OT: Wheres the World donations for NO?

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 9/11/2005, 9:52 AM
Many good points, Alex!

Most people outside America NEVER see scenes like the ones that are now being broadcast. And I'd add that many have been people shocked now they've see the state of poverty that existed before Katrina down south.

This has also been the reaction of other Europeans I heard from. They were shocked at "the poverty and immense obesity they were seeing on TV," even those who had been to New Orleans on vacation. The quote above is word-for-word.

John, I don't understand the comparison with people giving up their lives on D-day in WWII. In the current case, there were lots of people (military and others) who were prepared to give their lives if necessary to save others, but were held back.

The Katrina situation seems more the equivalent of D-day being postponed indefinitely, because the War Cabinet couldn't decide on a date to actually go to action.

It does look like FEMA is providing some competition for the US Patent Office when it comes to worst bureacracy. When the USPTO needed to replace their ancient computer system, they wrote specs and started a procurement process that lasted 10 years. The winning bid offered the best technology that existed 10 years earlier, but at much higher prices than back then, because many of the products were no longer manufactured and had to be handmade at huge expense. Naturally the functionality was 1/100th of the current state-of-the-art and the price about 100 times higher. To add insult to injury, the same USPTO now approves just about anything that comes through its doors, regardless of the "level of invention."

John, why didn't you list "Blazing Saddles," it being the funniest movie ever made and all? :O)

This movie could absolutely not have been greenlit today, but it is an absolute masterpiece. The dialog alone is worth a "lifetime achievement award," the casting is fantastic, and it is phenomenally creative in all areas, very nicely shot, full of historical references that it took me seven years to track down (and it was worth it too!), and of course it is incredibly funny.

"It's a Mad Mad Mad World" is excellent, but not close to "Blazing Saddles".

"These Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" had a lot of pearls also. When I was a kid, dad drove us for many hours to a faraway town that had a gigantic 70mm theater, just to see this movie. I saw it recently in 70mm projection (at the American Cinematheque), and it hadn't lost anything... Lots of heart, too.

Movies like the above (and "The Great Race", etc.), will they ever be made again?
p@mast3rs wrote on 9/11/2005, 12:32 PM
"Some people are so amazingly consumed with pinpointing the few things that went wrong that they can't seem to back away and see the bigger picture which, if they could, clearly shows a success story of major magnitude."

Im sorry that pointing out that some of those who have died could have been saved if not for the monumental screw ups. That is the BIG picture, not the clean up. Its great that things are being done now and lives are being saved. What pisses people off is that little was done in the beginning that indeed cost lives that could have been saved. Regardless of how miniscule or unimportant the mistakes may appear, if it cost even one life then it is a major mistake.

That is the bigger picture I see.


"If the attitudes expressed in some of the posts in this thread had prevailed during WWII, these same people would have doubtless focused exclusively on the fact that 10,000 allied soldiers (and 5,000- 8,000 Germans) were killed in one day (D-Day), many of them because the landing crafts opened too early, putting soldiers into deep water which, with their heavy packs and ammunition, drowned them."

As opposed to burrying our heads in the sands and telling ourselves that everything is ok with the current war. Some people would rather gulp down the kool aid then to make a stand. People are dying all because our leaders cant get their heads out of their asses.
MH_Stevens wrote on 9/11/2005, 1:09 PM
I want to know when you "filmmakers" are going to stop spewing political ideology and get in there with a camera and try just a little to make this relevant to Vegas. Breaking my own rules I will say that IF there is a lesson from this it is that festering mosquito swamped drug laden and impoverished New Orleans needs to be abandoned to the sea once and for all.

PS
Don’t drop the new Z1 in that toxic water.


johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 1:28 PM
John, some of it is not nonsense. The Swedes, for one, have had a plane ready since the early days and may be still waiting for clearance. Washington Post story link, but verified elsewhereI heard one of the Swedes being interviewed on NPR.

If you read the Post story that you linked to, I think it provides a lot of insight into what is really going on. Yes, some of the aid wasn't immediately taken in, but most of the explanations are simply that there was no way to take all offers at one moment in time and deal with them all. Somewhat like rush hour at the airport, where the planes have to line up and wait their turn to take off.

