Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Gulf Coast part 2

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Roy - 02 Sep 2005 22:55 GMT
Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
no!!

Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!
craig@metronet.com - 02 Sep 2005 22:56 GMT
At the risk of being labeled a "leftie" ... HELL YES!

Craig C.
Denny - 02 Sep 2005 23:27 GMT
> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
> no!!
>
> Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!

Not having read the other thread yet, yes it took too long for help to
arrive. But in all fairness, did they have to let the water go down before
they could get much in???  Also, if what I read was correct, with idiots
taking pot shots at the 'copters that were trying to take people out, I'd
say f.ck-em and let them swim.

Denny
Roy - 02 Sep 2005 23:33 GMT
>> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
>> no!!
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> arrive. But in all fairness, did they have to let the water go down before
> they could get much in???

The water hasn't dropped that much. Helicoptors and the trucks that showed
today.

> Also, if what I read was correct, with idiots taking pot shots at the
> 'copters that were trying to take people out, I'd say f.ck-em and let them
> swim.
I agree. But do you let 60,000 suffer because of 20? No you put some folks
in the air and light them the f.ck up. But if you don't have the assets then
you get what happened.  Nothing.

Roy
> Denny
Denny - 02 Sep 2005 23:44 GMT
>>> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes
>>> or no!!
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> in the air and light them the f.ck up. But if you don't have the assets
> then you get what happened.  Nothing.

And if the birds were armed and returned fire, could you imagine the crying
and whining that would happen?? It's a no-win situation. I'd have to let
them soak a little while longer till they calmed down. In every situation
it's always a few idiots that ruin it for the many.

Denny
Hp - 03 Sep 2005 01:52 GMT
And if it wasn't enough to shoot at helicopters and loot the stores not for
food,but for jewelry,guns,drugs,plasma TVs,levis... The bastards had to go
on a raping rampage.f.cking animals,they deserve to be shot.

>>>> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes
>>>> or no!!
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Denny
BDK - 03 Sep 2005 03:06 GMT
> And if it wasn't enough to shoot at helicopters and loot the stores not for
> food,but for jewelry,guns,drugs,plasma TVs,levis... The bastards had to go
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> >
> > Denny

You do realize that the stories about looting, etc are way way
overblown? Most people are just trying to survive, and just because
there is a small group of idiots, doesn't mean everyone else stuck down
there is going off the deep end too..

BDK
John Smith - 03 Sep 2005 10:48 GMT
>> And if it wasn't enough to shoot at helicopters and loot the stores not
>> for
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> BDK

Small gang?

http://www.zippyvideos.com/8911023771013466/countdown-looting-in-walmart
BDK - 03 Sep 2005 15:12 GMT
> >> And if it wasn't enough to shoot at helicopters and loot the stores not
> >> for
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> http://www.zippyvideos.com/8911023771013466/countdown-looting-in-walmart 

At this point, what the hell does stealing crap matter? It's the violent
ones, and only those ones, that anyone should worry about now. Stuff is
just...stuff. Just worry about getting people out, however they have to
do it. Get them out, and fill in the whole flooded areas, and start
over.

BDK
BDK - 03 Sep 2005 00:09 GMT
> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
> no!!
>
> Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!

Yes, hell yes.

BDK
beekeep - 03 Sep 2005 03:13 GMT
>Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
>no!!
>
>Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!

It's kind of hard to drive in 20 feet of water.  I think the response
is as fast as could be expected.

beekeep
craig@metronet.com - 03 Sep 2005 03:42 GMT
Agreed.  What about planes, helicopters and boats?

Craig C.
Tom Lawrence - 03 Sep 2005 04:21 GMT
> Agreed.  What about planes, helicopters and boats?

Planes?  Not very useful...  where ya gonna drop stuff?  In the water?
Boats?  Can't navigate through the city with anything bigger than a rowboat,
due to all the debris in the streets.  Helicopters?  They were there since
Tuesday...  the CG was plucking people off of rooftops pretty-much non-stop.
If you mean choppers like the Blackhawks, Chinooks, Super Stallions, etc....
those came with the military, which has already been discussed as to why
they weren't there earlier.
craig@metronet.com - 03 Sep 2005 06:48 GMT
The entire city is not under water.  Western amd Northwestern NO are
"dry".  So, yes, planes could drop supplies there.  Large boats cannot
navigate through the city, but they can supply the coastline to the
west of NO and take in supplies on smaller boats.  Not perfect, but
better than NOTHING, which is what they got.

And ... are you telling me that a handful of helicopters is the best we
can do?  I read that less than 50 helicopters were involved.

I tried to find some research I did in college on earthquakes, to no
avail.  However, in Cali, I can't think of a single major earthquake
that went more than 2 days without an outpooring of aid from various
state and federal agencies.  You might make the argument that the areas
were not under water, but the challenges were just as great.  Roads and
bridges out, structures collapsing, no electricity ...

Craig C.
Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 07:29 GMT
> The entire city is not under water.  Western amd Northwestern NO are
> "dry".  So, yes, planes could drop supplies there.

On buildings? You do realize that planes cannot accurately drop supplies,
right? There are no "smart palates".

> Large boats cannot
> navigate through the city, but they can supply the coastline to the
> west of NO and take in supplies on smaller boats.  Not perfect, but
> better than NOTHING, which is what they got.

What way is there to get from the "coastline" facilities, if any, to the
city? Logistics of transport from any drop zone is part of the problem that
takes time.

> And ... are you telling me that a handful of helicopters is the best we
> can do?  I read that less than 50 helicopters were involved.

How many do you want? 50 Helos means 150 men on crew, and up to 500 ground
crew. Thats 650 crew, without talking about landing zones, fuel,
co-ordination for flight operations, etc. The USCG only has 211 Helos total,
with 3-5 (guesstimate from facts culled from the USCG 8th division websites)
from each of four air stations in the 8th Division's territory. Wow, a full
10% of the USCG helos were on duty and flying, if possible. Wanna bet others
came in from outside the 8th Division's area? If ALL those 50 were USCG,
thats 25% of a NATIONAL force. THAT is a one hell of a mobilization.

> I tried to find some research I did in college on earthquakes, to no
> avail.  However, in Cali, I can't think of a single major earthquake
> that went more than 2 days without an outpooring of aid from various
> state and federal agencies.  You might make the argument that the areas
> were not under water, but the challenges were just as great.  Roads and
> bridges out, structures collapsing, no electricity ...

Well, considering the USCG was flying within a day of the storm passing,
this disaster response falls within your criteria. Given that anyone who has
actually been in the area claims its worse than anything they've seen,
adding an extra day to your two quoted above isn't out of reason.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

> The entire city is not under water.  Western amd Northwestern NO are
> "dry".  So, yes, planes could drop supplies there.  Large boats cannot
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Craig C.
Tom Lawrence - 03 Sep 2005 20:01 GMT
> On buildings? You do realize that planes cannot accurately drop supplies,
> right? There are no "smart palates".

Ya mean ya can't strap a Garmin hand-held GPS onto one, and turn it into a
JDAP (Joint Direct Assistance Pallet)?  :)

> What way is there to get from the "coastline" facilities, if any, to the
> city?

