🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>>>kind of help, you don't wait on the sidelines hoping to get all your
>>>>
>>>>ducks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>in a row...it will never happen and you are just wasting time and lives
>>>>>>while trying. Don't be so stupid all of your life...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I do not say wait until everything is perfect but you can not allow
>>>>>just every joe into the area to help.  There are state and federal
>>>>>agencies that can help and do it well.  If you look back on this
>>>>>situation this operation went well on the federal side of things when
>>>>>you compare it to other Cat 4 or 5 hurricanes.  The Feds responded
>>>>>quicker when compared to Hugo and Andrew (other cat 4 and 5 hurricanes).
>>>>> The Red Cross counld not do anything since they were blocked by State
>>>>>officials (i,e. troopers snd Guardsmen)
>>>>>
>>>>>MRC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When people are dying you let in the devil himself if need be to ease their
>>>>suffering. FUCK protocol and start saving lives you heartless bastard....
>>>
>>>
>>>It is not protocol, it is using time, material and personnel wisely to 
>>>effectively help the most people.  Your emotional response shows that 
>>>you would be a walking disaster if allowed to do relief operations.
>>>
>>>MRC
>> 
>> 
>>   So then, you really do believe that it's wiser to let
>> people dehydrate and starve while you sit with your
>> pencil and paper,  and try to figure out what the most
>> efficient/effective way to feed them will be.  Well,
>> by the time you get things in an order,  satisfactory
>> only to yourself,  there will be less of a need for
>> that food and water,  you see,  a whole lot of people
>> you intend to serve will be dead.  What a loon.
>
>NO sir, that is a miscaharacterization.  

Hmmm...  So, you don't know what a mischaracterization
is!  Fine, I'll just store that little tidbit of
information away!

Now,  let's see what we have here?!?

>What I have said and have been 
>advocating is that inorder for any effective rescue or relief operation 
>to take place, you have to have the ability to control the personell in 
>the area, the ability to direct the personell, the ability to gather 
>material and the ability to disperse the material.  

  Okay,  so you still want to insist that generally
"effective" rescue depends on having "qualified" people
operating under some "organized" plan!   That's
patentedly silly!  To "pop" this misinformation
"bubble", I merely need to point out that there are
people already in the area,  with no "official"
qualifications,  who do save lives,  merely by reacting
to their observerations of need.  Boom, you're argument
goes up in smoke!  

  Here...  Let me offer you some help, before you "go
down for the third time".  What you are talking about
is the response of "Oraganised Offcial Responders".
And sure,  you'd expect them to try to maintain some
control over who gets to do what.  But,  they should
also be able to make reasonable judgements about who
should be allowed to do what.  After all,  you don't
wait for qualified people to come in and clear roads,
when there are people available who could do the job.

You certainly don't allow 25,000 people to remain in a
hot stadium without food or water for days at a time,
while you're turning down offers to bring food and
water in,  because they haven't been "cleared" to do
so.  They have food, water and vehicles and people to
make the delivery and distribute it,  you let them pass
through and get the job done regardless.  Remembering
that the children, the elderly, the sick the infirm and
the dehydrated or starving people in there, might die
if they're required to wait another hour or two.
I mean really...  Haven't you any compassion?

>The red cross was on 
>the scence and is a first responder organization.  They have personnel 
>and material to use.  They were prevented by the State.  
 
Errr...  They were prevented by FEMA!  And they were
prevented from even leaving Florida by order of Jeb
Bush!  Perhaps Florida is the "State" you mention
because you misunderstood the articles, if you read any
and aren't really parroting a party line or two.

>If there is no 
>effective control you would have instances like three wal-mart trucks 
>coming in and distributing material to an area that already recieved 
>material.  That would be a waste of material that could have gone 
>elsewhere where it was needed.  If the red cross had control of the 
>wal-mart personell and resources it could be directed to where a need 
>exists.
>
  Well, even under your imagined scenario,  the
emergency/disaster was woefully mismanaged after
billions of dollars wasted over the 4 years they had to
plan for it.  Nothing got in to where it was needed --
at the stadium -- for three days,  while Condi shopped
and took in shows her desk in D.C. was being buried
with offers of help from overseas.  While Bush cleared
shrub from his ranch, slept, ate cake and strummed his
GeeTar, he remained completely and totally unaware of
an embarrassing national disaster as it unfolded over
three days on national tv, yet!  