Merely quoting the headlines can be very misleading.
p@mast3rs wrote on 9/11/2005, 1:31 PM
"I will say that IF there is a lesson from this it is that festering mosquito swamped drug laden and impoverished New Orleans needs to be abandoned to the sea once and for all."

And what if that were to happen to your home? Would you want it be condemned and sent out to sea? So please tell me why it would be ok for you to rebuild your home and city in the case of a natural disaster but its not for the people on New Orleans? What makes you so much better than them?

Again, while this thread does not relate directly to Vegas, its well over 200 posts and I am pretty sure you knew the gist of it after reading a couple posts. Just remember, no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 1:55 PM
The relevance of Iraq in all this is much more evident than your own reference to WWII. Funds and resources are being diverted to a war that most US and other world citizens do not want or really understand – and which is killing a LOT of innocent Iraqis. Had these funds and resouces been diverted to A) prevention measures in the 3 states and B) to reinforce rescue and support organisations, the relief efforts would have been made easier.

Once again, you try to link Iraq and the hurricane. Why Iraq? Why not pick, for instance, NASA? What if we hadn't spend billions trying to get the space shuttle back in the air and instead spent that on constructing better levees? Why not link the NASA program and the hurricane? You can pick any federal program and make the same statement you make about Iraq. The only reason you pick Iraq is that you don't like the war (which I fully understand). However, there was never any debate, prior to the hurricane, about whether the money in Iraq should instead be spent on levee construction. Therefore to link the two after the fact is simply a misplaced anti-war statement that, as stated before, injects a lot of negative, spurious noise into an effort (the relief effort) that instead needs clarity and purpose.


Forgive me if I turn out to be wrong, but this threatens to be the worst US natural disaster in recent times as far as loss of life is concerned – and it can only be good for the US if it causes the Government and authorities at least a little discomfort and embarrasment.

Wow, that is pretty darn cruel! Yeah, lets have more dead bodies so we can embarrass the US and its government.

If anyone wonders why I bother to respond to these posts, it is to make sure everyone understands the thinking behind some of the comments being made. It is pretty revealing, don't you think?

Also, I have noted, since even before the hurricane hit, that the same people that now are complaining about every aspect of this relief effort are also the same ones that have greatly exaggerated the loss of life. It was the mayor of New Orleans (a major complainer) who first said the dead in his city would probably exceed 10,000 people. However, the official death toll in the entire state of Louisiana, as of today (9/11/2005), according to the New York Times, is 154. I have no idea what the final figure is going to be, and unfortunately it is likely to be a good deal higher than 154, but it almost certainly isn't going to approach the death toll in Galveston, and it almost certainly isn't going to be anything close to 10,000.

Rather than be thankful that the death toll is high enough to embarrass the United States, its citizens, and its government, I instead say, thank goodness the death toll is likely going to be much lower than expected.



johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:06 PM
John, why didn't you list "Blazing Saddles," it being the funniest movie ever made and all? :O)

Excellent choice, although in the Mel Brooks inventory, I think "Young Frankenstein" is my favorite ("Hump? What hump?" or "What knockers!" or "Put... the candle... back!")

"These Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" had a lot of pearls also.

We must be about the same age. I remember seeing both "Flying Machines" and "The Great Race," which you also mentioned, when I was young. They both have a similar epic scope that you just don't see anymore. Even my 13-year-old son, who has heard too much rap music and seen too many current movies, really enjoyed both movies, especially "The Great Race."

You don't see pie fights at all anymore and, of course, the pie fight in the "The Great Race" is one of the best ever filmed.

In "Magnificent Men..." I especially liked Gert Frobe, who later (or was it earlier) played Goldfinger.

alexz wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:08 PM
"that festering mosquito swamped drug laden and impoverished New Orleans"

Normally, a comment like this is not even worthy of a response. But ...
If we all held attitudes like that, we could abandon (apply your own adjectives) LA, Tokyo, San Francisco, parts of Florida most of Bangladesh and ... the whole of Holland. On top of that, a lot of truly great, legendary music came out of that 'festering swamp'.

