the safety of America, from terrorists or otherwise, is fooling themselves. If the story is true, it is proof that Iraq did not aid the safety of the American people, plain and simple.

-koji K.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
what you would have done that the president did not?


Can I answer that, or rather, rephrase it? What should the President have done.

OK, I've heard this 2 day warning thing a lot. Facts, 2 days, Cat 5 hurricane, the hurricane is HUGE, NO resides below sea level, it's been said for years that eventually "the Big One", hurricane not earthquake, IS going to hit. What should he have done? SOMETHING! He's got the entire military at his disposal.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Intrepid says (when asked 'what you would have done that the president did not?') says:


OK, I've heard this 2 day warning thing a lot. Facts, 2 days, Cat 5 hurricane, the hurricane is HUGE, NO resides below sea level, it's been said for years that eventually "the Big One", hurricane not earthquake, IS going to hit. What should he have done? SOMETHING! He's got the entire military at his disposal.


Translation: Intrepid doesn't have a clue.

Intrepid seems to think that it's the responsibility of not only the federal government but actually the executive branch of the federal government to do some sort of magic stuff so that a city which was poorly planned and built over two hundred years ago will, in some supernatural way, be saved.

Sorry, Intrepid, that's not the way the government -- or the world -- works.

The United States Government is not responsible for keeping the cities safe; that is the job of the cities themselves and, to a lesser extent, to the states in which those cities are located. Now I will admit that, in the case of New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers has the obligation to keep the waterways, dams, levees, etc, safe, and they didn't do it.

But that was because they didn't think a hurricane would cause a breach to the levees that couldn't be repaired quickly. Contrary to what the rest of the world thinks, the United States is not made up of supermen; they tend to make a lot of mistakes, just like the government of whatever country you live in -- I am sure -- make mistakes. Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers is funded by the US Congress, who decided -- as a body -- not to fund that effort.

In retrospect, this appears to have been a terrible oversight, but here in the USA, we call that "Monday-morning quarterbacking". If some of the geniuses who come slithering out of the woodwork with comments about how the government "woulda, coulda, shoulda" had done it ten or so years ago -- but they didn't.

I don't think anyone knows the extent of the damage, and I don't think anyone -- at least, anyone here on ATS -- understands what the difficulties are to provide support to people stranded by rushing water. Certainly the people talking about "helicopters dropping food and water to individuals on roofs of houses" know little if anything about the capabilities of helicopters -- or the ins and outs of logistics involved in gathering that kind of water and food together in little containers ... but of course, that doesn't stop them from putting in their two cents' worth.

Intrepid, I'm not sure where you live, but in the United States our Constitution will not let the President send the military to do whatever you (or even he) thinks it should do, especially within the country itself; it's a thing called the "Posse Comitatus" act.

Now I am by no means a Bush supporter -- I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004, and I don't think he's doing a very good job.

But I'm not naive or foolish enough, or so consumed with hatred for him, that I'm going to blame him for something that's not his fault at all. Of course, that never stopped simple-minded fools from doing such, but I can't wave a magic wand and make everyone smart.

Not that I don't try, of course.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But I'm not naive or foolish enough, or so consumed with hatred for him, that I'm going to blame him for something that's not his fault at all. Of course, that never stopped simple-minded fools from doing such, but I can't wave a magic wand and make everyone smart.


Amen, and well worth the WATS vote.
Well worth the read, Off_The_Street. Thank you.




seekerof



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But I'm not naive or foolish enough, or so consumed with hatred for him, that I'm going to blame him for something that's not his fault at all.


I don't hate Bush, I think he is an Idiot, but I don't hate him. My opinion is strictly based on Job performance over his entire Presidency.

He is not to fault for the Hurricane nor even the levy breaking, but IMO he could have done a hell of a better job getting supplies into the city. Like it or not he is the Chief and when it hits the fan, its his problem. I blame the Mayor and Governor just as much. The ball has been fumbled all the way down the line, but if you want to be the Big Man, you need to take responsibility for problems.

What is sad is no one will be held responsable for ANYTHING. I could get behind him a lot more if he at least held people responsable for their jobs



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Taking money destined for fixing infrastructure, and diverting it to fight a war in the ME for the benefit of energy barons is exactly what this White House did.