That would be through the swamps...
TBone - 03 Sep 2005 22:59 GMT
> > On buildings? You do realize that planes cannot accurately drop supplies,
> > right? There are no "smart palates".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That would be through the swamps...

And they have plenty of swamp boats built just for that purpose.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Tom Lawrence - 04 Sep 2005 01:13 GMT
> And they have plenty of swamp boats built just for that purpose.

Who's "they"?  You know this for a fact?  You know they weren't isolated, or
even destroyed, by the storm?

Ya know, Tom...  you seem to have all this figured out.  Why the hell aren't
you down there telling everyone what they should be doing?  Bourbon Street
could have been rocking again tonight if you were in charge...
Denny - 04 Sep 2005 02:38 GMT
>> And they have plenty of swamp boats built just for that purpose.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> aren't you down there telling everyone what they should be doing?  Bourbon
> Street could have been rocking again tonight if you were in charge...

Gawd my side hurts........quit now.........

Denny
TBone - 04 Sep 2005 03:51 GMT
> > And they have plenty of swamp boats built just for that purpose.
>
> Who's "they"?  You know this for a fact?  You know they weren't isolated, or
> even destroyed, by the storm?

And YOU know that every one of them were???

> Ya know, Tom...  you seem to have all this figured out.  Why the hell aren't
> you down there telling everyone what they should be doing?  Bourbon Street
> could have been rocking again tonight if you were in charge...

Is this the best that you can do Tom?  Do you think that the best job
possible has been done so far?  You make the claim that there are swamps in
the way but they have always been there and are a way of life for the people
that live near them and they have equipment to deal with it.  I never said
that I knew everything or had  all of the answers but compared to the way
the situation is currently being handled, I probably could do a better job,
at least in the beginning.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Tom Lawrence - 04 Sep 2005 04:01 GMT
> And YOU know that every one of them were???

No, Tom - I DON'T know...  I have no f.cking clue, just like you.  The
DIFFERENCE is I don't spout off like I _DO_ know, pointing out everything
that was done wrong, and how it could have been so much better.

>  Do you think that the best job possible has been done so far?

No, and it never is.  Your expectations of perfection will always be
missed...  therefore always giving you an opportunity to piss and moan.
Maybe there's a reason for that....

> You make the claim that there are swamps in
> the way but they have always been there and are a way of life for the
> people
> that live near them and they have equipment to deal with it.

They don't routinely transport thousands of tons of supplies across them,
now do they, Tom?  No - they usually bring in things via I-10, which if you
haven't noticed, is sitting at the bottom of the f.cking lake.  Other roads?
Under water.  The airport?  Closed to all traffic - and unless you were
coming in with a J3 Cub on floats, you weren't landing.

> the situation is currently being handled, I probably could do a better
> job,

Put your money where your mouth is, pal....  go make it all better.
TBone - 04 Sep 2005 04:53 GMT
> > And YOU know that every one of them were???
>
> No, Tom - I DON'T know...  I have no f.cking clue, just like you.  The
> DIFFERENCE is I don't spout off like I _DO_ know, pointing out everything
> that was done wrong, and how it could have been so much better.

LOL, you are becomming a real a.s anymore.  So much for the low noise level.
The fact is that things WERE done wrong and could have been done MUCH better
even if you don't want to hear it.

> >  Do you think that the best job possible has been done so far?
>
> No, and it never is.  Your expectations of perfection will always be
> missed...  therefore always giving you an opportunity to piss and moan.
> Maybe there's a reason for that....

So should people sit silently and say nothing when things were done
obviously wrong?  As for pissing and moaning, I am not the only one with
this opinion but yet seem to be the only one you are whining at.  Maybe
there's a reason for that....

> > You make the claim that there are swamps in
> > the way but they have always been there and are a way of life for the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Under water.  The airport?  Closed to all traffic - and unless you were
> coming in with a J3 Cub on floats, you weren't landing.

LOL, I just said that they had way's through the swamps.  Stop crying about
it.  Most of this stuff should have already been in the area since they had
a few days to plan for it BEFORE the storm.  As for thousands of tons, even
hundreds of pounds would be hundreds of pounds more than what they did do.

> > the situation is currently being handled, I probably could do a better
> > job,
>
> Put your money where your mouth is, pal....  go make it all better.

Too late now, the damage is done.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

craig@metronet.com - 06 Sep 2005 00:25 GMT
I just got back from Houston.  Wow ... that's some scary sh.t down
there.  It's amazing just how "animalistic" people act when there is no
order ... and they have nothing to lose.  Anyhow, I have my temporary
visitors, and we are grilling out tonight.  We are all looking forward
to it ... especially them.  I only hope my cooking can hold a match to
cajun food.

I chose to reply to this particular post because it's the first time
I've seen Tom (Lawrence) passionate about anything other than Dodge
trucks.  Congrats, Tom, and welcome to the pissing contest.  :)

Craig C.
Tom Lawrence - 06 Sep 2005 01:04 GMT
> I chose to reply to this particular post because it's the first time
> I've seen Tom (Lawrence) passionate about anything other than Dodge
> trucks.  Congrats, Tom, and welcome to the pissing contest.  :)

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned....  :)

Yeah, once in a while I get a little caught up in things, before I realize
the err of my ways....  kinda like Bugs Bunny in the one WWII-era episode
with the Gremlin, intent on proving that the bomb was a good one by
repeatedly whacking on it with a hammer...  until the epiphany struck him:
"WHAT AM I DOO-ING?!?!"

I've decided to stop smacking the bomb with the hammer...  no good can come
of it  :)
craig@metronet.com - 06 Sep 2005 01:09 GMT
Well ... I decided that as well ... however, I should have stopped
sooner.  I just ended up more pissed off.  Which proves your last
sentence.  

Craig C.
TBone - 03 Sep 2005 04:31 GMT
Absolutely.  We have sent aid to other countries faster than this.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
> no!!
>
> Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!
Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 06:06 GMT
> Absolutely.  We have sent aid to other countries faster than this.

Name one time it happened faster than this. Simple time line:
Day 1, Tuesday) Assessment of situation and needs.
Day 2, Wednesday) Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
personnel
Day 3, Thursday) Deployment to region
Day 4, Friday) Operation commences

Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

> Absolutely.  We have sent aid to other countries faster than this.
>
>> Let's try to keep the politics out of this question. Let's make it yes or
>> no!!
>>
>> Do you feel the response was late??? YES OR  NO!!
craig@metronet.com - 03 Sep 2005 06:27 GMT
Bzzzz ... sorry Max.

Monday evening Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama called for help.
Even if they hadn't, we should have been better prepared at the federal
level.  Not one single person at FEMA doubted that this was going to be
a national disasater, 24 hours BEFORE it happened.

It does not take 24 hours to assess the situation.   Less than 4 hours.
I agree on 24 hours for gathering of supplies.  Now we're at
approximately 30 hours.
24 hours for deployment?  Are they having a deployment party too?  Much
of the equipment and supplies came from right here in good ole Texas.
Doesn't take 24 hours to get to NO, even when it's under water.  I say
12 hours.

That's 42 hours ... let's round up to 48.  At the latest ... Thursday
morning.  That's if you do EVERYTHING by road.