The relevance to Vegas:
Vegas is a piece of software. It runs on computers. It processes data. What data?
Ideas. If the people who are making films didn't possess (and express) their own thoughts, provocative or otherwise, have an ability to observe society and the desire to turn these ideas into images - then sorry, MH, but there would be no Vegas. You can talk about firewire cables if you like, but that's not great material for good filmmaking. And I wouldn't start your script for 'High Waters - the Day New Orleans Drowned' - I'll bet you some sicko is already touting it around Hollywood.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:33 PM
And what if that were to happen to your home? Would you want it be condemned and sent out to sea? So please tell me why it would be ok for you to rebuild your home and city in the case of a natural disaster but its not for the people on New Orleans?

As a substantial Federal tax payer, I was always puzzled to see the Feds pay for reconstruction in the same location several times over, in places where flooding occurs on a somewhat regular basis.

Why not do what they apparently did in Asia, convert the repeatedly flooding disaster areas to forests and wetlands that can protect innerlying residential areas? Then pay people for reconstruction in those areas?

I remember reading a week ago that some wetlands that could have reduced the flooding dramatically were converted to residential housing development.

Here in Los Angeles we have some astonishing flooding on a regular basis, because nearly all wetlands have been paved over, giving the massive amounts of rain no opportunity to be absorbed. If it wasn't for the brutally ugly "Los Angeles River" cement aqueduct, the whole city would be drowned.

A lot of people, myself included unfortunately, used to think that "wetlands" was some kind of misdirected environmentalist concept that got in the way of development, a place for cute little butterflies to roam from flower to flower.

Now, after seeing that the Feds paid out an enormous amount of money over the last few decades for flooding-related problems, it seems that maybe these wetlands had a useful function after all.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:36 PM
Bush went to war in Iraq for oil.

Neither statement is true.

The first statement was also made about the 1991 Gulf War. Let's see, how much more oil did we get from Kuwait and the Gulf region as a result of that war? None. Nothing changed at all. Same is true this time. This is a classic conspiracy theory. Don't anyone believe it for even a minute.

As for the 2000 election, it has been rehashed so many times it is hardly worth responding to other than to point out that

1. The Florida recounts done by newspapers long after the election showed Bush would have won.

2. The Florida supreme court certified the election in Al Gore's favor. No one on the left seemed to complain about that. When the Federal Supreme Court overturned the Florida court, these same people called it fraud, and claimed a stolen election.

So much for standing on principles. If the complainers had any principles, they would have objected to having any court make an election decision, and would have tried to stop the Florida supreme court from getting involved. Didn't happen that way, did it?

The laws of the land were followed and the Supreme Court made a ruling. I can understand that you didn't like the ruling -- I can name quite a few this same court has made that I totally disagree with -- but I don't make up nonsense about the rulings being "stolen" or "illegitimate" or state that they are some sort of travesty or "right-wing conspiracy."

3. The fraud that occurred at the polls in Florida, and which occurs to some degree at polls across the country in every election was, by any historical standard, minimal. My father was a poll observer in Chicago during the 1960 presidential election. He witnessed bums (homeless, using today's vernacular) being brought in to the booths to vote and who were accompanied into the booth by their handlers. Nothing like that happened in Florida. He witnessed people voting multiple times. Nothing like that happened in Florida. He called the Chicago police and they arrived --- seven hours later. Nothing like that happened in Florida.

I am sure someone will tell me that I am wrong and all these things -- and more -- happened in Florida. They will then point me to "moveon.org" (an oxymoronically named web site, if ever there was one -- basically a site dedicated to not moving on and instead rehashing the past) for the "proof" and tell me not to believe the stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, or USA Today.

johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:43 PM
Im sorry that pointing out that some of those who have died could have been saved if not for the monumental screw ups.

If hindsight could really save lives, you'd be a saint.
alexz wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:47 PM
Dear, Mr Meyer ...

It could be that my UK English and punctuation is a bit idiosyncratic, although I wasn't aware that our respective versions of the language had become so different - the meaning was not as you interpreted it.

The dash I used was to separate the two clauses - they were not intended to be read as a single clause, the second being an extrapolation, not a continuation, of the first.

I'll rephrase so as not to be misunderstood:

Forgive me if I turn out to be wrong, but this threatens to be the worst US natural disaster in recent times as far as loss of life is concerned.
In the light of this disaster, it will be of benefit to the US if , at the very least, the Government and authorities are caused a little discomfort and embarrasment.

