Govt. Response to Katrina


  • Moderator

    Sometimes, it’s just obvious. Like ending slavery or preserving the union. The only times a president should exceed his authority (ala Lincoln), is when the country is on the verge of disintigration. The “threat” from Iraq doesn’t qualify.

    Then this wouldn’t apply to NO as well. The country wasn’t on the verge of collapse. Thus no need for the Pres to usurp the Gov’s power.

    I didn’t know that many words could fit in my mouth. How many times have I referenced Lincoln? Did Lincoln execute people without trial? Is your agrument devoid of any reason? Readers can decide.

    You can’t throw around terms like “greater good” and expect to get away with it. While Lincoln was an Honorable man and did the right thing, Would you trust every Pres to do the right thing? Just because Lincoln did? I certainly wouldn’t. And I know you wouldn’t based on what you’ve said about Bush.
    No Pres served more than two terms until FDR broke the 150 yr tradition.
    Why would you assume that since Lincoln really knew what the “great good” was that some Pres 150-200 yrs later would?

    Yes, only to be relied upon when someone with an IQ +100 is in office. Were you in favor of Truman dropping the bomb on Japan? Of course you were. Hmm, wonder if “greater good” applies there

    You can pick out examples all you want, I got the Lincoln reference. My only point is that “greater good” is subjective.
    Do those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki think the bombing was for the greater good?

    I believe the Iraq action is in the greater good, you do not. This is the problem with throwing around those terms. It is a matter of opinion.

    Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes I guess it isn’t. To me it is obvious that removing Saddam from power was good, to you it is not.

    The “threat” from Iraq doesn’t qualify.

    That is your opinion.

    To me, it isn’t unrealistic to see the way NK and Iran are acting and to see Saddam acting the same way if he were still there. They agree to inspections then they don’t.
    Heck, yesterday NK agreed to a deal, and today they are already trash talking again and going back on the deal.
    Something must be done about this.
    I can’t believe you’d think we’d be better off with Saddam entering in that little race.
    It was bad enough with India and Pakistan in a nuke race, now imagine Iran and Saddam’s Iraq in a nuke race.

    Because of our actions in Afgahn and Iraq, Libya has given up its program, elections in Palastine, Syria has pulled out of Lebenon, Israel has moved out of Gaza, not to mention the elections in Iraq and Afgahn themselves, etc.

    Oh, and the Gov had the National Guard in the SuperDome before the refugees began arriving

    Then what the heck does she need the Feds for, she obviously had everything under control. :roll:

    Maybe if thousands of them (and their equipment) hadn’t been in Iraq the situation would have been controllable

    Maybe if the Democratic Leadership in LA wasn’t so incompetent they actually would have evacuated the populace.

    (see Hurricane Rita preperation)

    The Dems can mobilize buses to get people to vote, but apparently they can’t mobilise people to get out of dodge.

    I think what gets the Dems so mad is that NO was such a bastion of Liberalism, that this hurricane stripped away all the walls and showed the world what an utter failure Liberalism is. NO has been run by Dems for 60 years, yet it many of its people were poor and left behind by the very Democrats that they elected into office.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    Several Iraqi groups DID want us to invade and remove Saddam.

    You notice how funny the other side of that sword is?
    What if one these “liberal - commie - whatever” groups claims it would be good to have GWB removed … ?

    @DarthMaximus:

    No Pres served more than two terms until FDR broke the 150 yr tradition.

    First, it was only a tradition. A tradition has not the power of a law (in my legal system, i know yours is different, giving traditions more power, yet still less than laws i would presume).
    Second, breaking traditions is not always “bad”.
    Third, breaking a tradition in extra-ordinary times is more justified than to break it for the fun of it.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes I guess it isn’t. To me it is obvious that removing Saddam from power was good, to you it is not.

    “Common” DM - this is kind of an ignorant statement.

    I mean - i prolly could reasonably argue that removing SH from power was not good, but no one has stated this.
    Our argument was that the good of removing SH no where equals the bad from the invasion and mass slayings of Iraqi civilians, soldiers and US soldiers, trampling on Iraqi rights, and blowing up much of its infrastructure (never mind the $200 B cost of the war which if applied to social programs in the US would have IMO made the US an even greater nation).