It amazes me that ANYONE can defend the response time.  If Clinton were
still in office and he had dragged his a.s like this, you'd be on fire.

Craig C.

Craig C.
Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 06:54 GMT
> Bzzzz ... sorry Max.

Yeah, you are sorry, thats a fact.

> Monday evening Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama called for help.
> Even if they hadn't, we should have been better prepared at the federal
> level.  Not one single person at FEMA doubted that this was going to be
> a national disasater, 24 hours BEFORE it happened.

Better prepared for what? I assume you have the crystal ball that shows what
will be needed in the future, so tell us ALL about it.

> It does not take 24 hours to assess the situation.   Less than 4 hours.

They still don't know numbers of people stranded in NO, but you expect it to
happen in 4 hours.

> I agree on 24 hours for gathering of supplies.  Now we're at
> approximately 30 hours.

Ok, I figure at least 36, but lets go with yours.....

> 24 hours for deployment?  Are they having a deployment party too?

Yeah, 24 hours. 8  hours for notice to get rested personnel, 8-16 for
preparation, especially when moving from one region to the other, not across
the street, ya know.

We're at 52 if we cut my estimate by a third, which is unrealistic, but I'll
do it for you.

> Much
> of the equipment and supplies came from right here in good ole Texas.
> Doesn't take 24 hours to get to NO, even when it's under water.  I say
> 12 hours.

Nope, takes about 3-5 travelling at convoy speeds. Add in time to assemble
convoy, and we're at 8-10.

Total, 60-62hours.

> That's 42 hours ... let's round up to 48.  At the latest ... Thursday
> morning.  That's if you do EVERYTHING by road.

Yeah, and when the road is blocked, or doesn't exist...... lets add on 4
hours for that.

Total, 64-66 hours.

My total comes up 6 hours short of 72 hours... three days. And thats
assuming all goes perfectly. But even so, the USCG and many military helos
were already on scene pulling people from rooftops, which means they were
NOT dropping food and water. And all you can do is complain.

> It amazes me that ANYONE can defend the response time.  If Clinton were
> still in office and he had dragged his a.s like this, you'd be on fire.

LOL, you have no clue. You are pushing a political agenda, nothing more,
nothing less.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

> Bzzzz ... sorry Max.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Craig C.
craig@metronet.com - 03 Sep 2005 08:00 GMT
>Yeah, you are sorry, thats a fact.

Gosh, Max, you really know how to hurt a guy.

>Better prepared for what? I assume you have the crystal ball that shows what
>will be needed in the future, so tell us ALL about it.

Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
their head out of their a.s long enough to realize that some serious
sh.t was about to happen.

I won't comment on your timeline ... I don't agree.  I could have
driven to NO 6 times with supplies in the time it took you to "assess"
the situation.

>LOL, you have no clue. You are pushing a political agenda, nothing more,
>nothing less.

Okay, Max, if that helps you sleep.  Speaking of sleep, I'm going to go
catch a few Z's.  Tomorrow, I'm actually doing something about it.

Americans deserve the best our government and military can offer in
times of crises.  Republican president or Democrat ... I expect the
same.  I guess you could call that an "agenda".  

Craig C.
Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 08:21 GMT
> Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
> sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
> their head out of their a.s long enough to realize that some serious
> sh.t was about to happen.

Yup, like say, NO municipal government and the LA state government. Hell,
I'm watching Senator Lott run down the time line as to how  they are
actually ahead of the curve in how things went compared to other storms.

> I won't comment on your timeline ... I don't agree.  I could have
> driven to NO 6 times with supplies in the time it took you to "assess"
> the situation.

Yeah, with one vehicle, loaded by who? To what effect on a mass of over
20,000 people? Takes time to put together an co-ordinated effort, not just
hours.

> Okay, Max, if that helps you sleep.  Speaking of sleep, I'm going to go
> catch a few Z's.  Tomorrow, I'm actually doing something about it.

Good for you. We're sending all our local Red Cross people to help you. And
local ambulance crews. And our money. And likely more in the days to follow.
See, we remember this sh.t, we went through Agnes, and got flooded out for
days ourselves. We didn't have a big city to take care of us, and our
capital was flooded out as well. We had graveyards popping out coffins, mine
runoff poisoning our drinking water, and no way to get to any safe major
city within 100 miles. We learned from it, so now when a storm comes
through, we deal with it. We don't blame the president, or the governor. We
have local people who know their jobs, and they DO those jobs.

> Americans deserve the best our government and military can offer in
> times of crises.  Republican president or Democrat ... I expect the
> same.  I guess you could call that an "agenda".

They got the best. The USCG was there within hours. NG branches were there
within a day. Why not tell one of those guys that help wasn't there in time,
and you have an idea how to make it faster next time. I'm sure you'll have a
very interested audience.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

> >Yeah, you are sorry, thats a fact.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Craig C.
TBone - 03 Sep 2005 16:45 GMT
> > Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
> > sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'm watching Senator Lott run down the time line as to how  they are
> actually ahead of the curve in how things went compared to other storms.

LOL, yea, they set a BS timeline like you did and then they can claim how
they are ahead of it.

> > I won't comment on your timeline ... I don't agree.  I could have
> > driven to NO 6 times with supplies in the time it took you to "assess"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 20,000 people? Takes time to put together an co-ordinated effort, not just
> hours.

You are correct and much of this planning should have occured BEFORE the
storm.  Any planning after it should only be dealing with the unexpected.

> > Okay, Max, if that helps you sleep.  Speaking of sleep, I'm going to go
> > catch a few Z's.  Tomorrow, I'm actually doing something about it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> through, we deal with it. We don't blame the president, or the governor. We
> have local people who know their jobs, and they DO those jobs.

Yea, probably because your governor knows now to begin planning and
gathering supplies when the storm is expected, not after it hits so your
local people have what they need to do their jobs.  I don't care how much
your local people know, it they don't have what they need, they can do
nothing.

> > Americans deserve the best our government and military can offer in
> > times of crises.  Republican president or Democrat ... I expect the
> > same.  I guess you could call that an "agenda".
>
> They got the best.

Complete BULLSHIT!!!!

> The USCG was there within hours.

With NOTHING.

> NG branches were there within a day.

And should have been there within hours.

> Why not tell one of those guys that help wasn't there in time,
> and you have an idea how to make it faster next time. I'm sure you'll have a
> very interested audience.

Simple answer, plan ahead and be prepared next time.  Hurricanes are not
surprise events like an earthquake or a tornado.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 17:44 GMT
> You are correct and much of this planning should have occured BEFORE the
> storm.  Any planning after it should only be dealing with the unexpected.

Well, the way they say, the flooding in NO was unexpected. Obviously that is
a major disruption to plans, if in fact they were following any.

> Yea, probably because your governor knows now to begin planning and
> gathering supplies when the storm is expected, not after it hits so your
> local people have what they need to do their jobs.  I don't care how much
> your local people know, it they don't have what they need, they can do
> nothing.

Actually it was a local senator, by the name of Dan Flood (no, I'm not
joking) that had a major part in getting state and fed funding to build a
floodwall. Our Governor has had very little to do with our plans, and the
one we have now probably would rather talk football than govern. I will say
this in Rendells favor, he has said he will find state funding to erect a
floodwall at the next town up if the feds won't fund it.