I was saying (perhaps too compacted) that it's not a BAD thing that the officials who have messed up at least take some flak and feel uncomfortable with that - it's a good thing. The 'good thing' did not in any way relate to the disaster itself - you would usually be able to deduce this from my earlier posts. Nobody wants the death toll to go up and nobody wants to embarrass the US.

I'm sorry if my concision caused any misunderstandings.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/11/2005, 2:51 PM
"Young Frankenstein" is my favorite ("Hump? What hump?" or "What knockers!" or "Put... the candle... back!")

And the reaction of the horse outside hearing the name of "Frau Blücher!"...

"My name is Fronkonstein, not Frankenstein!" and so much more....

The best swag from the premiere of "These Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" was a matchbook that was nearly a foot long, full of glossy color photos from the film.

I heartily agree Gert Frobe was fantastic as the do-it-by-the-book officer in the Kaiser's army. Especially the scene where he was flying upside-down while reading the manual was priceless...

And Benny Hill as the fireman in the tower, and the competition between the national teams, it was so lovingly done. And the beginning of the travel for the American team, also really beautifully done.

Professor Fate's X-mobile from "The Great Race" is on display here in L.A. at the Petersen Automotive Museum, it awoke a lot of memories.

I also think you're right that The Great Pie Fight will never be surpassed.

But the commissary scene in "The Producers" (or was it "Blazing Saddles"?) where one guy gets clocked and sent down the tray line to the cashier wasn't bad... "Let me see, that will be $2.85 for the scrambled eggs, ...."

:O)
alexz wrote on 9/11/2005, 3:33 PM
JMeyer,

I can see this thread is winding down and drifting onto favourite films - which is not such a bad subject either.

There was a point made about not sharing the same opinions, which is quite right.
Just to address your points about Iraq and the elections:
We all have conspiracy theories and beliefs, because most people don't have access to the real facts. In Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan it was a relatively powerless opposition and the 'suspicions' of the populace that led to democratic change. They didn't belive the official line. 'Conspiracy theorists' one might call them- but they managed to beat corrupt governments - eventually.
In Egypt, Mubarak has won a landslide of something like 90% in, according to official sources and most of the Egyptian media, 'fair democratic elections'. Some will believe it, some won't.
Bush didn't go to war in Iraq for oil. I can't prove he did, that's true. I suppose he went there to democratize. He'll being democratizing Syria or Iran next - then China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, North Korea ... I bet they can't wait.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 4:49 PM
But the commissary scene in "The Producers" (or was it "Blazing Saddles"?) where one guy gets clocked and sent down the tray line to the cashier wasn't bad... "Let me see, that will be $2.85 for the scrambled eggs, ...."

I think that was Blazing Saddles, where the movie ends up on the movie lot itself.
craftech wrote on 9/11/2005, 5:33 PM
Also, I have noted, since even before the hurricane hit, that the same people that now are complaining about every aspect of this relief effort are also the same ones that have greatly exaggerated the loss of life. It was the mayor of New Orleans (a major complainer) who first said the dead in his city would probably exceed 10,000 people. However, the official death toll in the entire state of Louisiana, as of today (9/11/2005), according to the New York Times, is 154. I have no idea what the final figure is going to be, and unfortunately it is likely to be a good deal higher than 154, but it almost certainly isn't going to approach the death toll in Galveston, and it almost certainly isn't going to be anything close to 10,000.
============
"10,000 FEARED DEAD" New York Daily News September 12, 2001

"An Act of War" "TENS OF THOUSANDS FEARED DEAD"
Times Herald RecordSeptember 12, 2001

"Ninety-four bodies have been recovered, Guiliani said. Seventy body parts have been found.
The city has asked for 30,000 body bags."
Times Herald Record - September 14, 2001



“This is a disaster of enormous proportions,” he said of the hurricane. “We have no idea yet how many people it’s really going to affect. The estimates of the death toll ... are staggering, and we don’t know what they are yet.”
Rudy Giuliani on the estimated death toll from Hurricane Katrina
Sept 7, 2005

Hi John,

John
johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 5:33 PM
Bush didn't go to war in Iraq for oil. I can't prove he did, that's true. I suppose he went there to democratize. He'll being democratizing Syria or Iran next - then China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, North Korea ... I bet they can't wait.