When you're working on 10% of the money you need, dams break, levvies fail, people die. The Netherlands actually gives a damn about their people (no pun intended), and has managed to avert disaster by SPENDING MONEY to that end. For a quarter of the 10 Billion now necessary to rebuild, a workable solution could have been in place in NO to prevent this from ever happening. Bush's good feelings and faux sincere smile DO NOT STOP FLOODING. MONEY does, infrastructure does, city planning does, competent emergency management does.

The US government doesn't give a damn about its people. This has always been obvious, and now it's practically a neon sign. That part of the country is in a real bad way right now, it doesn't bode well for the stability of the rest of the nation.

Everywhere I look I see calls for donations. What, exactly, are those donations accomplishing? How do you know your money isn't being misappropriated? Shouldn't the feds be picking up the tab with the money they appropriated from the American taxpayers for just such an occasion? Does it occur to anyone that they're paying into this inefficient system three and four times in some instances, and STILL nothing gets accomplished. Somebody is stealing from the people, it's that simple.

I think these disasters are flush with oppurtunists of all sorts, people should be on the lookout for anyone trying to gain cash of political capital on the backs of those who suffer. That goes for both sides in this foolish system.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
The criticism that is now against Mr. Bush is something that he will have to take it and be leader enough and man enough to understand the mistakes made and the tragedies as the result.

People doesn't understand that the reason he did not got more criticism after 9/11 was due to the fact that it was a tragedy made by foreign hands and will.

Patriotism and the willingness to keep the American opinion toward the president role as a commander in chief was priority.

Now he doesn't have that to back him up, the hurricane disaster and what it happen after is something that has to be blame on the capabilities of our government to be able to handle a natural disaster in our own soil and to have the resources readily available to do it.

The criticism will continue and is going to come from both sides of the political parties.

All stations including the Fox channel have been crtical of the situacion and the government response.

This time the American public is angry not against a foreign force but our own government.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Translation: Intrepid doesn't have a clue.

Intrepid seems to think that it's the responsibility of not only the federal government but actually the executive branch of the federal government to do some sort of magic stuff so that a city which was poorly planned and built over two hundred years ago will, in some supernatural way, be saved.


Ancient history. This is a modern day fact, NO needed to be dealt with.


The United States Government is not responsible for keeping the cities safe; that is the job of the cities themselves and, to a lesser extent, to the states in which those cities are located. Now I will admit that, in the case of New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers has the obligation to keep the waterways, dams, levees, etc, safe, and they didn't do it.


My point exactly btw. Why didn't it happen?



But that was because they didn't think a hurricane would cause a breach to the levees that couldn't be repaired quickly. Contrary to what the rest of the world thinks, the United States is not made up of supermen; they tend to make a lot of mistakes, just like the government of whatever country you live in -- I am sure -- make mistakes. Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers is funded by the US Congress, who decided -- as a body -- not to fund that effort.


I agree, mistakes were made. As to Congress, who runs that at this particular time? Republicans, that had no problem voting for Bush's previous policies, why wouldn't they have backed this one IF HE TOOK THE TIME TO DO IT?


In retrospect, this appears to have been a terrible oversight, but here in the USA, we call that "Monday-morning quarterbacking"
.

It's not Monday morning quarterbacking to see a Cat 5, a city below sea level, etc. Hell, I bet a mathematician could have figured this one out. Remember, 2 days. Again


BTW, I'm a Niners fan, yeah I know, lousy season last year.


But I'm not naive or foolish enough, or so consumed with hatred for him, that I'm going to blame him for something that's not his fault at all. Of course, that never stopped simple-minded fools from doing such, but I can't wave a magic wand and make everyone smart.


The hurricane was not his fault, the unpreparedness was. I have no hatred towards him either, he isn't screwing with my life, maybe a little with the gas prices, I'm Canadian, so why even bother bringing that up?

BTW, Seekerof, I'm not surprised, disappointed but not surprised.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Taking money destined for fixing infrastructure, and diverting it to fight a war in the ME for the benefit of energy barons is exactly what this White House did.

When you're working on 10% of the money you need, dams break, levvies fail, people die.

Are you objectively insinuating or indicating that inadequate flood-control protections became a problem only after Bush took office, WyrdeOne?



The Netherlands actually gives a damn about their people (no pun intended), and has managed to avert disaster by SPENDING MONEY to that end.