>> The USCG was there within hours.
>
> With NOTHING.

20 Helos with rescue equipment was "nothing"?

>> NG branches were there within a day.
>
> And should have been there within hours.

You do realize the NG is made up from people who LIVE in the affected area?
Beyond that, it'll take a day to get other state NG activated.

> Simple answer, plan ahead and be prepared next time.  Hurricanes are not
> surprise events like an earthquake or a tornado.

But according to another thread, you claim the path is unpredictable.....
Whatever....

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
>> > sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> Simple answer, plan ahead and be prepared next time.  Hurricanes are not
> surprise events like an earthquake or a tornado.
TBone - 05 Sep 2005 23:23 GMT
> > You are correct and much of this planning should have occured BEFORE the
> > storm.  Any planning after it should only be dealing with the unexpected.
>
> Well, the way they say, the flooding in NO was unexpected. Obviously that is
> a major disruption to plans, if in fact they were following any.

LOL, completely not true.  They were expecting major flooding during the
storm and when it didn't happen right away, they thought that they got off
lucky, until the levees failed that it.

> > Yea, probably because your governor knows now to begin planning and
> > gathering supplies when the storm is expected, not after it hits so your
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> this in Rendells favor, he has said he will find state funding to erect a
> floodwall at the next town up if the feds won't fund it.

Ok, fine.  Either way, you are now prepared to some degree for if it happens
again and I doubt that the people in charge will wait until after the next
major stor  in your area to even begin the planning.

> >> The USCG was there within hours.
> >
> > With NOTHING.
>
> 20 Helos with rescue equipment was "nothing"?

For the level of damage and number of people in trouble, yea, I would say
NOTHING.

> >> NG branches were there within a day.
> >
> > And should have been there within hours.
>
> You do realize the NG is made up from people who LIVE in the affected area?
> Beyond that, it'll take a day to get other state NG activated.

They should have been activated prior to the storm since they knew that it
was comming.

> > Simple answer, plan ahead and be prepared next time.  Hurricanes are not
> > surprise events like an earthquake or a tornado.
>
> But according to another thread, you claim the path is unpredictable.....
> Whatever....

Yes, it is but a storm that powerful is going to cause significant damage to
wherever it strikes and we should have been somewhat ready for it and we
simply dropped the ball, big time.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 06 Sep 2005 00:04 GMT
> LOL, completely not true.  They were expecting major flooding during the
> storm and when it didn't happen right away, they thought that they got off
> lucky, until the levees failed that it.

Your claims back up the fact that their plan failed. If they expected
exactly what happened, and it took an extra day for it to happen, then th
Mayor of NO is at fault, not the NG or the Feds.

> Ok, fine.  Either way, you are now prepared to some degree for if it
> happens
> again and I doubt that the people in charge will wait until after the next
> major stor  in your area to even begin the planning.

The plan is in palace and has been executed correctly several times.

>> 20 Helos with rescue equipment was "nothing"?
>
> For the level of damage and number of people in trouble, yea, I would say
> NOTHING.

I just heard a report that 40% of the USCG helos were on scene. Thats 80
aircraft. A bit more than nothing.

> They should have been activated prior to the storm since they knew that it
> was comming.

According to the NG spokesman on MSNBC, they were.

> Yes, it is but a storm that powerful is going to cause significant damage
> to
> wherever it strikes and we should have been somewhat ready for it and we
> simply dropped the ball, big time.

No. See, what you fail to understand is, a disaster is a disaster because
its a huge bad event. Until it happens, dealing with it perfectly is
impossible. Too bad they aren't all exactly alike, then people like you
could have the perfection you desire.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > You are correct and much of this planning should have occured BEFORE
>> > the
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> wherever it strikes and we should have been somewhat ready for it and we
> simply dropped the ball, big time.
Rod & Betty Jo - 04 Sep 2005 01:25 GMT
> Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
> sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
> their head out of their a.s long enough to realize that some serious
> sh.t was about to happen.

One may note that the full brunt of the hurricane missed NO and hit
Mississippi instead......a little observation clearly shows largely intact
buildings albeit quite wet. The day following the storm everyone including
the media and NO local politicians were soundly congratulating themselves
for their wonderful pre storm preparations including the soon to be ill
fated packed stadium. There was as well lots of bragging about pre storm
preparation between the locals and the FEDs. And a massive sigh of relief
that the storm had dropped from CAT5 to Cat4 upon hitting landfall and had
veered away from heavily populated NO.

Then as the levy fell the initial hopeful expectation was to fix it and
stop the flow.....as night fall came on the second day it became apparent
that such a outcome was nearly impossible. By the third day the city was
largely flooded.

Of greater note with a nearly 100 mile wide swath of massive destruction
through Mississippi manpower, resources and rescue was rightly focused where
the storm actually hit.......

One might even surmise that NO with a reasonably slow rising(48hr) flood
and a city supposedly already "emptied" would be largely a long term repair/
cleanup and not a budding emergency. One might also surmise that the
locals(common sense) would have propositioned reasonable food, water, fuel
and portable restrooms before filling the stadium and convention
center......

Timelines and realities on the ground may wreck a good rant but nonetheless
they exist. A large scale emergency mobilization costs literally billions of
dollars and disrupts thousand of lives (reserves and volunteers) its just
not something that can be done because something might happen.....at any
given time something "might happen" virtually anywhere, preparation before
the fact is by necessity general and non specific....i.e. at this point
Mississippi and NO have entirely different needs including rescue, manpower
and equipment requirements. Realistically in this case a "flood specific
response" on a national level begins 2-3 days after the initial
hurricane.....Not to mention logistics of distance add considerable
transport time. Requirements for initial local information about
transportation assets remaining or available (airports, roads and rail) is
needed as well.

> Americans deserve the best our government and military can offer in
> times of crises.  Republican president or Democrat ... I expect the
> same.  I guess you could call that an "agenda".
> Craig C.

No argument there......however an expectation based on reality is not a bad
thing.  Rod
Mike Simmons - 04 Sep 2005 02:39 GMT
>> Well, let me spell it out for you.  SUNDAY, impact with NO was 100% for
>> sure.  175 mph winds.  No crystal ball needed.  Just someone to get
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> No argument there......however an expectation based on reality is not a
> bad thing.  Rod

Well said, Rod.... but <sigh>.... sadly reality is not the strong suit of
some in the group.... much easier to rant about something of which you know
little....

Mike
Langerhans - 03 Sep 2005 07:23 GMT
> Bzzzz ... sorry Max.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Craig C.

Yep, easy to blame Bush. Especially easy for the NO Mayor to give the TV
vampires nice curse-laden sound bites.