I don't think Bush went to war in order to democratize Iraq. Instead, Bush went to war to find and eliminate WMD, eliminate a regime that had used such weapons in the past, and remove from power a government which, like Libya's Qaddafi, had sponsored and funded terrorists.

This is exactly what he said before declaring war, for those that were listening.

Under the Bush Doctrine, his goal was to stop the terrorists before they could commit another 9/11 attack, on a much larger scale using WMD, rather than wait for the attack and then simply try to prosecute those responsible.

I wish I could hear articulated other, better alternatives. It is infuriating to hear so much of the debate -- not just here, but in public forums by elected officials -- reduced to Michael Moore juvenile rhetoric. I've got to believe that there has to be a better defense against the terrorist threat than the Bush doctrine, but I sure haven't heard anyone capable of articulating it. Kerry had a great chance to articulate an alternative strategy, but failed completely to come up with a better alternative. If he had come up with anything at all, he would have easily become president.

FWIW, my alternative would have been to let the inspectors continue their mostly useless inspections in Iraq, because most of the WMD development -- and the potential for falling into terrorist hands -- would have probably been kept at bay. This is a similar strategy to the various forms of detente that we lived under during the forty years of the Cold War.

However, there is a difference between the Cold War and the terrorist threat, which can be reduced to one word: Symmetry. In the Cold War, if the Soviets nuked one of our cities, we would nuke one of theirs. This lead to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The problem with the terrorists, is that with WMD, they can still take out one of our cities, but what can we do in return? Without an effective response, there is no effective deterrent, and they can do pretty much what they damn well please, once they have their hands on WMD.

Yes, it still is very much all about WMD, whether we found them stockpiled in Iraq or not.

However, even though I don't agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the reason I don't stand firmly opposed to the war is the idea of having the word "probably" in the same sentence with "terrorists" and "WMD." The old saying is that "close" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. The same can be said about "probably."

If you don't understand what I mean in the last sentence, just envision a mushroom cloud in place of Atlanta, and then decide whether "probably," "maybe," or "hopefully" are good enough when the threats from so few can devastate so many.
riredale wrote on 9/11/2005, 6:15 PM
I liked Mongo, and I really enjoyed the scene at the end where the two stars hand the reins over to a helper and they get in a black Cadillac limo and "ride off into the sunset."

Nobody makes a movie like Mel Brooks!
craftech wrote on 9/11/2005, 7:00 PM
I'll leave Iraq to another thread. My last post was long enough.
==========
"Kerry had a great chance to articulate an alternative strategy, but failed completely to come up with a better alternative. If he had come up with anything at all, he would have easily become president."
=========
Summary of his loss:

Senator Kerry: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you".

John

PS: My favorite Mel Brooks line is:
"Tradgedy is when i cut my finger, Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die"
p@mast3rs wrote on 9/11/2005, 7:02 PM
"Under the Bush Doctrine, his goal was to stop the terrorists before they could commit another 9/11 attack, on a much larger scale using WMD, rather than wait for the attack and then simply try to prosecute those responsible."

We have not found them and we have NO PROOF that they had at the time we decided to declare war. Now we are stuck in a country where INNOCENT citizens of that country are dying for what America believes (democracy). I totally believe in democracy but for us to invade a country under lies and false pretenses and when we admit that we had "bad intel" we change our tune to we are there to "liberate" them. Yet not one day goes by where there isnt a suicide bomber or a death of an innocent Iraqi citizen. Thats not even including American soldiers who lose their life every day.

The truth is Bush figured he would waltz into Iraq, conquer the country, capture Saddam and work out a sweet deal for oil. He NEVER planned on being met with resistance unlike his daddy;s war. Now we are stuck in their country which pisses off the Arab world. North Korea is a much bigger threat to world security with their nuclear weapons than Saddam was to us. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a cruel and vicious dictator but so what. Why should we use American tax payer dollars to liberate some other country when MANY of our own citizens are suffering? Surely you could take the money we have blown on this senseless war and used it more wisely here on education, homeless, feeding the hngry, or paying off the national debt.

The sad reality is that the current administration took a surplus and turned it into a negative balance that my kids will have to pay off. How freaking fair is that? In the mean time, I get to pay into social security with the knowledge of when its my return to retire, none will be there for me other than my teachers retirement fund and what I manage to save and invest.