  CherKoff and Brown were no where in evidence,  nor
were their appointed underlings on the job either!  72
hours, 25,000 people in a sweltering stadium without
food or water,  and no one at the top knew or cared
about it.  No wonder we're getting all this "Monday
Morning Disaster Management/Photo Opery",  huh?
You guess they're not proud of their blatant
mismanagement of the effort to keep America safe, eh?


>> 
>>    You let that food in!  No matter what your visions
>> of orderly/effciency are,  it's not going to work as
>> you plan.  Professionals know that,  is why they only
>> do the most superficial planning,  get the food into
>> the area and let the people on the ground do as they
>> see fit.  
>
>No one every said that plans work perfectly.  

Hee, hee...  You've got to excuse me for laughing at
that statement!  Three days, 25,000 people, without
food or water on national tv, and you say:  "No one
ever[_]said that plans work perfectly."  

 The first problem you have is to show that there
actually was a "plan"!  Only then can you begin to
justify why that "Plan" didn't work for three whole
days.


>But there is a reason 
>plans do exist.  

 Yeah...  Your statement of the obvious does nothing to
explain why 4 long years and many millions of dollars,
in the hands of the supposedly "highly qualified" Bush
appointees, didn't result in a plan that could have at
least spared the nation the global embarrassment of
being so inept and incompetent in our response to an
emergency after all the resounding pronouncements of
commitment that followed 9-11...  You know,  like the
Patriots Act?  Shouldn't having had that passed have
had an impact on keeping America safe?  You know,  like
we were told it would?  Do you think you can come up
with a non-laughable argument that would stop the world
from laughing at us?

>It is to bring order to chaos.  

Making this statement doesn't fit your argument.  Or
didn't you notice that order wasn't brought?  That
would mean that there was no plan...  Clearly that
isn't what you intend to argue,  so why say it?  You
aren't reaching for absurdities in the effort to defend
the Bush response are you?   You do realize we've heard
these kinds of things before and the nation has grown
really tired of them.

>True proffessionals 
>know that you do get material in as fast as possible but you do not 
>allow in people who are not trained not under any type of command 
>structure.  Sure yoou let people who are already on the ground 
>distribute food but you do not let people do as they see fit.  That in 
>itself is a reciepe fo disaster.
>
  I couldl make sense of your argument,  but to do that
I'd have to assign portions of your argument to
different parts of the timeline of events!  Even then,
what you say would not make sense in the overall scheme
of things,  but it would make more sense than it does
with you simply making a string of assertions.

  You see,  the things that you are saying are only
true dependant upon where they occur in the timeline.
Since they didn't let people in to distribute food when
it was critical that they do so,  you must be talking
about the aftermath,  when the food and water weren't
needed so critcally because the stadium had been
emptied.

  Look,  when your post is held up to the actual
timeline of events that occured it doesn't make any
sense!  You are speaking about generalities,  probably
unconnected with this disaster.  If so,  then sure,
you've listed things that it would make some sense to
do in a rational fashion on a case by case basis.

But to simply string sentences, arguments and ideas
together,  ignoring events under discussion,  is a good
way to create a mistaken impression that you're trying
to say that things went well in NO, and that the
failures were excuseable.  I'm certain you're not
trying to tell us that!  I'm certain you wouldn't try
to explain away the failures we all watched on tv, read
about in the newspapers,  heard confirmed by the
Presidents own admissions and actions,  as well as what
we can still read on the highly credible blogs of
professional people and groups that were actually on
the ground there.

  Perhaps you need to take more time in constructing
your posts so that they comport a wee bit better with
reality, eh?

  Obwon  



0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
  Liars share with those they deceive 
  the desire not to be deceived.
                        --Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0