New Orleans and Iraq
siani
Bush should immediately pull the National Guard out of Iraq to tidy up
from Katrina. because obviously it's okay for those bloody sand-niggers
to live without running water, or electricity, or law and order, but not
New Orleans.
i'm inclined to agree that it's important to take care of ones own
country first and other countries second, but an awful lot of these
people are saying it as if they should pull them out anyways, without
even the most cursory thought for the effects. and it seems to me that
since the US plunged Iraq into chaos in the first place, Iraq is their
own country too.
so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq,
leaving those people with the devastating results of their misguided
war, and focus on the people that the electorate can actually see suffering?
siani
--
\\||//
- oo -
-|--|- (hedgehog)
Girl <last name>
"siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
news:3nmdclF...@individual.net...
>
> so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq, leaving
> those people with the devastating results of their misguided war, and
> focus on the people that the electorate can actually see suffering?
>
idea, but there is a huge problem. US and UK troops are now a red rag to a
bull and the situation is just getting worse. I really don't believe that
democracy is possible with US and UK troops in place and civil war is
becoming an increasingly possible scenario, with the end of Iraq on the
horizon because of it (the Shi'a North splitting off under Iranian
protection and Kurdistan declaring independence.
I'm really not sure what the solution is - in an ideal world, sending in
peace-keepers from countries not involved in the invasion under UN authority
would be the best option, but with the US attacks on the UN continuing and
the rest of the world unwilling to tidy up the US/UK's mess, I'm not
optimistic.
As for the lack of National Guard for New Orleans, that just shows what a
stupid fucking idea the invasion was from the start.
Girl.
The Graven Image of Fascinet
The amount of time necessary to coordinate troop transfer on a scale
that would do any good would be larger than the time that they'd be
needed. Most National Guard troops are in the country. If there's a
problem, mobilizing a proportion of neighboring states National Guards
would be more efficient. A tenth of the Texas guard alone would
replace troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq, if needed.
Which, at this point, it's not clear that they are.
This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
politics.
-F
siani
> "siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
> news:3nmdclF...@individual.net...
>
>>so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq, leaving
>>those people with the devastating results of their misguided war, and
>>focus on the people that the electorate can actually see suffering?
>>
>
> I agree that pulling out completely and leaving a mess behind would be a bad
> idea, but there is a huge problem. US and UK troops are now a red rag to a
> bull and the situation is just getting worse. I really don't believe that
> democracy is possible with US and UK troops in place and civil war is
> becoming an increasingly possible scenario, with the end of Iraq on the
> horizon because of it (the Shi'a North splitting off under Iranian
> protection and Kurdistan declaring independence.
would it be so bad if Kurdistan did declare independence? i think we
place entirely too much value on large democracies - is a non-democratic
government inherently bad? what about the one we have here? and are
smaller countries always bad? what if the people democratically express
the desire to create them?
i think, really, that the US should offer Iraq status as part of the US,
with american citizenship for all the citizens. they've destroyed the
existing government, so it seems only fair that they be prepared to
govern...
> I'm really not sure what the solution is - in an ideal world, sending in
> peace-keepers from countries not involved in the invasion under UN authority
> would be the best option, but with the US attacks on the UN continuing and
> the rest of the world unwilling to tidy up the US/UK's mess, I'm not
> optimistic.
oh, there are peacekeepers there now. but most uninvolved countries
lack the numbers of standing army to actually replace the US and UK...
and i'm not sure it would be entirely moral for them to do so. after
all, troops cost money, and peacekeeping costs money. would it not be
rather unfair for the US to get away without paying for its mistakes?
> As for the lack of National Guard for New Orleans, that just shows what a
> stupid fucking idea the invasion was from the start.
well, i'll agree with that generally. the US gets its ass kicked
regularly in war games in Petawawa by a bunch of canucks. why on earth
did they think they'd suddenly be better at geurilla war in real life?
i'm not *entirely* sure that i disagree with the principle of destroying
a despotic ruler, though. it's an appealing idea, in a lot of ways. i
do think, cynically, that a lust for oil had a lot more to do with the
invasion, and that there were other times when they could have done more
good with that military force, though.
siani
> This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
> politics.
well, yes. you get a Prize.
The Graven Image of Fascinet
siani wrote:
> The Graven Image of Fascinet wrote:
>
>
> > This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
> > politics.
>
> well, yes. you get a Prize.
>
Then why post?
-F
siani
to see how many people would like to justify it.
The Graven Image of Fascinet
siani wrote:
> The Graven Image of Fascinet wrote:
>
> > siani wrote:
> >
> >>The Graven Image of Fascinet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
> >>>politics.
> >>
> >>well, yes. you get a Prize.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Then why post?
>
> to see how many people would like to justify it.
>
Ooops.
Sorry.
-F
Girl <last name>
>>
>> I agree that pulling out completely and leaving a mess behind would be a
>> bad idea, but there is a huge problem. US and UK troops are now a red rag
>> to a bull and the situation is just getting worse. I really don't believe
>> that democracy is possible with US and UK troops in place and civil war
>> is becoming an increasingly possible scenario, with the end of Iraq on
>> the horizon because of it (the Shi'a North splitting off under Iranian
>> protection and Kurdistan declaring independence.
>
> would it be so bad if Kurdistan did declare independence? i think we place
> entirely too much value on large democracies - is a non-democratic
> government inherently bad? what about the one we have here? and are
> smaller countries always bad? what if the people democratically express
> the desire to create them?
Not at all, but the intense strife that splitting North and Central Iraq is
another issue. Nobody seems all that bothered by the federalism for the
Kurds, it's splitting Shi'a and Sunni Iraq that's the massive issue. I
wouldn't be that keen on seeing two new sectarian states, either, Iraqi
Kurdistan is multi-religious.
>
> i think, really, that the US should offer Iraq status as part of the US,
> with american citizenship for all the citizens. they've destroyed the
> existing government, so it seems only fair that they be prepared to
> govern...
>
Heh!
>
> oh, there are peacekeepers there now.
Token numbers and mainly for political reasons (e.g. Japan).
> but most uninvolved countries lack the numbers of standing army to
> actually replace the US and UK... and i'm not sure it would be entirely
> moral for them to do so. after all, troops cost money, and peacekeeping
> costs money. would it not be rather unfair for the US to get away without
> paying for its mistakes?
I said other countries could send troops, I never said they had to pay for
them ;-) The US/UK should still pay. But, you're right, it's an impossible
situation with no easy solution.
>
>> As for the lack of National Guard for New Orleans, that just shows what a
>> stupid fucking idea the invasion was from the start.
>
> well, i'll agree with that generally. the US gets its ass kicked
> regularly in war games in Petawawa by a bunch of canucks. why on earth
> did they think they'd suddenly be better at geurilla war in real life?
Because they clearly didn't expect it, understandable when you look at the
people in charge. What the UK government's excuse is, I really don't know,
they should have been well aware what would happen.
>
> i'm not *entirely* sure that i disagree with the principle of destroying a
> despotic ruler, though. it's an appealing idea, in a lot of ways. i do
> think, cynically, that a lust for oil had a lot more to do with the
> invasion, and that there were other times when they could have done more
> good with that military force, though.
As it appears, for many neocons, Venezuela and the not-particularly-despotic
Chavez is more of a target than North Korea, Iran or Zimbabwe, it's clear
that the fact that the war got rid of a despotic ruler was clearly a
convenient convergence of issues rather than the key issue. It's not just
the oil, though, they've privatised everything (though, none of that's
permanent until there's a new constitution in place).
Girl.
Girl <last name>
"The Graven Image of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125518544.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
> politics.
>
Schiavo ring any bells?)
Girl.
The Graven Image of Fascinet
Not really.
Who's he?
-F
Peter Constantine
> would it be so bad if Kurdistan did declare independence?
Guess that depends on your point of view. The geographic area that the
Kurdish people would consider to be Kurdistan extends well beyond Iraq
to include parts of Iran, Syria, and not least, Turkey.