If WMD were discovered, then I would agree the war was justified. But even the President has admitted that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How do they spin it? "Well, they probably moved it." So it is ok for him to speculate and guess without the facts but its wrong for the citizens he governs to do the same. Its no different than those that speculated that when Bush was reading stories to the kids in Florida when the planes struck the WTC, that he knew it was an attack and kept on reading until the second plane hit. No one can prove it but plenty have speculated on it.

Isn't it funny that EVERY war we have been in other than the British and Civil, has taken place on foreign land. We bomb their lands and structures and create a massive loss of life. Yet, I dont see any wars being declared on us from other countries. We bomb Afgahnistan becaused they house terror camps and then right after, we give them money to build it back up. We did the same thing for Japan. That is exactly why North Korena wants to fight. They want a piece of the pie as well.

Furthermore, why does the US feel the need to insert itself in every incident in the world? IMO, thats exactly why the world views us in such a negative way. We act is we are the world's keeper or its big brother and we know what is right and wrong and then pressure other countries to confirm to our way of thought. This is exactly like the religious crusades.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Without an effective response, there is no effective deterrent, and they can do pretty much what they damn well please, once they have their hands on WMD."

Gee, havent we caught Bin Laden yet? Thats right, hes no longer a top priority. Too hard to catch, easier to invade a country that didnt attack us.


"However, even though I don't agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the reason I don't stand firmly opposed to the war is the idea of having the word "probably" in the same sentence with "terrorists" and "WMD." The old saying is that "close" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. The same can be said about "probably."


Sorry but I cannot accept "probably" when innocent people are dying.So we kill people (Iraqi citizens) who's only crime is they live in a country that was lead by a dictator known for perpatrating vicious crimes so we can "feel safe" here on the home front? How American of us. If we believe in human rights, then why dont those they suspect to have WMD have a right to be innocent until proven guilty? 9/11 didnt change our bill of rights, it is power hungry politicians (Pubs AND Dems).


johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2005, 11:59 PM
We have not found them and we have NO PROOF that they had at the time we decided to declare war.

You are correct. However, the point I already made, and which you missed, is that every country in the United Nations that voted for the countless resolutions against Iraq, over the period of many years, believed they had WMD. If these countries didn't believe this, then why did they authorized the UN to have inspectors in that country for ten years?

Answer: Because everyone, not just some crazy president of ours, believed those weapons existed. Jeesh, wake up and understand the obvious!

... but for us to invade a country under lies and false pretenses

We did no such thing. See my explanation above. There were no lies or false pretenses. All United Nations countries believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.

The truth is Bush figured he would waltz into Iraq, conquer the country, capture Saddam and work out a sweet deal for oil.

Exactly what would such a "sweet deal" look like? What sweet deals has Bush or Clinton, or Bush #1 worked out? I keep hearing "it's all about oil," and I heard in the first Gulf War, but not one detail of these deals is ever described. To all those reading this, ask yourself, what oil deals have resulted from the U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past ten years? That, of course, is because there is no deal, sweet or otherwise (and why do they call it "sweet crude" anyway?).


North Korea is a much bigger threat to world security with their nuclear weapons than Saddam was to us.

Well, you certainly have mastered the job of quoting the moveon.org playbook. They always bring up North Korea. OK, if Al Gore or Kerry were in office, what would they be doing about North Korea? Should we invade? Blockade? Assassinate their leader? Oh, I know, how about economic sanctions? How about a nice oil for food program? Point is, no one ever follows up this statement about Bush ignoring North Korea with even the hint of a real alternative plan about what Bush should be doing there. Would you be happier if he decided to invade Korea? Is that what you are suggesting? Actually, are you suggesting any course of action?

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, Bush has been working with the other countries in that region to force North Korea into a position where they must bargain. The dynamics in that region are completely, totally different than in the Middle East, and therefore require different tactics.

In the mean time, I get to pay into social security with the knowledge of when its my return to retire, none will be there for me other than my teachers retirement fund and what I manage to save and invest.

