🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris wrote:
> <wrcowan1@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:43265b4c$0$10624$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> 
>>
>>Obwon wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:05:04 -0700, wrcowan1@hal-pc.org
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Obwon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"They won't let
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>anyone in there. You have to be FEMA-certified and I am
>>>>>not," he said.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have a clue why you need to be certified by FEMA?  It is so that
>>>>your actions are coordinated with others and that you understand the
>>>>scope of tasks being dealt with.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Do you have any clue as to what it means to be dying
>>>of dehydration in 100+ degree heat?  Do you think the
>>>Grim Reaper cares about your puny rules and
>>>regulations?  Do you think that death is reversible?
>>
>>That is nothing but emotionalism not reality.  People can survive
>>without water for a period of time.  No one said it is a fun time.  But
>>you have to think as to why are there rules and regulations.  Sure allow
>>people to rush in and you will have more victims.  IF you do not have
>>coordination then supplies are lost and misdirected.  If you do not have
>>those rules and regulations then you will have more deaths than you
> 
> prevent.
> 
>>>What of that Naval ship just off the coast?  Do you
>>>think that they might have been terrorists?  Trying to
>>>get in to do mayhem?  You're only saying that you'd
>>>rather die than get a cool lifesaving drink of water
>>>from someone not FEMA certified!  I'm sure you only
>>>feel that way about this issue,  just as long as it
>>>isn't yourself who is about to die.  Whatever happened
>>>to those Compassionate Conservatives?
>>
>>Gee where would you put the ship? Can not dock because the shipping
>>lanes have not been cleared.  So now you have a ship proceed in and hit
>>an obstruction and it sinks.  Now you have a major problem since now the
>>crew needs to be rescued and you have blocked the waterways that will
>>take longer to clear and restore water traffic.  Sure I want them to get
>>help but at the same token I do not want to have a situation created
>>that gets more people in trouble or even dead.
>>
>>
>>>  It's pretty cruel to let elderly and young people die
>>>of thirst while you hold up lifesaving help to get
>>>paperwork done.  If that's compassionate conservatism,
>>>then it's clearly something this nation can do without,
>>>post haste.
>>>
>>
>>It is not paperwork that was the problem.  IT was local and state
>>officals that held things up.  They failed to follow the emergency plans
>>that had written.  If they had followed them as they are required to do,
>>then the situation would have been better.  What would have been crueler
>>is having supplies going to a location that does not need them while
>>those who needed them did not get them since there was no one organizing
>>the efforts.
>>
>>MRC
> 
> 
> Bullshit.....any supplies getting in there would have been better than no
> supplies because they were disorganised. If the supplies had been in there
> then they could have gotten them to other places if needed, or the people
> could have come to them. But by having no supplies there wasn't even a
> chance...


Really?  So you think it would be better to deliver 60 cases of MREs and 
  500 gallons of water to a group of 10 people and only deliver 2 mre's 
and 5 bottles of water of supplies to a group of 200  And you keep doing 
that for 5 days.  Is that wise?  How many of the 200 will be alive or 
near death when rescued?  SO sacrifice a large portion of the two 
hundred when with proper coordination they all will get supplies.  Those 
people at most went 4 days without supplies.  They can survive that.  If 
the govenor had been willing to cooperate with the FEDs, the supplies 
would have been there sooner.

MRC