Turkey (a NATO member and potential EU member) would not be keen to lose
a large part of its territory to an independent Kurdistan in what might
be seen as a victory for the PKK.
Kurdish independence would open a whole new can of worms...
x
[...expect the Greeks would be chuffed to bits though!]
Endymion
> As it appears, for many neocons, Venezuela and the
> not-particularly-despotic Chavez is more of a target
> than North Korea, Iran or Zimbabwe,
Don't be ridiculous. Pat Robertson is not a neocon and does not speak
for the mass of them.
And last I checked it's not right-wingers who are keeping Zimbabwe off
the agenda, it's either fellow African despots or liberals like Mandela
who refuse to accept the possibility that a fellow "progressive" and
former anticolonial revolutionary could be a tinpot thug and human
rights abuser.
- Endymion
Endymion
> the US gets its ass kicked regularly in war games in
> Petawawa by a bunch of canucks. why on earth did
> they think they'd suddenly be better at geurilla war in real life?
Perhaps because they understand that while games may have their uses in
training, they aren't real life?
- Endymion
Endymion
than wealthy enough to handle both at the same time and even another
natural disaster on top if need be. The only question is whether it has
the political will to do so. If the troops are pulled out of Iraq, it
shouldn't be because of some idiotic delusion that they are "needed"
back here to see to domestic problems which civilian authorities are
perfectly capable of handling (at least to the extent they can be
handled at all).
However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
- Endymion
Girl <last name>
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1125529034.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Girl <last name> wrote:
>
>> As it appears, for many neocons, Venezuela and the
>> not-particularly-despotic Chavez is more of a target
>> than North Korea, Iran or Zimbabwe,
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Pat Robertson is not a neocon and does not speak
> for the mass of them.
Honey, it's my job to monitor stuff like this. Pat Robertson is far from the
first person to put Chavez in the firing line.
>
> And last I checked it's not right-wingers who are keeping Zimbabwe off
> the agenda, it's either fellow African despots or liberals like Mandela
> who refuse to accept the possibility that a fellow "progressive" and
> former anticolonial revolutionary could be a tinpot thug and human
> rights abuser.
>
I didn't say right-wingers were keeping Zimbabwe off, just that they appear
to have zero interest in the country. If you want an example of a heinous
despot currently in power in the world, Mugabe should be top of the list,
yet he rarely features on neocon hitlists.
And keep up, it's Mbeki, not Mandela, who is the problem in South Africa,
and Mbeki is an old Marxist.
Girl.
Girl <last name>
>
> However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
> resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
> Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
>
the American poor - http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=45728
Girl.
Joseph Brenner
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> writes:
Maybe they figured there wouldn't be any Canadians in Iraq.
Endymion
> I didn't say right-wingers were keeping Zimbabwe off, just that they
> appear to have zero interest in the country.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050807-092807-1110r.htm
(also available at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff080405.asp)
Hentoff's not exactly a right-winger, but his views on foreign policy,
particularly Iraq, are more at odds with the lefties than the neocons.
Also note the reference to Mandela in the piece. It's not that
Mandela's the worst offender, but that he's someone who ought to know
better.
- Endymion
Endymion
> Maybe they figured there wouldn't be any Canadians in Iraq.
That was obvious from the get-go.
- Endymion
Girl <last name>
is very old. Mbeki, on the other hand, really should know better - unlike
Hentoff's charge against Mandela, Mbeki has been openly and vocally
supportive of Mugabe, which is indefensible. But the tide is starting to
change, the media in SA is increasingly critical of Mugabe, particularly
after this recent phase of house demolitions and that seems to be reflecting
a change in public opinion.
My main point still stands, though, Zimbabwe is one of the biggest foreign
stories here in the UK, but is barely a blip on the US radar. I was very
surprised when Associated Press picked up the story about the Amnesty video
a couple of weeks ago.
Girl.
Endymion
> My main point still stands, though, Zimbabwe is one of the
> biggest foreign stories here in the UK, but is barely a blip on
> the US radar.
Well, it was a UK colony, not an American one, and it wasn't American
racists who set up white rule when it became independent. I think the
sum total of US involvement with Rhodesia was that perhaps a few
tourists went there on hunting safaris or something.
I'd bet we hear more about Haiti, for example, than you do over there,
and possibly more about Liberia as well. Not that most people pay any
attention, mind you, but there is plenty written about both.
- Endymion
Tiny Human Ferret
What, like all of the unskilled citizen and legal-immigrant workers
displaced by illegal aliens?
Nah, he couldn't put troops on the border to stop the Invasion, he's not
about to pull troops out of Iraq to help save lives and maintain order
in the USA.
Besides, now more than ever, we need that Iraqi oil for Halliburton.
--
nam primi in omnibus proeliis oculi vincuntur.
Dag
> However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
> resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
> Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
I'm sure that as soon as the government makes a public plea for relief
money and supplies to the international comunity you'll start to see
money pour in.
Dag
Peter Constantine
> My main point still stands, though, Zimbabwe is one of the biggest foreign
> stories here in the UK, but is barely a blip on the US radar.
Isn't there about 20,000 UK passport holders resident in Zimbabwe? I'd
guess that the number of US citizens there is considerably less.
If it all goes completely tits up in Zimbabwe a lot of those White
Rhodesians will be coming 'home'.
x
Peter Constantine
> Maybe they figured there wouldn't be any Canadians in Iraq.
...but at least the Air Force managed to get a few in Afghanistan!
x
Charles the Gruamach
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
>resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
>Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
There won't be.
The same people/countries who bitch about us not giving enough to the
rest of the world (ie., them) will just sit there and go "Let them
deal with it themselves."
Which is fine.
Personally, I think that's the best way to balance the budget anyway;
just stop giving our money away to other countries (espeically if they
make a lot of bad-press noise for the US) until our budget is in the
black again.
--
Charles / the Gruamach (aka "gru")
www.gothcop.com
"Curiosity killed the cat. Passing interest only
injured him."
EdwardS
There were in Afghanistan.
IIRC, the Americans shot them.
EdwardS
--
EdwardS - long time listener, first time caller.
I'm still a newbie, honest.
Zim, MacOS, Retro, 80s++
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - do the obvious to mail.
Girl <last name>
"Peter Constantine" <const...@xsublime.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h27a6z.qg0995j01j7eN%const...@xsublime.demon.co.uk...
Girl.
Girl <last name>
> Girl <last name> wrote:
>
>> My main point still stands, though, Zimbabwe is one of the
>> biggest foreign stories here in the UK, but is barely a blip on
>> the US radar.
>
> Well, it was a UK colony, not an American one, and it wasn't American
> racists who set up white rule when it became independent. I think the
> sum total of US involvement with Rhodesia was that perhaps a few
> tourists went there on hunting safaris or something.
>
> I'd bet we hear more about Haiti, for example, than you do over there,
> and possibly more about Liberia as well.
I wouldn't bet on that. Foreign news coverage in general is far better than
it is in the US.
Girl.
Dag
> On 31 Aug 2005 16:04:50 -0700, "Endymion"
><disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
>>resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
>>Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
>
> There won't be.
> The same people/countries who bitch about us not giving enough to the
> rest of the world (ie., them) will just sit there and go "Let them
> deal with it themselves."
Surely the people who are asking for money (the ie, them) are doing so
becuase they have little of it and thus one could hardly expect them to
send large quantities of cash and resources to the US.
With regards to other countries, to whom the US doesn't give money, the
general rule is nothing is sent until the country asks. I'd be very
surprised if offeres have not been made and quietly turned down.
That being said, once the US government makes an open plea to world at
large, I'll happily send a few bucks.
Dag
Dag
> siani wrote:
>
>> would it be so bad if Kurdistan did declare independence?
>
> Guess that depends on your point of view. The geographic area that the
> Kurdish people would consider to be Kurdistan extends well beyond Iraq
> to include parts of Iran, Syria, and not least, Turkey.