  • Moderator

    You notice how funny the other side of that sword is?
    What if one these “liberal - commie - whatever” groups claims it would be good to have GWB removed … ?

    Yes, true.
    Which is why, the Pres can’t simply tell Govenors what to do. There are laws, which Bush followed for the Katrina response.
    You (I don’t mean you personally) must seperate Iraq from Katrina response. You simply can’t say “hey bush invaded Iraq, now do the same in NO”.
    I believe he was justified in Iraq, now even if it wasn’t (in other opinions) that is not a valid reason to say what about NO. Maybe he learned his lesson, “hey you can’t go around flaunting laws, looked how pissed people got about Iraq. I better follow this Katrina thing by the letter of the Law”.

    First, it was only a tradition. A tradition has not the power of a law (in my legal system, i know yours is different, giving traditions more power, yet still less than laws i would presume).
    Second, breaking traditions is not always “bad”.
    Third, breaking a tradition in extra-ordinary times is more justified than to break it for the fun of it.

    Again, true. But I was just trying to point out, not all Pres will see things the same way. Some people like what FDR did, others did not.

    After 9/11 you can that was extra ordinary, BUT people still get mad about the Patriot Act.

    I’m only trying to point out it you have to very careful about letting the Pres (or any leader) get away with saying we must do this because of these extreme circumstances.

    While it may have been a good Idea for Bush to take power of LA to help out Katrina. What about now with Rita (another Cat 5 Hurricane). Now Bush takes control of Texas as well??? Both Katrina and Rita hit FL, should Bush have taken power from his brother???

    You must see how this could develop into a slippery slope. Every Hurricane season the Pres could send “aid” (read troops) to the effected area, for the greater good of course. Yet what if they don’t want to leave??? What do they say about absolute power curropting absolutely.
    That is why Bush (and any Pres), must go through the red tape.

    That is why I’m against bigger gov’t, cut out the red tape and burearcracy give the state/local officials the ability to immediately react, etc…

    The anwser isn’t to just ignore the red tape and do what you want in “extreme circumstances”, but to fix the process and eliminate the red tape legally by streamlining the response.

    Again, look at the preperation for Rita. To mean it seems like it is working right now. Perhaps the bugs in the system where shown the light in Katrina and they are fixing them.

    “Common” DM - this is kind of an ignorant statement.

    I mean - i prolly could reasonably argue that removing SH from power was not good, but no one has stated this.
    Our argument was that the good of removing SH no where equals the bad from the invasion and mass slayings of Iraqi civilians, soldiers and US soldiers, trampling on Iraqi rights, and blowing up much of its infrastructure (never mind the $200 B cost of the war which if applied to social programs in the US would have IMO made the US an even greater nation).

    Fair enough.

    But I think it removing Saddam (don’t forget his sons as well) easily out weighs having left the status quo as is.

    I don’t agree with the Social Program spending either of course. 😄

    I think you guys are judging things too quickly.

    The US first try at Democracy failed (Articles of Confederation), our Capital was burned to the ground in a later war, and we even had a Civil War, etc.

    You are judging the results before the process is done. IMO, that is like saying a football game is over in the 1st quarter.

    I think you’ll appreciate this CC, Say you have have a patient that has cancer. The answer, they need surgery.
    They don’t feel any pain but untreated they will die.
    So they have surgery. Now how do they feel a day or a week after surgery? They feel like crap. Now how about after 6 months to a year of radiation and Chemo? Still like crap.
    But hey after 2 years they are getting back to normal and are cured. They feel better, and can appreciate the hellish process they went through, since the final results were good.

    But again what would that patient have said if you asked them how they feel imediately after surgery, with IV’s plugged in, tubes up their nose, etc.?

    You have to let the process play out. Now if Iraq is the same as it is now in 5-10 years from now then you may have a case, but they just had their first elections and are voting on a Constitution in a month. Ya gotta give it a little more time before declaring that it wasn’t worth it, IMO.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    You notice how funny the other side of that sword is?
    What if one these “liberal - commie - whatever” groups claims it would be good to have GWB removed … ?