Actually, that is something Bush is trying to do something about, unlike any of his predecessors. He's the only president who has had the gonads to touch the "third rail" and propose reforms that might actually save the system. If you actually understood the economics involved, you would know that spending on the war (or highways, or prescription drugs, or welfare, or any other huge expenditure) is not what is causing Social Security to go bankrupt. Instead, it is a direct function of the baby boom demographic, coupled with lower birthrates and longer lifespans (and a few other things) that has dramatically reduced the ratio of people that pay into the system compared to those that take payments out of the system. None of the things I mentioned (including the Iraq war or the hurricane relief) are funded by taking money out of Social Security. In case you never noticed, on your pay check, Social Security is a separate payment from your tax payment.

Isn't it funny that EVERY war we have been in other than the British and Civil, has taken place on foreign land. We bomb their lands and structures and create a massive loss of life. Yet, I dont see any wars being declared on us from other countries. We bomb Afgahnistan becaused they house terror camps and then right after, we give them money to build it back up. We did the same thing for Japan. That is exactly why North Korena wants to fight. They want a piece of the pie as well.

I couldn't agree more. The United States should have stayed out of World War I and World War II and let Europe destroy itself. In addition, you are absolutely right that we should have let Japan and Germany simply smoulder after WWII instead of spending all that Marshall Plan money to build them back up again. As I am sure you remember, that worked really well when we let Germany rebuild on its own after the first world war.

"Without an effective response, there is no effective deterrent, and they can do pretty much what they damn well please, once they have their hands on WMD."

I have read your above response to my statement, but even after several readings, I have absolutely no idea what the failure to catch Bin Laden has to do with providing a deterrent to asymetric warfare.


So we kill people (Iraqi citizens) who's only crime is they live in a country that was lead by a dictator known for perpatrating vicious crimes so we can "feel safe" here on the home front?

Yes, you are absolutely correct: It is the American soldiers that have killed all those Iraqi civilians the past two years. Every night I read about how our soldiers are going out, shooting innocent people.

Right.

Do you actually believe this??? Hello? Unless I have totally missed something, except for the civilians that were killed during our invasion 2 1/2 years ago, virtually every civilian death since that time has been from the terrorists killing innocent men, women, and children, mostly via car bombs. They have been slaughtering their own people fifty or a hundred at a time. How can you totally twist or ignore basic facts that are reported nightly by every news service in the country? If it was just you that believed this stuff, I would let it go, but there are too many people that believe all this propaganda put out by moveon.org and then parroted -- almost word-for-word -- to the point that it begins to sound like some bad sci-fi movie.
craftech wrote on 9/12/2005, 6:35 AM
John,

Although it is tempting, I really don't want to start responding to this discussion about the Iraq war because it will sidestep the theme of the thread. Suffice it to say that I believe the same dispensers of misinformation are at play here, but I am sure I will end up providing links to documentation to build a case and although I won't intend to make it long it probably will end up being at least as long as the timeline I posted above.

In summary: Why don't you start a new thread?

Regards,
John
Coursedesign wrote on 9/12/2005, 9:31 AM
What an amazing bunch of revisionism! Jack Kelly must be channeling Stalin's apologists of yore, "the Gulags are really vacation camps..."

He is saying very clearly that the military couldn't have been expected to deliver any aid sooner, because the airports were closed and many bridges out.

Hmmm, I guess that's why it's taking so long to win in Iraq, because the airports were closed and the bridges out.

Even if you decide that the HUGE transport helicopters owned by the military were too expensive to use for delivering water and food to Southerners...

How about NOT turning away Walmart's HUGE trucks when they arrived over the non-existent bridges to deliver tens of thousands of bottles of water?

How about NOT turning the Red Cross away when they arrived with trained crews, equipment and supplies across the non-existent bridges far away from airports?

How about not recruting 1,000 highly qualified firefighters from across the country to come and help with immediate search and rescue, and then let them sit in a Hilton Atlanta ballroom for A WHOLE DAY to listen to lectures on Sexual Harrassment, and after all that, ask them to put on FEMA T-shirts and walk around N.O. to tell anybody who needs help to call FEMA's toll-free number 1-800-HVNICEDAY?

How about not telling people who are calling FEMA for urgent lifesaving help NOW to fax in an application, then when told that the caller is standing in a field ask for their e-mail address?

Etc., etc.

I think Jack is making a case that the people in New Orleans would have been better off without the feds turning help away while spending a week thinking about what to do.

Responsibility can't be delegated, that's the simple rule that anybody in charge has had to live with for the last couple of thousand years.