Neato, I come back to find that i've been likened to David Duke and am now a racist! Doh! I was kinda hoping for something more apocalyptic like Hitler, Darth Vader, Sauruman or better yet the Grim Reaper.

I see a lot of statements of outrage and one very funny pic of Bush vacation but I think there have only been 2 points put forward by commentators since my last post. Thank you CarolC (unlike the other posters) for putting forward actual arguements with your outrage and condemnations :).

1 One is that the problem was system wide and Mississippi was used as a supporting arguement.

2 Not all of the people that stayed were the poor black people that I described in my post.

I did not post that the problem was only in NOLA. In fact I mentioned that for some people that was the case. The use of Mississippi only shows that if there was a failure there, then you have two governors that have failed. But that didn't happen to the degree that happened in LA. Fema is there to support local efforts and to provide funds/supplies not to replace local efforts.

I do agree with you that there are problems all along the decision making process going back decades. The point I was making was in the context of the immediate response. There is plenty of blame (and primarily on local officials) available for not being prepared, building under sea level, not making strong enough levees.

On the second point, we are given two alternatives.
-one people couldnt leave
-two people decided to stay

In the former, I thought I expressed why many didn't and why liberals were to blame for it.

In the latter, if one makes a decision, then they have to take a certain amount of personal responsibility. Yes I think we should 'save' them, but I less sympathy for someone who make a gamble with staying after mandatory evacution orders were sent out.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But since you wanted to bring up the military....

I was a little surprised that someone from the left would use the military in their arguement. I am of the opinion that the left hate the military, so it seemed a little disengenius for them to be used in a arguement.


I posted elswhere:
On Liberals and the Military

I think you can trace the lefts disdain for the military to the 60's and early 70's. The Vietnam war polarized our country and drew up lines that we are still living with.

Liberals hate the military because:
-The left have a tendency for pacifism
-The left would prefer to negotiate in excess of what is reasonable
-The left underestimate international adversaries and what they are capable of.
-The left Protest and harm our troops. They literally kill our military people.
-The left interfere with military decisions causing military people to be killed and injured.
-The left has consitently tried to decrease defense spending for the past 40 years. This has the effect of decreasing the number of available troops and decreasing the quality of weapons systems and training. This costs lives.
-The left doesn't 'understand' military culture.
-The left uses the military in inappropriate ways.

The evidence:
-There are no conservative pacifists.
-The second Gulf War showed the contradiction between the lefts two positions of a desire for an international court of laws and at the same time wishing to continue to negotiate with Saddam (and North Korea I might add). They want international laws to have meaning. But when confronted with a nation that broke UN resolutions for a decade and a half, they wavered and wanted to negotiate even more. Saddam saw negotiations as weakness.
-Liberals fundamentally misunderstand the dangerousness of dictatorships. Liberals have believed that the use of negotiation can achieve their political objectives in nearly every case. Thus they misunderstood the danger of Saddam, they misunderstand the danger of N. Korea, they misunderstood the danger of the Soviet Union.
They have consistently wanted to negotiate with these three powers.
They believe that 'Peace through Strenght' were 'just' words.
They believe that we can have a diminished military and not invite aggression.
-In Vietnam, Macnamera and the 'Whiz kids' decided military decisions that were contrary to what the Military wanted. Not allowing the military to go after SAM sites, the North or airbases outside of the South needlessly prolonged the war and killed American servicemen. A negotiated settlement was only possible after the attacks in Cambodia and the bombin of Hanoi.
-When was the last time you saw a conservative in a war protest? Right.
-Protests kill American servicemen. It happened in Vietnam, Somalia, Gulf War I and II. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. Protest change the calculation by adversaries on whether to/continue to fight.

In the case of Vietnam, the war was elongated longer than it had to be because politicians that were making military decisions that were counterproductive to military aims. Their decisionmaking was further influenced by political influence. This is inevitable in a democracy.

In Somalia, the president sent the military to secure relief supplies. When things got 'hot' they were removed. This was correctly seen by the military as being a case where the president did not respect the lives that were lost. For what purpose? If you are going to send in the military to do the job, then let them do it. Clinton did not, with the result that the lives that were lost were lost in vain. Liberals fundamentally to not understand military or conservative culture. When you send in a marine, you send in someone who believes in Semper Fidelius. Always faithful to God, Country and Corps. He believes that you have sent him to potentially die for God Country and Corps. When you use him and later pull him because there were casualties, it makes him wonder why he was sent there to begin with. That is his job. He is a trained killer. In his business he kills and his buddies will die. But they do it for a Cause, God Country and Corps.

In both Gulf Wars the opposition (same as in Somalia) calculated that the US would not have the political stomach for military intervention. They did not need to win the battles, they only needed to kill a few servicemen. And why shouldnt they, Vietnam showed that even if you get destroyed in battles you can still achieve your political objectives. The tet offensive was a good example of how misinformed liberals and a media disdainful of the military portrayed a battle in the most politically damaging way. Counter to what they believe, the tet offensive was a dismal failure with huge losses for the north, resulting in the dismissal of the comanding general.

The military is conservative. Honor and duty are necessary to survive. The presence of potential violence sharpens the mind to the issues that are really important. What does God, Country and Corps mean to liberals? Can it mean anything to them considering their past?