    Yes, true.
    Which is why, the Pres can’t simply tell Govenors what to do. There are laws, which Bush followed for the Katrina response.
    You (I don’t mean you personally) must seperate Iraq from Katrina response. You simply can’t say “hey bush invaded Iraq, now do the same in NO”.
    I believe he was justified in Iraq

    I think you missed my point.
    If a few USamerican groups say that GWB should be removed … is that a valid context for … say the chinese … to invade the US ?
    If it is not there, then it was not for SH and Iraq.

    After 9/11 you can that was extra ordinary, BUT people still get mad about the Patriot Act.

    Because there is a difference between “tradition” -expecially when it is on formalities- and “values a country is and society is based upon”. Patriot Act is a perversion of what it claims to defend. If you have abandon principles likehabeas corpus, what kind of system are you defending with such a law? …

    I’m only trying to point out it you have to very careful about letting the Pres (or any leader) get away with saying we must do this because of these extreme circumstances.

    Oh, i do agree with that sentence, but your examples were a bit counterproductive for that 🙂

    What about now with Rita (another Cat 5 Hurricane). Now Bush takes control of Texas as well??? Both Katrina and Rita hit FL, should Bush have taken power from his brother???

    No, but here the state of emergency was proclaimed in advance. … something that could have been done for Katrina as well.

    You must see how this could develop into a slippery slope. Every Hurricane season the Pres could send “aid” (read troops) to the effected area, for the greater good of course. Yet what if they don’t want to leave???

    You ask me ?
    A german ???
    We still have your troops :).
    So, it’s not that bad, as long as they behave and are able to keep their children well behaving as well (difficult if a child is raised very “patriotic” but not in its fatherland … i remember a few years where they dropped stones/rocks from autobahn-crossing-pedestrian-bridges onto the cars below them) … and they do leave money in the local economy (not too much, but a bit).


  • Moderator

    I think you missed my point.
    If a few USamerican groups say that GWB should be removed … is that a valid context for … say the chinese … to invade the US ?
    If it is not there, then it was not for SH and Iraq.

    Oh.

    Sure. But why would the Chinese not just wait for Bush’s term to be up?
    They’d get a new leader with no blood shed.

    That is a big difference. Worst case you live with a Pres for 8 years, Dictators are in for life. Since you can’t vote them out, sometimes that only leaves military action.

    China (or someother country) could very much listen to some far out people and declare Bush a war criminal and try to forcible remove him. BUT…are you willing to accept the US counter strike, or are you willing to bite your tongue and hope a more favorable leader gets elected?
    With the US you have over 200 years of Presidents leaving office and having elections. With Iraq that was simply not an option. And the failed attempt at removing Saddam after the First Gulf War was a sad reminder that Saddam would not share power or step down gracefully.

    No, but here the state of emergency was proclaimed in advance. … something that could have been done for Katrina as well.

    But it was declared before Katrina hit. I believe 2 days prior. This was done precisely to give the Gov “extra powers” in a time of emergency. The Gov failed to act as forcefully as she probably should have.

    In hindsight, yes the Pres should have pushed the issue more, but at the time the Govenor had all the authority and ability to do whatever the heck she wanted (due to the State of Emergency).

    We still have your troops

    Yes, well sometimes rebuilding can take 60 years. 😄
    So judging Iraq on 2 years isn’t really fair. 😄



  • You made some reasonable points earlier that i don’t think necessary to address here (i like the way you suggested that the president “learned” after Iraq to go by the letter of the law :D)
    @DarthMaximus:

    I think you’ll appreciate this CC, Say you have have a patient that has cancer. The answer, they need surgery.
    They don’t feel any pain but untreated they will die.
    So they have surgery. Now how do they feel a day or a week after surgery? They feel like crap. Now how about after 6 months to a year of radiation and Chemo? Still like crap.
    But hey after 2 years they are getting back to normal and are cured. They feel better, and can appreciate the hellish process they went through, since the final results were good.

    But again what would that patient have said if you asked them how they feel imediately after surgery, with IV’s plugged in, tubes up their nose, etc.?

