Foo wrote:I can't beleive you have so much anger against me when all I've done is discuss the matter here.
What have I done that upsets you so much?
You're confused, yet again. It's not anger, child. It's pitty for your ignorance.
Grow up.
apparently the money/technology wasn't there when they built them...if that is true, why they weren't updated is beyond me.losCHUNK wrote:only cat 3 levies ? when building a city under water i think the strongest cat 5 repellent levies would be one of the most important things
billions at our disposal? money doesn't come from the money tree here, it just appears that way because our president likes to throw so much of it around in wars for oil. that money that is 'at our disposal' is taxpayer money...and will ultimately pull from other social needs...donated money goes right to the problem (in some cases).Foo wrote:To what would I be donating money in this case? The US government has billions at its disposal to rectify this if it so chooses. We're not taking about a 3rd world backwater that simply does not have the necessary funds, and depends on charities for relief efforts. The US has the means and the agencies necessary to react to this crisis.R00k wrote:So you also don't think it helps the communities to donate money to them?
Money just isn't an issue here.
Would like to state that I agree with this post 100%.tnf wrote:apparently the money/technology wasn't there when they built them...if that is true, why they weren't updated is beyond me.losCHUNK wrote:only cat 3 levies ? when building a city under water i think the strongest cat 5 repellent levies would be one of the most important things
as for nobody being at fault...
for katrina - obviously not.
for the power of katrina - maybe, maybe global warming had something to do with the above average temp in the gulf waters, but again, no way to really deem it conclusive that this couldn't have been a natural fluctuation in the water temp...
but conditions that exacerbated other aspects of the storm can be blamed on folks -
the levees, the ignoring of the warnings (even a few years ago when a flood of N.O. was brought to the administrations attention).
the turning over of protected wetlands to developers
and obviously the shitball response to the whole thing.
Thanks.mjrpes wrote: http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina ... 02564147:1
oh i hate to say that i've taken some solace in knowing that this is helping to skewer Bush politically, but i have.Foo wrote:Neither do I sadly.
I think a big part of me would derive satisfaction from seeing America ask for something, and that might be where some of my stance on it is coming from.
But that's wrong and I'm not proud of thinking that way.
HAHAHAHAHA, alright so Bush isnt to blame for cutting the budgets to the levees but yet money is the factor to why they didnt protect the city.mjrpes wrote:Here's an engineer's take on the system of levees... "Bush administration funding cuts for the system of levees, floodgates and pumping stations that failed to protect the city had not contributed to the disaster"
...
"Strock said money was a factor in why the levees were not designed to protect against the strongest hurricanes" ..."It's a combination of doing the engineering, looking at the likelihood of a given storm event, looking at the amount of effort that will be needed to protect the city in an ironclad way, and then making a decision which is based on engineering judgment and the economics of whether it's worth the cost to the benefit and then striking the right level of protection."
http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina ... 02564147:1
Strock is a close friend of Bush's. He fired a Corps of Engineers contract supervisor when she blew the whistle on Halliburton's unfair bidding and price-gouging. Her job was to review contracts and look for improprieties.mjrpes wrote:Here's an engineer's take on the system of levees... "Bush administration funding cuts for the system of levees, floodgates and pumping stations that failed to protect the city had not contributed to the disaster"
...
"Strock said money was a factor in why the levees were not designed to protect against the strongest hurricanes" ..."It's a combination of doing the engineering, looking at the likelihood of a given storm event, looking at the amount of effort that will be needed to protect the city in an ironclad way, and then making a decision which is based on engineering judgment and the economics of whether it's worth the cost to the benefit and then striking the right level of protection."
http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina ... 02564147:1