But the truth is at this URL:
http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2005_08_28.html#004749

Incompetence begins at home.
TBone - 03 Sep 2005 06:34 GMT
> Name one time it happened faster than this. Simple time line:
> Day 1, Tuesday) Assessment of situation and needs.
> Day 2, Wednesday) Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
> personnel

LOL, most of this should have happened BEFORE MONDAY.  As you said in the
fuel price thread, NOWA had a pretty good idea where and how strong it was
going to be when is made land fall.  The fact that they had the evacuation
showed that they knew what was possible so they could have made many
accurate assumptions as to what was going to be needed prior to the storm
hitting.  the real time line should have been:

Day 1, Saturday - Assessment and assumption of probable needs.
Day 2, Sunday - Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and personnel
based on above.
Day 3, Monday - Reassess situation and needs.  Begin initial deployment
Day 4, Tuesday - Full deployment to region with what is needed or available
based on prior assessment while gathering any additional supplies and
personnel that may also be needed.  Begin initial operations.
Day 5, Wednesday - Operation fully commences!

> Day 3, Thursday) Deployment to region
> Day 4, Friday) Operation commences

LOL, you are already 3 days late.

> Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.

Yes it was because many of your steps should have been done BEFORE the storm
even hit.  By Tuesday, they should have been ready to roll with something.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 07:00 GMT
> LOL, most of this should have happened BEFORE MONDAY.  As you said in the
> fuel price thread, NOWA had a pretty good idea where and how strong it was
> going to be when is made land fall.  The fact that they had the evacuation
> showed that they knew what was possible so they could have made many
> accurate assumptions as to what was going to be needed prior to the storm
> hitting.  the real time line should have been:

No, I said NOAA had a clue. I don't know who NOWA is. As to accurate
predictions, your flawed assumption fails to take into account their flawed
assumptions about their levees, and the biggest variable, number of people
trapped in a disaster that was believed to have been avoided.

> Day 1, Saturday - Assessment and assumption of probable needs.

Based on what? Storm size?

> Day 2, Sunday - Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
> personnel
> based on above.

Gathered where? In the city?

> Day 3, Monday - Reassess situation and needs.  Begin initial deployment

During the storm?

> Day 4, Tuesday - Full deployment to region with what is needed or
> available
> based on prior assessment while gathering any additional supplies and
> personnel that may also be needed.  Begin initial operations.
> Day 5, Wednesday - Operation fully commences!

Wow, FIVE days instead of the three I claimed. Brilliantly proving that
three days is GREAT response time. You are aware that USCG and military
helos were on scene by Tuesday, right?

>> Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.
>
> Yes it was because many of your steps should have been done BEFORE the
> storm
> even hit.  By Tuesday, they should have been ready to roll with something.

You are aware that USCG and military helos were on scene by Tuesday, right?

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> Name one time it happened faster than this. Simple time line:
>> Day 1, Tuesday) Assessment of situation and needs.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> storm
> even hit.  By Tuesday, they should have been ready to roll with something.
TBone - 03 Sep 2005 16:36 GMT
> > LOL, most of this should have happened BEFORE MONDAY.  As you said in the
> > fuel price thread, NOWA had a pretty good idea where and how strong it was
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> No, I said NOAA had a clue. I don't know who NOWA is.

It was a typo, get over it.

> As to accurate
> predictions, your flawed assumption fails to take into account their flawed
> assumptions about their levees, and the biggest variable, number of people
> trapped in a disaster that was believed to have been avoided.

But that was  A F T E R  the storm and supplies should have been ready
BEFORE it hit and were not.

> > Day 1, Saturday - Assessment and assumption of probable needs.
>
> Based on what? Storm size?

Storm size, possible landfall locations, probability of levee failures due
to there age as well as the strength of the storm, number of people that
have no way out of the area.  Hell, the national guard should have been
mobilized Friday to begin moving some of these people the hell out of there.

> > Day 2, Sunday - Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
> > personnel
> > based on above.
>
> Gathered where? In the city?

Yea, like the Astro Dome and inland away from the flood prone areas.  Sure,
there is a risk of losing some of them but at least there would be something
where and when it was needed.

> > Day 3, Monday - Reassess situation and needs.  Begin initial deployment
>
> During the storm?

The storm was out of there by Monday afternoon.

> > Day 4, Tuesday - Full deployment to region with what is needed or
> > available
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> three days is GREAT response time. You are aware that USCG and military
> helos were on scene by Tuesday, right?

Wow, a few helos with no supplies at all.  What happened to Monday night and
all f.cking day Tuesday?

> >> Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You are aware that USCG and military helos were on scene by Tuesday, right?

Like I said, a day late with nothing.  They should have been there Monday
night dropping initial supplies that were stored before the storm like water
and some food.  Sorry Max, but your lame justifications and BS time line
simply don't cut it.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 03 Sep 2005 17:22 GMT
> But that was  A F T E R  the storm and supplies should have been ready
> BEFORE it hit and were not.

The storm was 100 miles wide, and affected an area larger than the state of
Mississippi. Where would you put supplies and troops if you were the
governor of any of these states? Keep in mind, the NG troops will be
affected by the storm, so calling them up will take time. Getting the troops
to their gathering points will take time, due to the storm. Once gathered,
they wil lhave to organize, and go back 50-100 miles. It takes time. The
first NG troops (locals) were on scene Wednesday, unarmed though they were,
because their weapons were moved north to keep them out of harms way.

>> > Day 1, Saturday - Assessment and assumption of probable needs.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> mobilized Friday to begin moving some of these people the hell out of
> there.

Ok, lets assume all this is factored in. The Mayor and the Governor are the
ones who have to do this. They are the leadership that knows these details.
So who are you blaming for it?

>> > Day 2, Sunday - Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
>> > personnel
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> something
> where and when it was needed.

Ok, the Astrodome is 350 miles away, meaning it would take a day to get them
to the AstroDome, and a day to get back. So you've added at least a day to
the mobilization. Remember, these people are supposed to be local, so either
you respect that they need to care for their family, OR, you take in the
whole family while they are mobilized. Either one adds time.

>> > Day 3, Monday - Reassess situation and needs.  Begin initial deployment
>>
>> During the storm?
>
> The storm was out of there by Monday afternoon.

Yeah, it was going through the area where all these NG troops live.

>> > Day 4, Tuesday - Full deployment to region with what is needed or
>> > available
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> and
> all f.cking day Tuesday?

Considering that the Helos came from the affected area, proper time HAS to
be taken to check for storm damage. By Tuesday, USCG was pulling people from
rooftops. Priority is given to lifesaving rescues, particularly in the case
of the USCG. They were still doing this on Thursday, thus they were still on
priority one.

>> >> Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.
>> >
>> > Yes it was because many of your steps should have been done BEFORE the
>> > storm
>> > even hit.  By Tuesday, they should have been ready to roll with
> something.

Even if its possible, the people who make that a reality are the LOCAL
governments and the Governor.

> Like I said, a day late with nothing.  They should have been there Monday
> night dropping initial supplies that were stored before the storm like
> water
> and some food.  Sorry Max, but your lame justifications and BS time line
> simply don't cut it.

Sorry TBone, but your insistance that the USCG is a relief agency fails to
take into account their primary mission is to RESCUE people, and thats what
they did. Right after they checked for storm damage on their equipment.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > LOL, most of this should have happened BEFORE MONDAY.  As you said in
> the
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> and some food.  Sorry Max, but your lame justifications and BS time line
> simply don't cut it.
TBone - 04 Sep 2005 03:42 GMT
> > But that was  A F T E R  the storm and supplies should have been ready
> > BEFORE it hit and were not.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> ones who have to do this. They are the leadership that knows these details.
> So who are you blaming for it?

Unlike others in here, I am not blaming the President for everything that
went wrong.  I would agree that the Mayor and the Governor have the most
blame on them but either way, this took WAY to long.

> >> > Day 2, Sunday - Logistical planning and gathering of supplies and
> >> > personnel
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Ok, the Astrodome is 350 miles away, meaning it would take a day to get them
> to the AstroDome, and a day to get back.

LOL, a helicopter could fly that trip in less than 3 hours.  Then again,
they could have stored some of it in the convention center where they told
many of the people to go anyway where they waited for nothing with nothing.

> So you've added at least a day to
> the mobilization. Remember, these people are supposed to be local, so either
> you respect that they need to care for their family, OR, you take in the
> whole family while they are mobilized. Either one adds time.

LOL, they should have been mobilized BEFORE the storm hit and their families
should have evacuated just like everyone else was asked to do so sorry Max,
no extra time required.

> >> > Day 3, Monday - Reassess situation and needs.  Begin initial deployment
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yeah, it was going through the area where all these NG troops live.

Like I said before, they should have already been mobilized.

> >> > Day 4, Tuesday - Full deployment to region with what is needed or
> >> > available
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Considering that the Helos came from the affected area, proper time HAS to
> be taken to check for storm damage.

According to YOU, all aircraft had been removed from the strile zone prior
to the storm so exactly what damage did they incure?

> By Tuesday, USCG was pulling people from
> rooftops. Priority is given to lifesaving rescues, particularly in the case
> of the USCG. They were still doing this on Thursday, thus they were still on
> priority one.

LOL, those peope are in no worse danger than everyone else without food,
water, or shelter and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Small boats could also deal with these rescues leaving the USCG to deliver
needed food and water.

> >> >> Three days to get on scene and operational. Not bad.
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Even if its possible, the people who make that a reality are the LOCAL
> governments and the Governor.

Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his a.s
back in the White House Sunday afternoon knowing the impending disaster and
his staying on vacation was a major mistake..

> > Like I said, a day late with nothing.  They should have been there Monday
> > night dropping initial supplies that were stored before the storm like
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> take into account their primary mission is to RESCUE people, and thats what
> they did. Right after they checked for storm damage on their equipment.

If people don't have food or water, their lives are in danger no matter
where they are.  Pickups in flood zones can be done with small boats and
rafts.  The helos could be better used elsewhere and either way, they took
WAY to much time to even begin.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 04 Sep 2005 07:39 GMT
> Unlike others in here, I am not blaming the President for everything that
> went wrong.  I would agree that the Mayor and the Governor have the most
> blame on them but either way, this took WAY to long.

And yet, you've offered no concrete FACTual ways that it could have been.
You speak of different ways to mobilize, but none are practical. You figure
the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you don't have a
clue where they would be needed most, or safest in assembling. Even if you
did, you forget that they too deserve the chance to help protect their own
families through the worst of the storm. Then, when confronted with the
facts, you claim it was too slow. When asked to provide one example of a
disaster where response time was faster, you have none. When shown that
aircraft were rescuing people within 24 hrs, you claim the focus of their
activities is misguided, nevermind what the aircraft are equipped to do.
Hint: The Dauphine cannot haul massive supplies, as its too light an
aircraft.

>> Ok, the Astrodome is 350 miles away, meaning it would take a day to get
> them
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> many of the people to go anyway where they waited for nothing with
> nothing.

Ok, so for 6 hours each aircraft is useless, as its in transit. Totally
inefficient. Sure, it could deliver a small amount. But a small amount
delivered to a huge crowd means someone misses out, which leads to trouble.

> LOL, they should have been mobilized BEFORE the storm hit and their
> families
> should have evacuated just like everyone else was asked to do so sorry
> Max,
> no extra time required.

You figure the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you
don't have a clue where they would be needed most, or safest in assembling.
Even if you did, you forget that they too deserve the chance to help protect
their own families through the worst of the storm.

> Like I said before, they should have already been mobilized.

You figure the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you
don't have a clue where they would be needed most, or safest in assembling.
Even if you did, you forget that they too deserve the chance to help protect
their own families through the worst of the storm.

> According to YOU, all aircraft had been removed from the strile zone prior
> to the storm so exactly what damage did they incure?

Precisely why they are required by the FAA and the military to have a
preflight check and under special circumstances, a more thorough one than
that.

> LOL, those peope are in no worse danger than everyone else without food,
> water, or shelter and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> Small boats could also deal with these rescues leaving the USCG to deliver
> needed food and water.

Unfortunately, the USCG is not equpiied with helos that can carry large
amounts of supplies, so your brilliant decision couldn't be carried out even
if you were in charge.

> Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
> a.s
> back in the White House Sunday afternoon knowing the impending disaster
> and
> his staying on vacation was a major mistake..

Given the communication network that follows POTUS, and the fact that he can
do nothing until the storm passes, why change schedule and create chaos in
the routine of his support systems just when they need to be most efficient.

> If people don't have food or water, their lives are in danger no matter
> where they are.  Pickups in flood zones can be done with small boats and
> rafts.  The helos could be better used elsewhere and either way, they took
> WAY to much time to even begin.

Unfortunately, the USCG is not equpiied with helos that can carry large
amounts of supplies, so your brilliant decision couldn't be carried out even
if you were in charge.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > But that was  A F T E R  the storm and supplies should have been ready
>> > BEFORE it hit and were not.
[quoted text clipped - 150 lines]
> rafts.  The helos could be better used elsewhere and either way, they took
> WAY to much time to even begin.
TBone - 04 Sep 2005 17:59 GMT
> > Unlike others in here, I am not blaming the President for everything that
> > went wrong.  I would agree that the Mayor and the Governor have the most
> > blame on them but either way, this took WAY to long.
>
> And yet, you've offered no concrete FACTual ways that it could have been.

That is because it is impossible to do in a "concrete" way and you know
that.

> You speak of different ways to mobilize, but none are practical. You figure
> the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you don't have a
> clue where they would be needed most, or safest in assembling.

They are part of the military, their complete safety is not the issue and it
takes little time to shift or deploy to a different location once assembled.

> Even if you did, you forget that they too deserve the chance to help
protect their own
> families through the worst of the storm.

Once again, they are in the military and there families have to come second
and as I have said before and you ignored, their families should have been
evacuated prior to the storm.

> Then, when confronted with the
> facts, you claim it was too slow. When asked to provide one example of a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Hint: The Dauphine cannot haul massive supplies, as its too light an
> aircraft.

You are correct and larger aircraft should have been made available.  As for
faster responce, even the earthquake in CA had massive movement within 2
days, not close to 5 like now.

> >> Ok, the Astrodome is 350 miles away, meaning it would take a day to get
> > them
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ok, so for 6 hours each aircraft is useless, as its in transit.

It is not useless, it is in transit with supplies.

> > LOL, they should have been mobilized BEFORE the storm hit and their
> > families
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You figure the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you
> don't have a clue where they would be needed most, or safest in assembling.

It does not matter, once assembled, deployment happens MUCH faster.

> Even if you did, you forget that they too deserve the chance to help protect
> their own families through the worst of the storm.