However that isn't what is up for discussion. The Kurdistan up for
grabs is the Iraqi bits. I'm sure if it ever looks like a real chance
that it will happen there will be much lobbying for the Kurds dropping
their claims on the non-Iraqi bits before an independant Kurdistan is
internationally acknowledged. Also once an independant Kurdistan has
been formed out of northern Iraq any claim to bits of Iran, Syria or
Turkey can be seen as the ivasion of one sovereign nation by another and
easily handled as such. I think most kurds would not want to risk their
new homeland with a military invasion of a NATO member.
Dag
The Graven Image of Fascinet
Yeah, if it weren't for foreign news coverage, I wouldn't know that
"the neocons are moving US and Israel troops into South America with
the intention of invading Venezuela."
http://www.vheadline.com/readn ews.asp?id=45728
-F
The Siren Call of Fascinet
We can use the aliens to plug the levees.
That's thinkin' out of the box.
I'm forwarding your idea to the President.
-F
ags...@yahoo.com
The Graven Image of Fascinet wrote:
>
> The amount of time necessary to coordinate troop transfer on a scale
> that would do any good would be larger than the time that they'd be
> needed. Most National Guard troops are in the country. If there's a
> problem, mobilizing a proportion of neighboring states National Guards
> would be more efficient. A tenth of the Texas guard alone would
> replace troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq, if needed.
> Which, at this point, it's not clear that they are.
>
> This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
> politics.
>
>
Exactly! Watch out for the liberals and their seedy propaganda.
-S
Jennie Kermode
> so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq,
> leaving those people with the devastating results of their misguided
> war, and focus on the people that the electorate can actually see suffering?
If it did so, it could do so only for political reasons - it
would make no practical sense. By the time the arrangements were made,
the soldiers safely recalled (bearing in mind the strategic difficulties
of a pullout), sufficient transport organised and utilised, etc., the
immediate crisis in New Orleans would have passed. What will be needed
at that stage are medical personnel (especially with all those lovely
new mosquito habitats and West Nile disease getting firmly established),
construction workers, and (dare I say it) beaurocrats.
What the US needs to do at present is to pour enough money
into the situation that it can offer substantial pay packets to those
useful people (electricians, hydro engineers, plumbers, lorry drivers,
paramedics, etc.) not otherwise employed in urgent work from all across
the 'States, and provide the transport facilities to get them to where
they're needed. There are a great many easily available civilians with
the skills to help in situations like this, provided they can be
properly organised. Besides this, depots need to be set up in the cities
and towns in surrounding states where people can donate clothes and
household goods to help individual New Orleans citizens reconstruct
their lives. An emergency (short-term) pension needs to be established
for those left destitute, and, where possible, they need to be given
access to unskilled labour jobs required for reconstruction - this has
been shown to help people psychologically as well as speeding up the
structural and economic recovery of a disaster affected area.
I don't know how much of this the US government is doing as of
yet. I really hope it doesn't waste time and resources on empty
political gestures when its people are in need.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie Kermode
> However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
> resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
> Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
I'm trying to arrange a deal to resolve a trade dispute in
Europe in such a way as to benefit the people of New Orleans. There are
currently piles of Chinese-made clothes sitting in customs offices
around Europe, bound for Britain, detained due to arguments about import
quotas. My suggestion is that the EU agree to overlook the quotas for
the meantime and allow the goods to be delivered to their intended
destinations with the caveat that ten percent thereof must be donated to
New Orleans disaster relief. This would help the needy, help the
retailers (who'll lose less that way than they're losing due to present
delays), and allow the EU's trade commissioners to look like heroes - a
win-win situation all round. Of course, I can't guarantee that all
parties will go for it - you know how these things are.
Peter Constantine
> However that isn't what is up for discussion. The Kurdistan up for
> grabs is the Iraqi bits. I'm sure if it ever looks like a real chance
> that it will happen there will be much lobbying for the Kurds dropping
> their claims on the non-Iraqi bits before an independant Kurdistan is
> internationally acknowledged. Also once an independant Kurdistan has
> been formed out of northern Iraq any claim to bits of Iran, Syria or
> Turkey can be seen as the ivasion of one sovereign nation by another and
> easily handled as such. I think most kurds would not want to risk their
> new homeland with a military invasion of a NATO member.
The PKK has recently increased the number of attacks against Turkish
targets being made from bases in northern Iraq. So much so that the
Turkish government has been putting pressure on the US to launch a
military stike against Kurdish rebels in Iraq.
I can't imagine that creating an independent Kurdish state in part of
northern Iraq would cause the PKK and Turkish Kurds to cease their
efforts to secede from Turkey.
x
Jodi
>If it all goes completely tits up in Zimbabwe a lot of those White
>Rhodesians will be coming 'home'.
I was under the impression that most of the white people left in
Zimbabwe are those who don't have anywhere else to go.
Jodi
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"
siani
> What the US needs to do at present is to pour enough money
> into the situation that it can offer substantial pay packets to those
> useful people (electricians, hydro engineers, plumbers, lorry drivers,
> paramedics, etc.) not otherwise employed in urgent work from all across
> the 'States, and provide the transport facilities to get them to where
> they're needed. There are a great many easily available civilians with
> the skills to help in situations like this, provided they can be
> properly organised.
fwiw, major companies and public utilities normally send staff to these
things on regular pay. there's already a system in place for getting
(some of the) the skilled workers there.
> I don't know how much of this the US government is doing as of
> yet. I really hope it doesn't waste time and resources on empty
> political gestures when its people are in need.
and yet, it seems par for the course, doesn't it?
siani
--
\\||//
- oo -
-|--|- (hedgehog)
siani
> I wouldn't bet on that. Foreign news coverage in general is far better than
> it is in the US.
i'm not at all sure about that - it seems very heavily censored to me.
i regularly read canadian news to get the stories that the brits keep
quiet about.
The Graven Image of Fascinet
siani wrote:
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
> > I don't know how much of this the US government is doing as of
> > yet. I really hope it doesn't waste time and resources on empty
> > political gestures when its people are in need.
>
> and yet, it seems par for the course, doesn't it?
>
Bush declared the the gulf coast a disaster area before the hurricane
hit so that agencies could start spending money right away, and FEMA
pre-staged emergency response teams and critical commodities such as
ice, water, MREs, and other supplies. Thousands of national guard
troops have been mobilized. Tomorrow, congress will authorize the
first ten billion specifically allocated to the relief effort.
Although some people are bitching that they're not moving fast enough,
but then again, with so much infrastructure damaged, the relief effort
can only move so fast.
Related: "White House press secretary Scott McClellan said U.S. will
accept offers of foreign aid but has not requested it."
-F
Endymion
solution to both problems. Good luck to you with it.
- Endymion
Girl <last name>
"The Graven Image of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125582254.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
propaganda site (which gets the story arseways, there was a point last year
when Colombian military appeared to be massing on the Venezuelan border).
Girl.
Girl <last name>
"siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
news:3np04aF...@individual.net...
> Girl <last name> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't bet on that. Foreign news coverage in general is far better
>> than it is in the US.
>
> i'm not at all sure about that - it seems very heavily censored to me. i
> regularly read canadian news to get the stories that the brits keep quiet
> about.
>
Internationalist, there's not much that remains uncovered.
Girl.
Girl <last name>
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125584332....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Girl.
Girl <last name>
> Thank you, Jennie, that's very thoughtful of you and an intelligent
> solution to both problems. Good luck to you with it.
>
people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong with
your country? The Indonesian military got aid to Ache, a region populated by
people they were at war with, faster.
Girl.
Girl <last name>
>
> Bush declared the the gulf coast a disaster area before the hurricane
> hit so that agencies could start spending money right away, and FEMA
> pre-staged emergency response teams and critical commodities such as
> ice, water, MREs, and other supplies. Thousands of national guard
> troops have been mobilized. Tomorrow, congress will authorize the
> first ten billion specifically allocated to the relief effort.
>
> Although some people are bitching that they're not moving fast enough,
> but then again, with so much infrastructure damaged, the relief effort
> can only move so fast.
>
Girl.
siani
well, there were several stories about people being detained in Europe
in relation to the London bombings that didn't make it into anything
british that i read. i do not read any of those though - the Guardian
and Independent are like an evil punishment for literacy. i read a few
different newsfeeds at work, and the BBC, Times, and Scotsman websites,
as well as watching Sky and BBC news, and listening to Radio 4 pretty
much all day.
Girl <last name>
the best foreign news coverage.
Girl.
siani
... and the worst british news coverage. i do read articles from them
which appear on the newsfeeds, and neither of them reported the specific
stories i recall.
Girl <last name>
>>>
>>
>> Well, there you go. The Guardian and Independent are the two newspapers
>> with the best foreign news coverage.
>
> ... and the worst british news coverage. i do read articles from them
> which appear on the newsfeeds, and neither of them reported the specific
> stories i recall.
>
and the two in Dubai, I've heard no stories about people being detained. And
I do work somewhere where I would.
Girl.
siani
oh, they were released again, without charge, and it was *ages* ago, but
there was no report of it at all here.
Jennie Kermode
> I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
> people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong with
> your country?
Inexperience of problems on this scale, most likely. Liberalism
might also have something to do with it - a typhoon hit the coast of
China today, and practically no-one was hurt, for the simple reason that
the Chinese military had forcibly evacuated everybody beforehand. That
may well be considered a reasonable solution, but it wouldn't go down
well in the US, where people won't accept being ordered around in such a
manner.
> The Indonesian military got aid to Ache, a region populated by
> people they were at war with, faster.
They did; they handled that particular situation well. However,
it's not uncommon for disaster victims around the world to find
themselves in situations like the citizens of New Orleans. Ultimately,
it's not so much about money as about knowing what to do and having
enough people on the ground with relevant practical experience. I think
that aspects of the New Orleans situation are being mishandled, but I'm
not surprised by that, and I think that right now it's best to
concentrate on looking for practical solutions - there'll be plenty of
time for recriminations later.
Peter Constantine
> Such as? Between the Guardian, Independent, New Statesman and New
> Internationalist, there's not much that remains uncovered.
...add The Daily Express to uncover "secrets of The Queen's handbag" and
The Sun to uncover the breasts of "Kerry, 22" and you're sorted!
x
Peter Constantine
> I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
> people who have received no food or water aid.
It did look very bad... almost expected the reporter to be wearing a
flak jacket. Most of the rest of the world must be wondering how it is
that a nation that can deliver a cruise missile through the small
ventilation duct of a bunker on the other side of the planet cannot
deliver bottled drinking water or a pallet of K-rations to people in
desperate need within its own borders.
x
["It appears that the money has been moved in the President's budget to
handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the
price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be
finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this
is a security issue for us."
Walter Maestri
Emergency Management Chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
8 June 2004 ]
Girl <last name>
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndhf09r.s6r...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2005-09-01, Girl <last name> <sordid...@sortedmagazine.com> wrote:
>> I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
>> people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong
>> with
>> your country?
>
> Inexperience of problems on this scale, most likely. Liberalism
> might also have something to do with it - a typhoon hit the coast of
> China today, and practically no-one was hurt, for the simple reason that
> the Chinese military had forcibly evacuated everybody beforehand. That
> may well be considered a reasonable solution, but it wouldn't go down
> well in the US, where people won't accept being ordered around in such a
> manner.
>
to be told what to do by the army is liberalism. ;-)
Girl.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Girl wrote:
>
>
>>My main point still stands, though, Zimbabwe is one of the biggest foreign
>>stories here in the UK, but is barely a blip on the US radar.
>
>
> guess that the number of US citizens there is considerably less.
>
> If it all goes completely tits up in Zimbabwe a lot of those White
> Rhodesians will be coming 'home'.
I know a regular poster to news:alt.politics.immigration who has a major
focus on how non-Africans attempting to leave Zimbabwe for refugee
status in the States are categorically denied. Go post a message in that
newsgroup headed something like "to Iconoclast: more info please about
refugees from Zimbabwe". You'll get a major flood of outrage.
--
nam primi in omnibus proeliis oculi vincuntur.
Tiny Human Ferret
> On 31 Aug 2005 16:04:50 -0700, "Endymion"
> <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
>>resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
>>Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
>
>
> The same people/countries who bitch about us not giving enough to the
> rest of the world (ie., them) will just sit there and go "Let them
> deal with it themselves."
>
> Which is fine.
> Personally, I think that's the best way to balance the budget anyway;
> just stop giving our money away to other countries (espeically if they
> make a lot of bad-press noise for the US) until our budget is in the
> black again.
The US foreign-aid budget is one of the smallest chunks in the entire
budget. Actually go look it up sometime. It's the barest pittance.
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:57:31 GMT, Charles the Gruamach wrote:
>
>>Personally, I think that's the best way to balance the budget anyway;
>>just stop giving our money away to other countries (espeically if they
>>make a lot of bad-press noise for the US) until our budget is in the
>>black again.
>
>
Halliburton!
;)
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>>siani wrote:
>>
>>>so several people on my Livejournal friends list have been saying how
>>>Bush should immediately pull the National Guard out of Iraq to tidy up
>>>from Katrina. because obviously it's okay for those bloody sand-niggers
>>>to live without running water, or electricity, or law and order, but not
>>>New Orleans.
>>>
>>>i'm inclined to agree that it's important to take care of ones own
>>>country first and other countries second, but an awful lot of these
>>>people are saying it as if they should pull them out anyways, without
>>>even the most cursory thought for the effects. and it seems to me that
>>>since the US plunged Iraq into chaos in the first place, Iraq is their
>>>own country too.
>>>
>>>so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq,
>>>leaving those people with the devastating results of their misguided
>>>war, and focus on the people that the electorate can actually see
>>>suffering?
>>
>>What, like all of the unskilled citizen and legal-immigrant workers
>>displaced by illegal aliens?
>>
>>Nah, he couldn't put troops on the border to stop the Invasion, he's not
>>about to pull troops out of Iraq to help save lives and maintain order
>>in the USA.
>>
>>Besides, now more than ever, we need that Iraqi oil for Halliburton.
>>
>
>
> We can use the aliens to plug the levees.
>
> That's thinkin' out of the box.
>
> I'm forwarding your idea to the President.
Number one, "as if he'd listen", number two, "I didn't even remotely say
that".
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
nam primi in omnibus proeliis oculi vincuntur.
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
erithromycin
>siani wrote:
>>so several people on my Livejournal friends list have been saying how
>>Bush should immediately pull the National Guard out of Iraq to tidy up
>>from Katrina. because obviously it's okay for those bloody sand-niggers
>>to live without running water, or electricity, or law and order, but not
>>New Orleans.
>>i'm inclined to agree that it's important to take care of ones own
>>country first and other countries second, but an awful lot of these
>>people are saying it as if they should pull them out anyways, without
>>even the most cursory thought for the effects. and it seems to me that
>>since the US plunged Iraq into chaos in the first place, Iraq is their
>>own country too.
>>so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq,
>>leaving those people with the devastating results of their misguided
>>war, and focus on the people that the electorate can actually see
>>suffering?
>The amount of time necessary to coordinate troop transfer on a scale
>that would do any good would be larger than the time that they'd be
>needed.
I've already seen condemnation from the American media (thanks to the
wonders of rebroadcast network news through SKY news) for the delay between
ordering a hospital ship to the region and it turning up - apparently, it
will take up to two weeks! Might it be because it's two weeks away? I think
that it's very easy in this age of dirt-cheap civil aviation and internet
commerce to forget how much stuff moves by boat, and just how slow boats
are. Not that I'm complaining - I really like boats, and applauded the early
commitment of a USMC amphibious carrier to the region - they're going to
need all the helicopter parking they can get, but there's another issue
there in the demands being placed on the US military's aging helicopter
fleet - they're already recomissioning CH-53s, and those in Iraq are nearing
service lives, even if they could get them back in time.
I can't help but wonder how different the situation would be if we had
supercargoblimps/zeppelin.
>Most National Guard troops are in the country. If there's a
>problem, mobilizing a proportion of neighboring states National Guards
>would be more efficient. A tenth of the Texas guard alone would
>replace troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq, if needed.
>Which, at this point, it's not clear that they are.
Indeed.
>This isn't an argument from necessity, it's just vulgar, opportunistic
>politics.
Don't you understand? If we let reason into the debate then the terrorists
will have won!
--
erith - currently wondering if I can play scrabble with terrorists. I can
deny them victory in all sorts of ways that don't work against jennie
erithromycin
>Girl wrote:
>>I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
>>people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong
>>with your country?
> Inexperience of problems on this scale, most likely.
I do not think that it helps that NO is basically without real access to the
outside world - there's no civilian communications infrastructure left, no
power, no airports, and the roads are jammed (from what I've seen).
It's very difficult to move supplies into somewhere like that quickly. I'm
not going to say that more could not have been done, but it's a shitty
situation even with the best of responses. The situation is compounded by
the breakdown of public order, but there's not much point in pretending that
it'd go differently in other areas.
>Liberalism might also have something to do with it - a typhoon hit the
>coast of China today, and practically no-one was hurt, for the simple
>reason that the Chinese military had forcibly evacuated everybody
>beforehand. That may well be considered a reasonable solution, but it
>wouldn't go down well in the US, where people won't accept being ordered
>around in such a manner.
Well, no. I think they would have had a very reasonable fear of looters, but
lots of people did leave the area. Those who were left do seem to be those
who were poorer, may not have had access to private transport, or were sick,
injured, elderly, or otherwise without the means to adapt quickly
(tourists). I'm also not quite sure where you could put them.
>>The Indonesian military got aid to Ache, a region populated by
>>people they were at war with, faster.
> They did; they handled that particular situation well. However,
>it's not uncommon for disaster victims around the world to find
>themselves in situations like the citizens of New Orleans. Ultimately,
>it's not so much about money as about knowing what to do and having
>enough people on the ground with relevant practical experience.
I also think it helps if you've got the means readily to hand to get to the
places involved - a lot of aid in Aceh was delivered in the first instance
by military helicopter. A large part of the US' helicopter fleet is busy
elsewhere, and the US is a big country - you can move a chopper in a cargo
plane but you've got to have somewhere to put it first - when the Kitty
Hawk(?) or whatever carrier they've ordered into the area turns up things'll
hopefully, get better, but we're working on sea scales, here, not air.
>I think that aspects of the New Orleans situation are being mishandled,
>but I'm not surprised by that, and I think that right now it's best to
>concentrate on looking for practical solutions - there'll be plenty of
>time for recriminations later.
My middle sister quite sensibly suggested that those chain stores should
declare open season on the goods within the zone. They're unrecoverable as
far as the insurance goes, and a request to distribute them might be ignored
by many, but some will do it, and that's a start. The only concerns would be
with pharmacies and other harm-dispensers, and, well, the business of
communicating this to people. Never mind the 'finding' vs 'looting' issue
for now.
I did wonder if the apparent rapid breakdown of civil order would be
repeated elsewhere - goodness knows the destruction of infrastructure and
government/state in Iraq lead to widespread civil disorder, though local
imam's did have a stabilising effect. In the wake of the Tsunami I'm not
sure there were enough left alive for it to be an issue, and I haven't seen
any stories about similar issues in those areas of Germany that were
affected by the last time the Rhine went wandering, but I must confess that
I did not look.
--
erith - at a rate of knots
erithromycin
>Endymion
>>However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
>>resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
>>Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
>There won't be.
It's been, what, three days?
>The same people/countries who bitch about us not giving enough to the
>rest of the world (i.e., them) will just sit there and go "Let them
>deal with it themselves."
I'm not actually sure which part of the venn diagram I'm expected to stand
in.
>Which is fine.
>Personally, I think that's the best way to balance the budget anyway;
>just stop giving our money away to other countries (espeically if they
>make a lot of bad-press noise for the US) until our budget is in the
>black again.
According to Forbes (a hotbed of radical leftists) the US foreign aid budget
came to a staggering $17bn in 2004.
According to the CIA World Hotbook (which has actually been a hotbed of
communist infiltrators from time to time) the US budget for 2004 was based
on revenues of $1.862 trillion and expenditures of $2.338 trillion
(including capital expenditures).
If we reduce the US budget expenditure of $2338bn by that $17bn, we've cut a
shortfall of $476bn to a mere $459bn. Now, I'll admit, these are rough
figures, but in order to get back in the black the US would have cancel its
foreign aid, and then start asking for it back 27-fold every year, and even
then it would only break even - I assume that would be enough to continue to
service the US national debt.
So, you know, I understand your anger*, but it's wasted. I think the US does
a pretty good job, and I'm more disappointed than upset at its recent
ventures. Is it wrong for me to expect better of a country that I used to
respect and admire, and hope to do so again?
--
erith - cultural identity is a strange thing
erithromycin
>siani wrote:
>>so, what do you think, should the US pull everyone back from Iraq,
>>leaving those people with the devastating results of their misguided
>>war, and focus on the people that the electorate can actually see
>>suffering?
> If it did so, it could do so only for political reasons - it
>would make no practical sense. By the time the arrangements were made,
>the soldiers safely recalled (bearing in mind the strategic difficulties
>of a pullout), sufficient transport organised and utilised, etc., the
>immediate crisis in New Orleans would have passed.
It would take months to pull the US out of Iraq, unless they decided to
leave all that equipment, and I sincerely doubt that they would.
>What will be needed at that stage are medical personnel (especially with
>all those lovely new mosquito habitats and West Nile disease getting
>firmly established),
To say nothing of the consequences of pools of stagnant water with burst
sewage mains underneath and corpses floating in them.
>construction workers, and (dare I say it) beaurocrats.
Beauracrats will follow easily - at the moment what's probably needed at the
moment is bass and air boats, in their hundreds if not thousands.
[snip good suggestions]
I think it's very important that communications be reestablished as quickly
as possible - I'd expect flights to have begun to area hospitals already
(though it seems that some are still not in contact with other authorities
in any meaningful sense), and they're the logical point to extend other
services from, including mounting communication masts. Though the cellphone
network seems to have been completely wiped out, and I'd doubt that there
will be many charged batteries left by the time it comes back.
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> I don't know how much of this the US government is doing as
>>of yet. I really hope it doesn't waste time and resources on empty
>>political gestures when its people are in need.
>What they're doing now is sending in military. Marines, not only
>militia, like it were Bagdhad with mud. As for after that? I've said
>elsewhere, I'll say here: This clusterfuck happened because politicians
>(local, state, and national) refuse to discuss bad-case plans.
We got an email from a family friend who works out of Shell in Louisiana -
he pointed out that where the Netherlands has layer upon layer of flood
defences, even sacrificial flood-plains, never mind surge barriers and
levees, NO has a levee on each side. Apparently the US Army Corps of
Engineers are the ones responsible for it, and they ran out of money for
fixing it earlier. That just seems careless.
>The plans for dealing with this don't exist, and where they exist,
>they're too secret to let anyone know about, even by implementing
>them. News reporters everywhere, but no communication. We can airlift
>food to Afghanistan and drop it by parachute in 48 hours, but we can't
>do the same thing to New Orleans.
I've said upthread that I suspect it's got something to do with where the
helicopters are, but I'm also not sure about what practise anyone has with
parachuting palletised cargo into urban areas, never mind areas suffering
from partial flooding. I suspect that we may see the Osprey rushed into
service in the region, despite some latent concerns over its airworthiness.
--
erith - .sig
Kaos
>However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies, and
>resources from all the people outside the US who are always on about
>Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster relief.
Something I just saw in another newsgroup.
"It's sad to see people in these newsgroups blame our leaders for
doing nothing to help when the disaster happened only a day ago, and
even dedicated relief agencies like the Red Cross are only starting to
get their own people into the region. "
--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
Jennie Kermode
> lots of people did leave the area. Those who were left do seem to be those
> who were poorer, may not have had access to private transport, or were sick,
> injured, elderly, or otherwise without the means to adapt quickly
> (tourists). I'm also not quite sure where you could put them.
I saw footage of a lot of people leaving on the freeways who
did not have full cars. At the very least, evacuation strategies need to
be streamlined so that such people are obliged to take on extra
passengers.
As for places to put them, the important thing to do is to
distribute them widely. Large concentrations of desperate people
frequently lead to trouble, especially where there are problems getting
supplies to them (as we've seen). What's needed is a strategy resembling
that used by the English during the blitz or by the people of Sheffield
following the Hillsborough disaster, where ordinary households across as
large an area as required are persuaded to take on an extra two or three
people each. I understand that this would be complicated by class and
race issues and related fears, but nevertheless it would bypass many of
the problems occurring now.
Whilst one hopes that it'll be a long time before a disaster on
this scale strikes the US again, it is inevitable that there will be
smaller disasters, so developing these strategies is important.
> In the wake of the Tsunami I'm not sure there were enough left alive
> for it to be an issue
One of the notable things about the tsunami is that it
devastated villages and small towns rather than big cities. Whilst this
requires aid to be distributed over a wider area, it removes many
problems related to conflict over resources and ongoing shortage of
resources in high-population areas. Fishing communities immediately
worked to repair boats, after which they could get food. Wild animals
who had fled the tsunami (early, and successfully, in huge numbers) were
available to be hunted. Jungles, resistant to the waves, provided
vegetable sustenance. One cannot utilise such resources in a city. Of
course there was devastation after the tsunami, and in some places there
still is, but many of the problems people faced were different ones.
> and I haven't seen any stories about similar issues in those areas of
> Germany that were affected by the last time the Rhine went wandering,
Germany (and the Netherlands, and Austria, etc.) has been well
organised in preparing for problems caused by flooding. Evacuation
orders have been efficiently carried out, and localised rescue and
repair teams have been able to get to work quickly. There was
undoubtedly more which could have been done along these lines in the
vicinity of New Orleans, but some of the issues are different. There's
generally a longer period of immediate warning (if that makes sense)
when the Rhine is likely to flood than when the US is likely to be hit
by hurricanes.
Jennie Kermode
>>What will be needed at that stage are medical personnel (especially with
>>all those lovely new mosquito habitats and West Nile disease getting
>>firmly established),
> To say nothing of the consequences of pools of stagnant water with burst
> sewage mains underneath and corpses floating in them.
The main risk there is cholera, which is comparatively easy to
treat. Which makes me wonder - how common are silk clothes in the New
Orleans area? Four-times-folded silk can be used to filter water; do
that, and boil it, and you'll get rid of most major disease organisms.
It's far from perfect, but it's a lot better than being forced by
desperation to drink untreated floodwater.
Jennie Kermode
> would it be so bad if Kurdistan did declare independence?
The problem with an independent Kurdistan would be the pressure
it would create for a _whole_ independent Kurdistan, including the bit
of that traditional territory currently belonging to Turkey. The Turks
have already experienced problems with Kurdish terrorists, and the Kurds
have complained of Turkish military threats and what are believed o be
Turkish saboteurs. We could be getting rid of one conflict to replace it
with another.
> i think we place entirely too much value on large democracies - is a
> non-democratic government inherently bad?
I'm with you on this, but I don't think it's the most important
of the issues involved.
> i'm not *entirely* sure that i disagree with the principle of destroying
> a despotic ruler, though.
It's one thing to destroy a government - quite another to
destroy a state. I realise that the two are hard to separate sometimes,
but I think priority has to be given to ensuring the presence of the
infrastructure necessary to provide people with the basic necessities of
life.
Jennie Kermode
> "siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
>> costs money. would it not be rather unfair for the US to get away without
>> paying for its mistakes?
> I said other countries could send troops, I never said they had to pay for
> them ;-) The US/UK should still pay.
Then they'd be seen as US/UK stooges, and the perception
amongst Iraqis that their country has been invaded and conquered by the
US would persist.
Dag
> I can't imagine that creating an independent Kurdish state in part of
> northern Iraq would cause the PKK and Turkish Kurds to cease their
> efforts to secede from Turkey.
Probably not as a whole, but if there was Kurdish state it might lessen
support for the PKK from moderate Kurds who consider that having a home
land without the Turish bits is better than nothing. Also, it would give
Turkey an actual state government with which to discus the problem. Sure
the Kurdish government could go, "PKK, nothing to do with us, not our
problem", but in that case they might very well be obliged to do their
best to keep everything PKK of Kurdish soil. The end result either way
would likely be a weakening of the PKK.
On the other hand a Kurdish state might turn around and make official
claims, one independant country to another, on the land in Turkey they
consider theirs. That could lead to all kinds of things, but at least
there are international protocols and the like to handle that. Still I
think that a newly founded Kurdish state would probably consider
declaring war on a NATO member a bad idea.
Dag
EdwardS
22? Christ. They're getting older again. This is probably a good thing.
(IIRC Samantha Fox was 16 when she first appeared?)
EdwardS
--
EdwardS - long time listener, first time caller.
I'm still a newbie, honest.
Zim, MacOS, Retro, 80s++
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - do the obvious to mail.
EdwardS
>> We can use the aliens to plug the levees.
>>
>> That's thinkin' out of the box.
>>
>> I'm forwarding your idea to the President.
>
>
> Number one, "as if he'd listen"
Scarily, I think it's the most sensible idea he'd actually have heard...
(Use puppets. It's easier for him).
Rachael
> On 31 Aug 2005 16:04:50 -0700, "Endymion"
> <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> However, I'm still waiting for the flood of relief money, supplies,
>> and resources from all the people outside the US who are always on
>> about Americans' "stingy" contributions to foreign aid and disaster
>> relief.
>
> There won't be.
> The same people/countries who bitch about us not giving enough to the
> rest of the world (ie., them) will just sit there and go "Let them
> deal with it themselves."
"Australia on Friday said it would donate A$10 million (US$7.7 million)
immediately to the American Red Cross as well as sending a team of
emergency management specialists to identify what other help could be
offered and providing services where most needed.
Japan donated $200,000 to the Red Cross and would also provide up to
$300,000 in aid supplies such as tents and power generators, The
Associated Press quoted officials as saying.
The European Union said it was ready to offer any assistance in the
wake of 'what is perhaps the greatest civil emergency in U.S. history.'
Several countries had already been approached by the U.S. to release
oil reserves and would do what they could, EU security affairs chief
Javier Solana said on Britain's Sky News network, AP reported.
(Schroeder backs reserve release)
NATO said help was available but it would need to know more about what
could be needed.
Germany also said it would offer aid or money if requested by
Washington, though officials said the U.S. was well equipped to
deal with natural disasters."
( http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/02/katrina.world/index.html )
Even Sri Lanka (!) has donated money to the American Red Cross.
"Seoul is consulting with Washington about humanitarian assistance to
help the United States cope with the aftermath of the deadly Hurricane
Katrina, which swept through southern part of the U.S., an official at
the South Korean Embassy in the U.S. said Friday.
Wi Sung-lac, minister in charge of political affairs at the embassy,
said the South Korean government has officially delivered its intention
to offer relief aid to the U.S. to help the residents of the U.S. Gulf
Coast, including the city of New Orleans. [...]
More than 20 countries and international organizations have offered to
help the U.S. Among the countries that have offered assistance are
Russia, Germany, France, Canada, Britain, China and Australia.
Assistance offers included cash donations, medical teams, boats,
aircrafts and generators. The United Nations offered to help coordinate
international relief efforts."
( http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200509/kt2005090217262310160.htm )
Apparently the two of you have no idea about the wold outside the US.
Once again.
R. np: Death in June
--
"Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
Rachael
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:53:10 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
>> I don't know how much of this the US government is doing
>> as of yet. I really hope it doesn't waste time and resources on
>> empty political gestures when its people are in need.
>
> What they're doing now is sending in military. Marines, not only
> militia, like it were Bagdhad with mud. As for after that? I've
> said elsewhere, I'll say here: This clusterfuck happened because
> politicians (local, state, and national) refuse to discuss bad-case
> plans.
>
> The plans for dealing with this don't exist, and where they exist,
> they're too secret to let anyone know about, even by implementing
> them. News reporters everywhere, but no communication. We can airlift
> food to Afghanistan and drop it by parachute in 48 hours, but we
> can't do the same thing to New Orleans.
"In the Netherlands, much of which lies below sea level as in New
Orleans, there was some consternation that the Louisiana city was
so poorly prepared, AP reported.
The nation installed massive hydraulic sea walls known as the Delta
Works after devastating floods in 1953.
'I don't want to sound overly critical, but it's hard to imagine that
[the damage caused by Katrina] could happen in a Western country,' Ted
Sluijter, press spokesman for Neeltje Jans, the public park where the
Delta Works are exhibited, was reported as saying by AP.
'It seemed like plans for protection and evacuation weren't really in
place, and once it happened, the coordination' was poor."
( http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/02/katrina.world/index.html )
siani
> On 2005-09-01, Girl <last name> <sordid...@sortedmagazine.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
>>people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong with
>>your country?
>
>
> Inexperience of problems on this scale, most likely. Liberalism
> might also have something to do with it - a typhoon hit the coast of
> China today, and practically no-one was hurt, for the simple reason that
> the Chinese military had forcibly evacuated everybody beforehand. That
> may well be considered a reasonable solution, but it wouldn't go down
> well in the US, where people won't accept being ordered around in such a
> manner.
indeed. i read a comment on livejournal today in which someone pointed
out how the Cubans evacuate a city - they have a preformed evacuations
plan, which everyone learns at school and at work, and use runners going
from door to door to inform people of the evacuation order. then police
go from door to door at the last minute to round up stragglers. there
were several responses from people saying that it would work in a
"military state" but they couldn't restrict people's civil liberties
that way in America.
it was, incidentally, virtually identical to the evacuations system we
had in case of nuclear emergencies in my hometown in Canada.
siani
sand filters are very effective, too.
and the bacteria which cause cholera are very rare in that area, BTW.
it's less a risk than you'd think.
Tiny Human Ferret
> On 2005-09-01, Girl <last name> <sordid...@sortedmagazine.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm watching ITV news (far from left-wing news) interviews with all the
>>people who have received no food or water aid. What the fuck is wrong with
>>your country?
>
>
> Inexperience of problems on this scale, most likely. Liberalism
> might also have something to do with it - a typhoon hit the coast of
> China today, and practically no-one was hurt, for the simple reason that
> the Chinese military had forcibly evacuated everybody beforehand. That
> may well be considered a reasonable solution, but it wouldn't go down
> well in the US, where people won't accept being ordered around in such a
> manner.
Actually, those who could afford transportation out of town, and had
somewhere to go or who could afford lodgings out of town once they'd
gone, went.
Those who remained were generally, in this order, poor, elderly, or ill.
The government's first failure was inability to expect this; the
second failure was an inability to mobilize transport for those unable
to transport themselves in a mandatory evacuation. This at least is the
case in New Orleans, and probably elsewhere throughout the affected region.
>>The Indonesian military got aid to Ache, a region populated by
>>people they were at war with, faster.
>
>
> They did; they handled that particular situation well. However,
> it's not uncommon for disaster victims around the world to find
> themselves in situations like the citizens of New Orleans. Ultimately,
> it's not so much about money as about knowing what to do and having
> enough people on the ground with relevant practical experience. I think
> that aspects of the New Orleans situation are being mishandled, but I'm
> not surprised by that, and I think that right now it's best to
> concentrate on looking for practical solutions - there'll be plenty of
> time for recriminations later.
As I type, the first major relief convoy has arrived at the site of the
Superdome in NO.
It's certainly large. It's handing out lots of food and water, but I'm
rather amazed that they thought it necessary to bring in a few tens of
thousands of troops. I'm also rather amazed that it took them nearly
four days to do this. You'd think they could at least have loaded up a
few C-130s and airdropped a bit of water, food, infant-formula, diapers,
and bleach before now.
Other points:
-- Perhaps most of the people have been waiting for outsiders to bring
rescue to them. Almost none had done much to get themselves out of town
on their own power. In comparable future events, to the degree that
anyone is capable of exiting the disaster zone on their own, or at least
moving from the worst-affected areas to less-devastated areas, this
should be promoted, both before the event if it could be anticipated (as
in a hurricane event), or after the event.
-- Everyone seems to have the idea, despite the fact that NO is closed
for the duration and should be thoroughly evacuated to enable the
beginnings of repair and restoration, that aid should come to them.
Madly enough, the powers-that-be had the same idea. Further, absolutely
inadequate provisioning of reasonably-anticipatable refugee relocation
centers has occurred.
-- Relocation seems to be based in the same mindsets that build the
Welfare Projects. "Monolithism" appears to be the best name for this.
"Think large, and think of nothing else." This is dangerous. First,
economy of scale isn't helping much when you're simply relocating a
tired and devastated crowd from one site to another and then effectively
confining them there. "Scattered site" would be better. At present,
they've filled the Houston Astrodome to capacity and beyond and have
ordered busses relocating DPs to Houston to continue onwards to various
destinations such as Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas. Are provisions
being pre-placed, or are the local markets meant to supply the needs?
-- The mindset of "monolithism" seems to also be fostering the idea of
"institutionalization". Thus, the creation of massive refugee camps.
This may be viewed in the light of the former Welfare Establishment
experience; greater success was generally the outcome where people were
scattered throughout the communities with support coming in the form of
a monthly check paid out to the landlord with the remainder of the
stipend coming as food-stamps, as opposed to simply giving free rent at
massive centralized high-rise Projects towers.
Again, I think that rather than picking up 20 busloads of people and
transporting them as a lot out to some distant city and dumping them in
a pile and expecting competent managerial systems to spring up
overnight, it would be a better policy to pick up 20 busloads of people,
drive in a straight line out of the affected areas, and drop off half a
busload at every midsized town passed, with each drop-off equipped with
a chit (debit card, whatever) that would be honored at the local
grocer's, camping-goods, and public campsite. This would not
concentrated DPs nor result in instant ghettos. This would allow people
to access government emergency-support funding while embedding them in a
much larger community, probably tending to prevent the emergence of
resentment or polarizations of locals v. DPs which might reasonably be
expected in mass-relocations.
Doubtless others here can come up with some reasonable ideas. But
shipping huge amounts of aid into a disaster zone seems to me to be more
like money down a rat hole, whereas in my opinion, massive
scattered-site relocation of as many people as possible to as many
destinations as possible seems to be not merely a money-saver, but the
fastest means practicable to see the displaced persons re-absorbed into
the still-functioning mainstream.
--klaatu, crazy, not stupid
My suggestions would be
EdwardS
> It's certainly large. It's handing out lots of food and water, but I'm
> rather amazed that they thought it necessary to bring in a few tens of
> thousands of troops.
Armed, ready to shoot rapists, looters and general ne'er do wells or
undesireables.
siani
> It's certainly large. It's handing out lots of food and water, but I'm
> rather amazed that they thought it necessary to bring in a few tens of
> thousands of troops.
have you been reading any of the reports from people within NOLA?
people have been shooting at people bringing aid, and looting aid
convoys, so that the oldest and weakest are getting none.
siani
(other than that, i agree)
Peter Constantine
> > ...add The Daily Express to uncover "secrets of The Queen's handbag" and
> > The Sun to uncover the breasts of "Kerry, 22" and you're sorted!
>
> 22? Christ. They're getting older again. This is probably a good thing.
Apparently, today it's Zoe from London... a positively geriatric 24.
> (IIRC Samantha Fox was 16 when she first appeared?)
Certainly she was 16 (155cm tall, 91/58/79) when she entered a topless
photo competition in The Sunday People... and came second. There was an
urban myth (well, there was round our way) that Samantha Fox's first
nude modelling assignment was actually when she was just nine years old
and appeared on the cover of the Led Zeppelin album 'Houses Of The
Holy'.
x
[...who seems to know disturbingly far too much about Page 3 girls]
Girl <last name>
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndhgm6u.9vk...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2005-08-31, Girl <last name> <sordid...@sortedmagazine.com> wrote:
>> "siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
>>> moral for them to do so. after all, troops cost money, and peacekeeping
>>> costs money. would it not be rather unfair for the US to get away
>>> without
>>> paying for its mistakes?
>
>> I said other countries could send troops, I never said they had to pay
>> for
>> them ;-) The US/UK should still pay.
>
> Then they'd be seen as US/UK stooges, and the perception
> amongst Iraqis that their country has been invaded and conquered by the
> US would persist.
>
such. Anyway, it's not gonna happen, so...
Girl.
siani
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:08:49 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
>>On 2005-09-02, erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>lots of people did leave the area. Those who were left do seem to be those
>>>who were poorer, may not have had access to private transport, or were sick,
>>>injured, elderly, or otherwise without the means to adapt quickly
>>>(tourists). I'm also not quite sure where you could put them.
>>
>> I saw footage of a lot of people leaving on the freeways who
>>did not have full cars. At the very least, evacuation strategies need to
>>be streamlined so that such people are obliged to take on extra
>>passengers.
>
>
> That's ... uhm. That's really complicated. Mind you, I'm unhappy
> that there are unfull cars going out, but there's a whole bunch of
> ramifications to deal with before filling that car with strangers. It's
> not like the answer is an orderly queue each of cars and carless people
> and away we go. You'll end up with Mom in Georgia and kids in Tennessee
> and Texas, and only the kindness of strangers for them to ever see each
> other again. Plus, once your car gets to its destination, at least my
> ethics make it really damn hard to just say "Best of luck to you" and
> push the person to the curb. I have become Responsible for that person,
> an obligation I do not want at a time I can probably least afford it.
i take it you never pick up hitchhikers, then? see, i'd be quite happy
to consider these folks as hitchhikers, and take them as far as i could,
then let them go. i do if i pick up hitchhikers.
>
>
>> As for places to put them, the important thing to do is to
>>distribute them widely. Large concentrations of desperate people
>>frequently lead to trouble, especially where there are problems getting
>>supplies to them (as we've seen). What's needed is a strategy resembling
>>that used by the English during the blitz or by the people of Sheffield
>>following the Hillsborough disaster, where ordinary households across as
>>large an area as required are persuaded to take on an extra two or three
>>people each. I understand that this would be complicated by class and
>>race issues and related fears, but nevertheless it would bypass many of
>>the problems occurring now.
>
>
> Similar deal as above, without location changes. How did the English
> handle it post-Blitz? Were people being hosted for days, weeks, months,
> or years?
>
years, in some cases at least. there are stories of children evacuated
from London as infants, and weeping uncontrollably when taken "home"
from the only family they've known.
but that system has worked in many cases. and the problems you describe
vanish quite a bit when you have a whole system in place.
siani
Jodi
klaatu:
>Again, I think that rather than picking up 20 busloads of people and
>transporting them as a lot out to some distant city and dumping them in
>a pile and expecting competent managerial systems to spring up
>overnight, it would be a better policy to pick up 20 busloads of people,
>drive in a straight line out of the affected areas, and drop off half a
>busload at every midsized town passed, with each drop-off equipped with
>a chit (debit card, whatever) that would be honored at the local
>grocer's, camping-goods, and public campsite. This would not
>concentrated DPs nor result in instant ghettos. This would allow people
>to access government emergency-support funding while embedding them in a
>much larger community, probably tending to prevent the emergence of
>resentment or polarizations of locals v. DPs which might reasonably be
>expected in mass-relocations.
Very sensible suggestion. Too bad it's too sensible to happen.
Jodi
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"
Endymion
> There was an urban myth (well, there was round our way) that
> Samantha Fox's first nude modelling assignment was actually
> when she was just nine years old and appeared on the cover
> of the Led Zeppelin album 'Houses Of The Holy'.
IIRC those are Robert Plant's children. Samantha Fox is the same age as
I am, so she would have been six when that cover was photographed.
- Endymion
(Don't ask me how I know all this)
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:08:49 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
>>>and I haven't seen any stories about similar issues in those areas of
>>>Germany that were affected by the last time the Rhine went wandering,
>>
>> Germany (and the Netherlands, and Austria, etc.) has been well
>>organised in preparing for problems caused by flooding. Evacuation
>>orders have been efficiently carried out, and localised rescue and
>>repair teams have been able to get to work quickly. There was
>>undoubtedly more which could have been done along these lines in the
>>vicinity of New Orleans, but some of the issues are different. There's
>>generally a longer period of immediate warning (if that makes sense)
>>when the Rhine is likely to flood than when the US is likely to be hit
>>by hurricanes.
>
>
> And, for all apparent conditions, the US has no plan for dealing with
> disasters, natural or otherwise, in spite of having had four years of
> time, political will and money from Congress to make those plans.
Brings to mind the old story about the Emperor being a bit threadbare,
doesn't it.
--
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>> It's certainly large. It's handing out lots of food and water, but I'm
>> rather amazed that they thought it necessary to bring in a few tens of
>> thousands of troops.
>
>
> Armed, ready to shoot rapists, looters and general ne'er do wells or
> undesireables.
Oh, absolutely. The Governor of Louisiana -- I guess that's who she was,
seemed arther formidable and in-charge for a Southern gal -- first said
something to the effect of "not only are they ready to blast looters
right out of their socks, but they're itching for the opportunity". She
later qualified it to something like "well, we're not ordering them to
shoot mothers stealing formula for their infants, but I'd hate to be
spotted by the troops if I was making off with an oversize HDTV".
--
Tiny Human Ferret
I do believe that I mentioned that elsethread. It ws one of the reasons
I was getting a bit cranky and annoyed.
It's bad enough that this happened, but scenes such as the well-reported
"nondescript white van with gangstas hanging off the side brandishing
MAC-10 and screaming 'fuck the police'" just aren't improving anyone's
attitude nor aiding the relief effort.
A show of force is necessary, not sure that the reported 40K troops
aren't a bit of over-staffing.
--
Tiny Human Ferret
> klaatu:
>
>
>>Again, I think that rather than picking up 20 busloads of people and
>>transporting them as a lot out to some distant city and dumping them in
>>a pile and expecting competent managerial systems to spring up
>>overnight, it would be a better policy to pick up 20 busloads of people,
>>drive in a straight line out of the affected areas, and drop off half a
>>busload at every midsized town passed, with each drop-off equipped with
>>a chit (debit card, whatever) that would be honored at the local
>>grocer's, camping-goods, and public campsite. This would not
>>concentrated DPs nor result in instant ghettos. This would allow people
>>to access government emergency-support funding while embedding them in a
>>much larger community, probably tending to prevent the emergence of
>>resentment or polarizations of locals v. DPs which might reasonably be
>>expected in mass-relocations.
>
>
> Very sensible suggestion. Too bad it's too sensible to happen.
You know, every time something like this happens, I keep expecting that
someone will collect all of the lessons-learned, and then they'd write
"the book" and thereafter everyone would do things "by the book".
But it seems as if perhaps they're doing it by "the book" which was
written, um, I dunno, maybe in 1947 or so. In Russian, and badly translated.
--
siani
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:57:15 +0100, siani wrote:
>
>>i take it you never pick up hitchhikers, then? see, i'd be quite happy
>>to consider these folks as hitchhikers, and take them as far as i could,
>>then let them go. i do if i pick up hitchhikers.
>
>
> Nope, I don't. I don't think a whole lot of drivers in the US do. There
> are active campaigns discouraging the practice, and have been for 25
> years. Not to mention hundreds of films and television programs showing
> dire consequences of doing so.
>
perhaps seeing all those people fleeing in empty cars while old ladies
stayed behind to die might make people think a bit harder about that stance?