    1. i am not a surgeon 😄
    2. seriously tho’ let’s say you are describing patient Joe.
      Now i explain to Joe the nature of the “cancer”, the prognosis and treatment as well as the risks and benefits of the proceedure/treatment. Now let’s say that Joe says “i’ll go for radiation and chemo, but i don’t want you to open me up”. If i say “well, screw you” and knock him out, perform the surgery, extracting the tumor against his will - then what does that make me? In this country - guilty of assault-and-battery, and a non-doctor after my license gets taken away from me.
      The thing is that SH relented on every request of the UN/US except to step down.
      The fact is that some tumors regress without surgery, and many tumors recur with surgery. We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

  • Moderator

    i like the way you suggested that the president “learned” after Iraq to go by the letter of the law

    I liked that one too. 😄

    We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

    I think he would’ve played similar games to what he did in the past and what NK and Iran are doing now. One day inspectors can come in the next day they can’t.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

    I think he would’ve played similar games to what he did in the past and what NK and Iran are doing now. One day inspectors can come in the next day they can’t.

    I respectfully disagree.
    I remember the whole scenario quite vividly (sadly i must relate that i was feeling somewhat pro-Bush at the time until the day before invasion), and i saw a very desparate SH willing to do anything to keep from being invaded.

    Anyway, this is not the point of this thread, but rather that Iraq and NO are linked in many of our minds. Clearly the “Dems” believe that there was no mandate to send forces into Iraq to invade it, but they believe that there was a mandate to send whatever help was at its avail into NO to help.
    As a Canadian (and obviously i do not speak for the majority of my countrymen) i can not understand this bizaare interplay between federalism and what-ever-you-call-it. I suppose i am a bit of a federalist, mind you (not all of us are “this way” here - particularly many of the traitors living in Quebec). If the federal gov’t saw a need for troops in MB or ON or even PQ, then troops would be directly dispatched there, with co-ordinated efforts between that provinces forces and the fed’s forces. There would be no negotiations.



  • i can not understand this bizaare interplay between federalism and what-ever-you-call-it.

    Part of this interplay is that the United States was never intended, by design 200+ year ago, to be a single nation. Rather, 13 seperate nations which are independent, but still loosely joined together. For this reason, the constitution does restrict the federal government in many ways - the use of resources being one of the ways.

    After 200 years, it almost never appears that way to outsiders or citizens since the federal gevernment has found ways to impose its desire upon the states. The primary way it does this is through the money - the federal funding for many things such as roads, are tied to specific policies. The state legislatures then decide they want (or need) the money more than NOT having a matching policy. Additionally, the federal courts haven’t always respected states rights, using a very liberal (no politics are intended with the word “liberal” here) interpretation of the powers the constitution does give the federal government.



  • Maybe if the Democratic Leadership in LA wasn’t so incompetent they actually would have evacuated the populace.

    (see Hurricane Rita preperation)

    The Dems can mobilize buses to get people to vote, but apparently they can’t mobilise people to get out of dodge.

    I think what gets the Dems so mad is that NO was such a bastion of Liberalism, that this hurricane stripped away all the walls and showed the world what an utter failure Liberalism is. NO has been run by Dems for 60 years, yet it many of its people were poor and left behind by the very Democrats that they elected into office.

    Rita hasn’t even hit Texas yet… and they already screwed up with the evacuations. No gas. Clogged freeways. Stalled vehicles. No supplies. Already there have been deaths and crimes being committed.

    Yeah… I guess that they have a decent excuse?? Cough it up, DM. You know in a time of potential disaster, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN AND NOT WAIT FOR SOME PAPER WORK REQUEST. They are more “on the ball” in this case (due to the results of Rita) but still have FAILED on multiple levels in the evac.



  • no, baker, you are thinking of the AOC. the constitution very much intended for this country to be one nation, rather than states loosely tied together



  • Janus,

    Certainly, the current system is structured for a more centralized government than the AOC, of that there is no doubt. But it is my opinion that the system was still intended to have a very weak federal government. For example, see Amendment X of the constitution “The powers not delgated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of course this is a matter of opinion.



  • certainly. its entirely a matter of interpretation, so fair enough. but clearly, we disagree


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 79
  • 1
  • 60
  • 1
  • 1
  • 20
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games

57
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts