New Orleans, the shame of America

Bladite said:
we won't mention the fact that despite having record surplus amount of crude, a real bottle neck is refining - they've deliberately crippled what we've got, shut some down, won't allow new ones to be built.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with the lack of new refineries is likely that there is a lack of acerage where they'd be welcome/allowed. I found a few articles about the NIMBY factor.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040523-094456-3399r.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2102031/

As for New Orleans and FEMA, such abuses of charity aren't unique to NO. We've seen similar scams and abuses during Rita and the Tsunami disaster, to name only a few examples.

Bob
 
Well, in response to a couple of other posts, all I know is that if this is a "war for cheap oil" I'm not seeing any of it yet out here! :eek: To the contrary actually.

Like Bladite I am also concerned about the cost in human lives and of course to our treasury. Last I calculated we are spending $330 million plus every 24 hours... So, what is that, more than a quarter million dollars a minute? I don't care what country you're from or how rich you are, that cannot be sustained for years. Time to wrap it up and get our guys back home.

Norm
 
I hate political threads. I never used to have to read them...now I have to.

I am not happy about this.

Ya'll quit bickering please...be nice in here or take it to Whine & Cheese.


Oh yeah...this is a family forum...watch yer language.
 
hey 45-70,
Sorry to bother you so much. I guess you don't agree with me, and that is 100% OK, you must have an opinion, so share it! That is what this forum is for, at least that is what it looks like.
I will try not to tread on you, but that is probably impossible, so at least understand that my opinions do not make you a bad person, and you don't have to question your own worth because we do not agree. It really is no problem.
OK? can we part as friends? Who knows, if we met in real life we might like to go shooting together or something. Every shoot a muzzleloader? You can try mine if you like.
 
Big Bob said:
Part of the problem with the lack of new refineries is likely that there is a lack of acerage where they'd be welcome/allowed. I found a few articles about the NIMBY factor.
[
Click to expand...

The NIMBY factor is really beginning to chap my south end. This year's hurricane season is just beginning to roll out and the storms will once again be head for the knocked-down refineries which were set back up to be knocked down again. Maybe next year they will start building some on the St. Lawrence Seaway where the storms have no names.
 
Bob, you're absolutely right about the NIMBY thing. And it ain't just a problem for refineries. Up here in the north east a lot of people who call themselves environmentalists are opposing wind power for no other reason than it messes up their view (of the hills or of the ocean). They all want alternative energy, they just don't want to look at it. And that's a technology that has virtually no negative side effects on the local population.

Norm, as far as the war for oil argument (and maybe this is what you were trying to say), while it probably was for oil, the insurgents have done a damed good job at disrupting it, so for now at least it's almost having the opposite effect on oil prices.
 
I just had to look into this thread to see why it was so controversial. It seemed ok and then I saw this.

DGG said:
Last I heard the half life of radioactive plutonium was 25,000 years and it only takes a couple of atoms of the stuff to kill you.
Click to expand...

Actually the half life of Pu-239 is 24,110 years! No wonder this thread is so controversial!

That means if you had 2 atoms of Pu-239 in your body for 24,110 years, One of them would have probably decayed, releasing a single 5.245 MeV alpha particle during that time. Since we are surrounded by natural chemicals that emit 5 MeV alphas, and our bodies experience many alpha decay events every hour, having 2 atoms of Pu-239 in you is probably safer than just about any other activity you can name. Certainly safer than eating a peanut butter sandwich or drinking a can of pop.

Man, now I see why everybody was up-in-arms about this thread. ;)
 
Howard, thanks for clearing that up! I suspect the thread will wither and die now that we have taken care of the controversy.
 
The_Shadow said:
DGG- You are correct about nukes. However, Saddam did not have nukes. He didn't have anything. Our own inteligence said he didn't have anything. But, we LIED about it, said he had something, and went in anyway. Who knows why?
If you and I meet on the street and you look at me funny, can I whip out my gun and shoot you? Can I tell the cops "I thought he had a shotgun behind his back and he was going to shoot me, so I shot him first"
Would this argument stand up when we looked, and you were unarmed?
How about when witnesses said you had both hands up in the air before I shot you, and they were plainly empty?
I don't think so.
But, we think it is OK to go after a country even if they are proven to have nothing. Why is that OK? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Where do you get your information? He only gassed a couple thousand Iranians during that war and many Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. I have no doubt the was trying to obtain radioactive weapons from foreign sources. He had a missle program to attack Israel.

Here is some of my resources, where are yours? And if you knew I was a mass murderer and supported the bombing of your house and killed your family, even though I didn't specifically aim a gun at you I that based on your knowledge of my history and prior behavior you had a right to defend yourself. Wouldn't you agree?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25?language=printer

Their nuclear program was transferred over to Iran.
 
Howard Wallace said:
I just had to look into this thread to see why it was so controversial. It seemed ok and then I saw this.



Actually the half life of Pu-239 is 24,110 years! No wonder this thread is so controversial!

That means if you had 2 atoms of Pu-239 in your body for 24,110 years, One of them would have probably decayed, releasing a single 5.245 MeV alpha particle during that time. Since we are surrounded by natural chemicals that emit 5 MeV alphas, and our bodies experience many alpha decay events every hour, having 2 atoms of Pu-239 in you is probably safer than just about any other activity you can name. Certainly safer than eating a peanut butter sandwich or drinking a can of pop.

Man, now I see why everybody was up-in-arms about this thread. ;)
Click to expand...


I'm glad to see you are a fan of plutonium, and a expert besides. So it is a nice safe substance we don't have to worry about at all. I stand corrected!
 
Why not? It made me laugh, and God knows we need someone around here who can accurately count atoms.



munk
 
DGG,
Now that is a conspiracy I never heard before! Saddam gave his nukes to Iran, his sworn enemy! I guess anything is possible. The one I like better is that he took it all to Syria and buried it in the desert somewhere. I even heard that we had people searching that desert, but all that seems to have died down.
You know, I agree that Saddam was no good. I also agree that it is not bad that he is out of power. What I don't agree with is:
1. Without a declaration of war, we just go in and take over.
2. Against the advice of pretty much the whole world, we just go in and take over
3. With no evidence at all, we just go in and take over

The story about Saddam looking for uranium in Africa turned out to be bogus. The story about his chemical weapons turned out to be bogus. Yep, he HAD them, but lo and behold, he got rid of them after the '91 war! Of course, he continued to talk tough, to act like he was still armed. I guess he was the victim of his own rhetoric, in a way.
And, as for your idea, "And if you knew I was a mass murderer and supported the bombing of your house and killed your family, even though I didn't specifically aim a gun at you I that based on your knowledge of my history and prior behavior you had a right to defend yourself. Wouldn't you agree?"
I would have to say, yes, I certainly agree!
But any court in the USA would have me behind bars for murder if I shot you while you posed no immediate threat. That's just the way it is, and if our president decides that he does not have to follow the law, where does it end?
 
Shadow;
Uh...there is no proof, none, that Saddam got 'rid' of his chemical arsenol after the war with Iran.

We found some missiles with chemical warheads. We believe many of the materials were taken to Syria before the the second gulf war began.

However, let's look at this: if Saddam had nothing, and wished to continue the lucrative contracts he had with France under the 'embargo', why would he not allow weapons inspections?

Remember- he did not allow these inspections many months before the war.

That does not pass any smell test from any practical sense.

>>>>>>>

Lets skip all that. The Middle east is full of sympathy to the new Wahhabi Islam after decades of the Royal families playing off the 'satan' US against the poverty of their populations. Saddam was an unstable regime in a post 9-11 world. If we'd taken a chance, and not gone in, and St Louis nuked or poisened, what then?

How long before a narcistic and insane regime would aid the defeat of the West? That was one of his stated goals. Could we trust a candy store in the middle east after 9-11?

You want to gamble with Nuclear holocaust? And who do you think would suffer most under a biological or nuclear incident? The poor in the third world.

No. I'll admit the war was rough, it may have even been shoddy- though recall the world's premier intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WOD.

But the stakes are beyond even what many on the left consider a lie or a mistake.

let's work on success in Iraq, and getting out when possible. Let's work on limiting the Patriot act as neccesary. But let's win this War with Terror.

Let's look at one more thing; Lybia gave in. The effects of a Democratic Iraq will be devastating to the Religious rulers in Iran, with the large middle class disliking the restraint of freedom, and the shock waves of democratic freedom will shake Saudi and the rest.

Sorry all, but if you believe in freedom, this is not a court room game, the stakes are life and death, and call for bold moves.

I'd like to share with you the most cynical belief I have for times like these- what I call the movement of history, a time of the Whirlwind: and that sad fact, is that in many respects it does not, and did not matter who we hit after 9-11. When you play for keeps, the innocents are not spared. But Iraq was a master stroke, because if succesfull, it accomplishes so many good things.

I'm sorry many of you do not understand this is a new time, a time without borders, and will require the worst and best in us.

munk
 
Its good to have your help in this debate Munk. There is a big picture. A pro American strategy, and Iraq was a part of that strategy. Once there is a stable democratic Iraq the unstable Oil nations in the region will have less sway over us. Additionally the internal pressure of the Iranian youth to have the freedoms enjoyed in Iraq will be immense. It may save you softies from another bombing campagne over Iran which I hope to hear has started as I type this. Keep surrendering, but I'll just hold firm. Your grandkids will thank me for having a spine.
 
I think Saddam did not allow weapons inspections to keep up his sham that he HAD weapons!
This guy was, at the time of the invasion, all talk and no backup. He did not want the world to find out that he was empty handed. It was a bluff, and it did not work well for him.
The intel did not say Iraq had WMD until Bush demanded that the intel say Iraq had WMD.
I understand what you are saying, Munk, and if we are to win the war on terror we have two options. Option one is to create a life for the average guy in the Middle East so that he has something to lose and is not so quick to strap on a suicide bomb because he truly has no reason to live.
Option Two is to become more terrible than the terrorists and beat them at their own game until they are too frightened to move, and then keep on beating at them so they die before they move again. Then, if the next generation tries it again, beat them as well.
What we are doing now, which is half-baked war, will not cut it if we are trying Option Two. You cannot send in Marines and then get mad at them if they kill civilians for whatever reason. You cannot tell the intel guys to get information by any means necessary and then send the people to jail who torture the prisoners. It's two-faced and it will not work. No WONDER they cannot get people to enlist! Who wants to risk jail time for following orders or fighting a battle?
No, for the money we are spending on war, we could do Option One and make friends everywhere we go. But, you and I know that will never happen. For some reason unknown to me we (humans in general, not just the USA) always think a fight is the best way to settle things.
Just put Bush and Osama on an island and give each of them a kuk. Whoever is left can have it all.
 
I sympathize with so much you're saying, Munk ... yet ... yet ...

I think a "war on terror" is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic; we might as well declare a "war on air power" or a "war on tactical nukes." As I suspect you'd agree, the conflict is one of ideologies. Of a particular brand of repressive religious thought against a nominally secular brand of less repressive thought.

I don't know the way out. Both sides have polarized, and to a degree at least, taken on the demonization that the other side has written for them. It worries me immensely. But I doubt that the way out of this conflict is through the ongoing force of arms. Through history, no foreign power has militarily subdued the Afghanis, for instance - I doubt that the coalition will be the first to succeed.

Likely, we need to make it painful enough for the jihadists that they choose to leave us alone. Paradoxically, that's what some jihadists have been saying in reverse ... they need to make it painful enough for US, that we choose to leave them alone.

Either way, the resolution, if there is to be one, can only come through talking, and understanding. The way we use all our tools of statecraft ... including force ... must inexorably accept and promote that. Otherwise, we'll be taking casualties in this GWOT forever after.
 
Tom;
The conflict is not one of ideologies. Only if you think mass murder the equal of law and peace.
Anyone can have an 'ideology'. The SDS had an 'ideology'.

Now, if you mean the final and best results will be achieved through understanding- though education- I'm with you. How much better to achieve that education and truth through a democracy established in the Middle East.

Civilization as we know it has been threatened- and this the threat that many generations after us will face. It is not transitory, it is not solved in a year of hard work, or the best diplomacy.

Car jacking started as a rite of passage in LA because LA citizens were disarmed. There was no rebuttal- no defense- no consequences.

IN a world of no value, of 'equal' values, in a world where France is talking one game while accepting bribes and oil from a criminal regime, We ACTED.

Sorry. This is not a court room exercise. This is not business as usual.
This required guts and future thinking.

Just think- when sanctions were in place- the critics said 'the US starved 2 million children with sanctions" When we 'invaded Iraq the critics said, 'Give the Sanctions time to work."

No go, Tom. I'm against war, but this is history, big history.

Even a dog has the right to self defense. And everything man has struggled to achieve in civilization is today is not a dog's work.

Glad to see you enter the debate. You are thoughtfull and can add much.


munk
 
Shit. What do you do when you write the best speeches, but are just as lonely and hopefull for the future as those who disagree with you?

I missed my calling in life.
I really should have been the guy in the big corporation, the one who wore the Washington Senators baseball cap while he stood in the alligator ivy with his two prong steel, waiting to turn the next bank of sprinklers on...


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top