They are in the military, they gave up that type of choice when they joined
and their families should have been evacuated prior to the storm hitting the
area.

> > According to YOU, all aircraft had been removed from the strile zone prior
> > to the storm so exactly what damage did they incure?
>
> Precisely why they are required by the FAA and the military to have a
> preflight check and under special circumstances, a more thorough one than
> that.

And what exactly are thes special circumstances and lets see some time lines
on how much longet these pre-flight checks will take.

> > LOL, those peope are in no worse danger than everyone else without food,
> > water, or shelter and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> amounts of supplies, so your brilliant decision couldn't be carried out even
> if you were in charge.

And that is where the federal gov screwed up not making sure that these
larger aircraft were available and in the area in case they were needed.

> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
> > a.s
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> do nothing until the storm passes, why change schedule and create chaos in
> the routine of his support systems just when they need to be most efficient.

It is public apperance pinhead.  And despite the communications network,
more can still be done in person.  As for chaos in his support system, LOL,
you are really reaching now.

> > If people don't have food or water, their lives are in danger no matter
> > where they are.  Pickups in flood zones can be done with small boats and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> amounts of supplies, so your brilliant decision couldn't be carried out even
> if you were in charge.

And this is where the President or the fed screwed up.  He should have made
sure that this type of equipment was available should the USCG need it and
made sure it was done before the storm made landfall.  The problem is that
it's all about the money anymore.  We can spends billions on a useless war
but when it comes to protecting and helping the people at home....

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

Max Dodge - 04 Sep 2005 18:53 GMT
>> And yet, you've offered no concrete FACTual ways that it could have been.
>
> That is because it is impossible to do in a "concrete" way and you know
> that.

Yet, now having acknowledged that its impossible to come up with "concrete"
facts, you will continue to second guess those that called the shots as best
they could.

> They are part of the military, their complete safety is not the issue and
> it
> takes little time to shift or deploy to a different location once
> assembled.

Think about this..... If the unit is NOT in a safe place prior to
deployment, what use are they if they are somehow depleted or damaged by the
storm? You obviously don't get it.

> Once again, they are in the military and there families have to come
> second
> and as I have said before and you ignored, their families should have been
> evacuated prior to the storm.

I didn't ignore it. What YOU seem to have ignored is the basic respect, and
common courtesy that a member of the armed services deserves, let alone what
they deserve simply as a citizen of this country. YOU simply have no clue,
and no respect apparently.

> You are correct and larger aircraft should have been made available.  As
> for
> faster responce, even the earthquake in CA had massive movement within 2
> days, not close to 5 like now.

From where? If you remove aircraft from the affected area, it takes time to
bring them back. As to your five days, you contradict yourself. You claim
five days, then acknowledge that USCG was on scene the next day, even if you
think they were doing the wrong thing.

>> Ok, so for 6 hours each aircraft is useless, as its in transit.
>
> It is not useless, it is in transit with supplies.

You obviously have no clue about moving a massive amount of supplies. The
BIGGEST problem facing massive movement of materials is turnaround time. Cut
that down, and things go faster. It would take a helo 6 hours total time to
deliver less than 2 tons (avg) of materials, OR, they can load trucks, and
move 30 tons in 8-10 hours to a staging area immediately outside the
affected area.

>> You figure the NG should have been mobilized prior o the storm, but you
>> don't have a clue where they would be needed most, or safest in
> assembling.
>
> It does not matter, once assembled, deployment happens MUCH faster.

But it DOES matter, because if you place them in the path of the storm,
deployment won't happen at all.

> They are in the military, they gave up that type of choice when they
> joined
> and their families should have been evacuated prior to the storm hitting
> the
> area.

Wrong.

> And what exactly are thes special circumstances and lets see some time
> lines
> on how much longet these pre-flight checks will take.

30-90 minutes per aircraft, depending on conditions.

> And that is where the federal gov screwed up not making sure that these
> larger aircraft were available and in the area in case they were needed.

Wrong again. The larger aircraft were on scene within 36 hours.

> It is public apperance pinhead.  And despite the communications network,
> more can still be done in person.  As for chaos in his support system,
> LOL,
> you are really reaching now.

You have no clue. Public appearance comes second to security of POTUS. POTUS
can do NOTHING on scene except pontificate and make comments. "wow, you guys
got f.cked, I'll go sign some papers." At which point, he goes back where he
is most effective, an office with a desk and a pen.

His support system, commonly known as the Secret Service, have the final say
as to where, how and when POTUS goes. Creating problems for them means they
do a risk assessment, and have to break down well rehearsed plans.

> And this is where the President or the fed screwed up.  He should have
> made
> sure that this type of equipment was available should the USCG need it and
> made sure it was done before the storm made landfall.  The problem is that
> it's all about the money anymore.  We can spends billions on a useless war
> but when it comes to protecting and helping the people at home....

The USCG didn't need it. They were performing the mission with which they
were tasked. Sure, its about money, so why spend billions on  "if" and
"maybe", when the established procedure works, if followed. I've long said
that Bush has no domestic policy. But the fact is, most domestic emergencies
HAVE to be handled by local authorities, as they know far more than the Feds
do.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > Unlike others in here, I am not blaming the President for everything
> that
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
> it's all about the money anymore.  We can spends billions on a useless war
> but when it comes to protecting and helping the people at home....
Mike Simmons - 04 Sep 2005 07:53 GMT
>> > But that was  A F T E R  the storm and supplies should have been ready
>> > BEFORE it hit and were not.
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> and
> his staying on vacation was a major mistake..

You idiot!  Think about what you just said!  With modern communications,
exactly WHAT could Bush not have done at Crawford, TX that he could have
done at the White House?  No spin, no backpedal.... just give us the answer
O, Genius!

Mike

>> > Like I said, a day late with nothing.  They should have been there
> Monday
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> rafts.  The helos could be better used elsewhere and either way, they took
> WAY to much time to even begin.
TBone - 04 Sep 2005 17:39 GMT
> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
> > a.s
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> done at the White House?  No spin, no backpedal.... just give us the answer
> O, Genius!

f.ck you Mike.  He should have returned to the White House for appearance
sake alone.  If he could do everything from his Texas home, there would be
no need for the White House at all now would there.  He was elected by the
people to lead this country and when it is about to be ravaged by this type
of storm, he should be back at his post.  Despite modern communications, it
is not now or ever will be as good as being were he is needed talking face
to face with the people that he needs to talk to and giving the apperance to
the country that he cares and things will get done, not that he will get
there when he has the chance after his vactaion.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

thenewguy - 04 Sep 2005 18:00 GMT
>> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
>> > a.s
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>the country that he cares and things will get done, not that he will get
>there when he has the chance after his vactaion.

"f.ck you mike"?  yeah, i sure don't understand why no one around here
likes you.

as for the response to the katrina, it was terrible.  we thought that
we had our planning down but this really shows how much work we have
to do.  why you blame bush for that is beyond me though.  the local,
state and federal response isn't lead by bush, but rather by americans
who are supposed to have their sh.t together.  i suspect this will be
a wake up call and that there will be some changes.  look at beekeeps
video.  is it bush's fault that two cops where in that walmart
looting?  no, bush isn't at fault here you idiot.  it was other
peoples jobs to get this done, not bush.  now, what i expect bush to
do is to kick a whole of a.s, fire some people and get some people in
there that can get the job done.
TBone - 05 Sep 2005 17:53 GMT
> >> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
> >> > a.s
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> "f.ck you mike"?  yeah, i sure don't understand why no one around here
> likes you.