Yes, the Netherlands does give a damn about their people, only after flooding in 1953 killed 2,000+ people, thus forcing the Netherlands government to install massive hydraulic sea walls in preparation for their possible future version of a 'perfect storm'.



as posted by intrepid
BTW, Seekerof, I'm not surprised, disappointed but not surprised.

Excuse me?
Did I miss something here?
Be careful of making unwarrented assumptions, intrepid.




seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Are you objectively insinuating or indicating that inadequate flood-control protections became a problem only after Bush took office, WyrdeOne?


Are you saying that ongoing issues are not in the perview of a residing President. Why don't we blame everything on George Washington because he was the first president. Must be his fault, he was a president at one time.


Yes, the Netherlands does give a damn about their people, only after flooding in 1953 killed 2,000+ people, thus forcing the Netherlands government to install massive hydraulic sea walls in preparation for their possible future version of a 'perfect storm'
.

Hmm, similar situation, why didn't the administration learn from someone elses mistakes. Not like this sort of problem is the norm. If a Cat 5 is bearing down on people that had voted for me and were in trouble, I'd put at least 1 guy on a computer to find some facts.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots
what you would have done that the president did not?


Can I answer that, or rather, rephrase it? What should the President have done.


Sorry the question was not addressed to you


I want the Other person to answer the question and have already asked it two times and no answer. One can only assume that once again the bashing comments were meant to simply bash the current administration.

Also allow me to point out as I did in either this thread or another similar today. The governor of LA and the mayor NO declared a state of emergency before the hurricane hit, why didnt they do more? They certainly could have, that alone means you cannot blame it all on the administration as several are trying to do. I am not defending him all I am doing is pointing out that there are others that can be blamed as well.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But I'm not naive or foolish enough, or so consumed with hatred for him, that I'm going to blame him for something that's not his fault at all. Of course, that never stopped simple-minded fools from doing such, but I can't wave a magic wand and make everyone smart.

Not that I don't try, of course.


Allow me to add one vote for the way above to you also Off. I could not have put it better myself.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Are you saying that ongoing issues are not in the perview of a residing President. Why don't we blame everything on George Washington because he was the first president. Must be his fault, he was a president at one time.

Oh wait, you mean like you and others are doing now in blaming this natural castastrophe on Bush, right?





Hmm, similar situation, why didn't the administration learn from someone elses mistakes. Not like this sort of problem is the norm. If a Cat 5 is bearing down on people that had voted for me and were in trouble, I'd put at least 1 guy on a computer to find some facts.

Just which administration are you refering to when you implied learning from someone elses mistakes? The Netherlands event happened in 1953. Did you miss that mention? It is currently 2005. As such, there have been how many administrations since 1953 that could have learned from someone elses mistakes? I thought so....


As for your Cat. 5 mention, check this:


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.

Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding

Re-evaluate your blame cycle here, as well as re-evaluate your facts.






seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
w0w...

ATS is falling apart because of all this...

why can't we just all get along and help eachother during these hard times


then, we can debate later...





posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots
what you would have done that the president did not?


Can I answer that, or rather, rephrase it? What should the President have done.


Sorry the question was not addressed to you


I want the Other person to answer the question and have already asked it two times and no answer.


Why? Was my comment not worthy? Let's revisit it:


Originally posted by intrepid
OK, I've heard this 2 day warning thing a lot. Facts, 2 days, Cat 5 hurricane, the hurricane is HUGE, NO resides below sea level, it's been said for years that eventually "the Big One", hurricane not earthquake, IS going to hit. What should he have done? SOMETHING! He's got the entire military at his disposal.


I've been through this with OTS, I see he hasn't replied, Seekerof, he's Googling now for a response and YOU still haven't replied to this post, other than to say that , um, no, you don't want to hear it.

Again, why? I'm not a Bush hater but it takes little forsight to see what I said in this post.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Trying to yippee-yahoo Bush's performance as "good enough" is the worst toadying, butt-kissing, nausiating confused deranged thinking possible.

I'm sick from the twisted cowardness I see in that.

Stand like a man and call a loser(Bush) "A Loser!"



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

All stations including the Fox channel have been crtical of the situacion and the government response.





LOL it is obvious you did not watch Hardball tonite did you? Chris Mathews and several senators, governors all praised the president and FEMA. And no they were not only Republicans there were also Democrats. They stated that FEMA and the government responded to each and everyone of their demands with no questions asked.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join