Yea, he can call me an idiot for speaking my opinion but that's ok, huh.

> as for the response to the katrina, it was terrible.  we thought that
> we had our planning down but this really shows how much work we have
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> do is to kick a whole of a.s, fire some people and get some people in
> there that can get the job done.

What is it with you f.cking retards.  Where did I say that the entire fault
or even 1/5 of the fault is your God Bush's?  You will not be able to answer
this because I NEVER SAID IT.  Sure, Bush is not completely without blame
and there are a few things that he should have done or saw to it being done
by he people responsible prior to the storms landfall but he is far from the
only one at fault.  His major screw-up is in presentation as in not getting
back to the white house until LONG after the disaster and his demeanor when
he did give his speech about the efforts being done.  He really has to lose
that dumb looking smirk when he is under stress.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

thenewguy - 05 Sep 2005 18:26 GMT
>> >> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had
>his
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>Yea, he can call me an idiot for speaking my opinion but that's ok, huh.

yeah, in this case the truth is a defense.

>> as for the response to the katrina, it was terrible.  we thought that
>> we had our planning down but this really shows how much work we have
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>he did give his speech about the efforts being done.  He really has to lose
>that dumb looking smirk when he is under stress.

kind of like the dumb sounding tone to your posts, huh?
TBone - 05 Sep 2005 18:34 GMT
> >> >> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had
> >his
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> kind of like the dumb sounding tone to your posts, huh?

No different than yours

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

thenewguy - 05 Sep 2005 18:46 GMT
>> >> >> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have
>had
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
>
>No different than yours

nah, nah, nah.  

brilliant tom.  just brilliant.  you had to think for hours to come up
with that one.
Max Dodge - 04 Sep 2005 18:26 GMT
> f.ck you Mike.  He should have returned to the White House for appearance
> sake alone.

The appearance of WHAT?

> If he could do everything from his Texas home, there would be
> no need for the White House at all now would there.

How perceptive of you. Except for the need to have an offical residence and
headquarters for our president, technology has made one helluva difference
since the White House was rebuilt in 1814 or so.

> He was elected by the
> people to lead this country and when it is about to be ravaged by this
> type
> of storm, he should be back at his post.

Back at what post? You do realize that he has all information brought to him
personally. He doesn't just sit and watch special TV's.

> Despite modern communications, it
> is not now or ever will be as good as being were he is needed talking face
> to face with the people that he needs to talk to and giving the apperance
> to
> the country that he cares and things will get done, not that he will get
> there when he has the chance after his vactaion.

Given that you understand his physical location is one of appearances only,
maybe its time for you to shut the hell up and realize he cannot be
everywhere at once. Maybe its time you realized that no matter what party he
belongs to, a president cannot be more than a man, who needs a vacation,
time at home, and LOTS of people and services to bring info to him no matter
where he is.

EVEN I was making fun of his overflight of the affected area, but the FACT
is, he was on the ground ASAP given the security risks.

Signature

Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
he is warm for the rest of his life.

>> > Where did I say otherwise.  But the President still should have had his
>> > a.s
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> the country that he cares and things will get done, not that he will get
> there when he has the chance after his vactaion.
TBone - 05 Sep 2005 18:03 GMT
> > f.ck you Mike.  He should have returned to the White House for appearance
> > sake alone.
>
> The appearance of WHAT?

The apperance of giving a damn.

> > If he could do everything from his Texas home, there would be
> > no need for the White House at all now would there.
>
> How perceptive of you. Except for the need to have an offical residence and
> headquarters for our president, technology has made one helluva difference
> since the White House was rebuilt in 1814 or so.

Yes it has but if you really think that it is 100% as effective as him being
there, then you really are a fool.

> > He was elected by the
> > people to lead this country and when it is about to be ravaged by this
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Back at what post? You do realize that he has all information brought to him
> personally. He doesn't just sit and watch special TV's.

How do you know that?  The answer is that you don't and this is where the
appearance thing comes in.  For all I or you know, he could have been out
fishing while this stuff was going on.  I am not saying that he was, but
there is that appearance thing again.

> > Despite modern communications, it
> > is not now or ever will be as good as being were he is needed talking face
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> time at home, and LOTS of people and services to bring info to him no matter
> where he is.

BULLSHIT!!!!!  While he is president, his home IS THE WHITE HOUSE.  He is
the leader of the most powerful country in the world and much is expected of
him.  If he cannot handle it, he should resign.  Funny how you expect more
of Clinton though.

> EVEN I was making fun of his overflight of the affected area, but the FACT
> is, he was on the ground ASAP given the security risks.

He did not need to be at the disaster site and I have no problem with the
amount of time he took to get THERE.  He should have been at the White House
prior to the storm landfall for appearance sake alone and he didn't do it.
BTW, how did this get to be me attacking Bush anyway.  I don't blame Bush
for the complete fuckup that this effort has become.  Oh, I see, you know as
well that this was a disaster and are trying to change the subject rather
than agree that this could have and should have been done MUCH better than
it was.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving

thenewguy - 05 Sep 2005 18:40 GMT
>> > f.ck you Mike.  He should have returned to the White House for
>appearance
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Yes it has but if you really think that it is 100% as effective as him being
>there, then you really are a fool.

you are surprisingly successful at climbing to new levels of
ridiculousness.  you amaze me.  just when i think that you can't get
any more goofy, you go and leap ahead.  no one, and i mean no one
(well.........maybe except for you) gives a sh.t where the president
holds a news conference from. not in the least.  if you think that
they do then you haven't been paying any attention at all.  now, they
do care about what the president says and does.  then again, he wasn't
running the recovery efforts.  try to grasp that tom.  the system is
what failed.  the system is what needs to get fixed.  you want to act
like people here are bush worshipers and are biased against what you
say becuase of that.  this is just another of your many psychological
wierdnesses.  many people here are not bush fans.  they are just more
honest than you and have a sense of perspective (which would do you a
world of good).  that is good.  people like you will never fix any
problems becuase you have so many biases and your mind is so distorted
that you can't analyze a situation to figure out what the problem is
or was.  just basic logic, you can't fix a problem if you can't
accurately determine what the problem was.

just saying tom, that's all.

>> > He was elected by the
>> > people to lead this country and when it is about to be ravaged by this
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>than agree that this could have and should have been done MUCH better than
>it was.
Max Dodge - 05 Sep 2005 23:50 GMT
> The apperance of giving a damn.

So diverting AF1 and dropping it 30,000 feet closer to the earth wasn't
enough? Of course, that was part of his delay in getting back to D.C. Never
mind that he's made two trips to the affected area since then. Or that his
security would have been in question prior to then.

How about the rants he has directed at the oil companies for being totally
unable to cope with the demand placed on them by the U.S., mainly because
they keep exporting our resources? Looked to me like he was pissed, but hey,
I don't know the man, he could have been joking around.

>> How perceptive of you. Except for the need to ha