Hurricane!

[Volourn]

"The mere fact that police officers have specialized teams such as SWAT is evident that police are not trained for a wide variety of emergencies, particularly unusual ones."

 

Haha. The same can be said why there are so many specialized training for the army too. And, as Iraq proof, the typical army is not well trained to deal with mass looting and what not. The army is trained for WAR; not for civilian control. Last I checked, a hurricane is NOT a war.

[Judge Hades]

Tell that to W and his cronies.

[Volourn]

Irrelevant comment.

[Judge Hades]

Yep, and these forums are full of them.

[Volourn]

You got me there.

[Judge Hades]

Of course I do.

[alanschu]

"The mere fact that police officers have specialized teams such as SWAT is evident that police are not trained for a wide variety of emergencies, particularly unusual ones."

 

Haha. The same can be said why there are so many specialized training for the army too. And, as Iraq proof, the typical army is not well trained to deal with mass looting and what not. The army is trained for WAR; not for civilian control. Last I checked, a hurricane is NOT a war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like the National Guard.

[Walsingham]

Don't the French have a specialist public control division of the police?

 

IMO the US Army should add a law-enforcement company to the order of battle. You have a specialist air defence section, why not defence against civilians? Recruit from SWAT trained police officers so they are used to dealing with lethal force under restrictions of law.

[LoneWolf16]

Good idea, Walsingham. Though wouldn't MPs fit the bill?

[Cantousent]

You're not going to get SWAT members to go to the military. It'd be a huge pay cut.

[alanschu]

I have no idea how much a SWAT member makes.

 

SWAT members are usually ex-Military though anyways. I don't think you'd need to hire SWAT members, but just train soldiers that are already good candidates for SWAT teams as it is.

[Lucius]

How about re-hireing those mercenaries you have in Iraq to help out NO instead? It might not be the same 1000$-a-day paycheck, but they'll at least get to do something noble.

[Walsingham]

How about re-hireing those mercenaries you have in Iraq to help out NO instead? It might not be the same 1000$-a-day paycheck, but they'll at least get to do something noble. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh. You don't know many mercs, do you mate?

[Lucius]

I've only ever met one, in Barcelona, and he was retired (not to mention drunk and poor). ^_^

[Commissar]

ROBERTSON BLAMES HURRICANE ON CHOICE OF ELLEN DEGENERES TO HOST EMMYS

Lesbian is New Orleans native

 

 

Hollywood

[Cantousent]

Source? I'm assuming this is a satire from some webpage or another. ...Or is this a legitimate news article?

[EnderAndrew]

I imagine it was satire, but my father in law did try to convince me the real problem with Katrina is the welfare system. With Andrews, we had no problem rescuing people. But with Katrina, people are looting, shooting at cops, etc. And he feels the welfare system created that environment.

[Calax]

well then... I think your dads wrong. and thats all I'm going to say before I shoot my mouth off.

[EnderAndrew]

I think he is wrong as well.

 

However he believes that if you don't own your home and have no insurance, then you are less likely to evacuate. All you have is likely in your residence, and if you leave, you'll lose it. Those that own homes and have insurance know they'll be taken care of.

 

However people who rent, and likely rent on Section-8 assistance have less reason to leave.

 

Given the rampant poverty, some argue that looting and violence is a logical conclusion.

 

I argued that poverty was the problem then, and not welfare. However he believes that the welfare system keeps people trapped in their state. Removing the welfare system forces people to sink or swim. I don't know that I agree with him, however I do agree that welfare needs serious, serious reform.

[alanschu]

I'd argue for poverty as well.

 

I'm not 100% sure how welfare is handled in the States, but I definitely hear not so glowing reviews about it. Though people can be anti-American.

 

I'm not a fan of "sink or swim" either. Things were like that before the Great Depression IIRC. Plus, leaving people to die and starve seems, well, rather cold to me.

 

I have no real problems with the idea behind welfare. The problem is that there are always those that take advantage of it. But I think it still serves the greater good of society.

 

But I'm Canadian, which makes me a Socialist and borderline Communist right? :D

[EnderAndrew]

Up in the employee break room they had Fox News on. I swear I wouldn't willingly watch that channel. But they interviewed a black hurricane victim who was angling that all of this was racially motivated. FEMA did contact him mind you, and gave him a $700 debit card as well as food. He spent the debit card right away and was screaming that no one was taking care of him.

 

So the reporter (I use that term loosely with this network) asked what exactly he was looking for.

 

The victim said for starters, everyone needed to be handed $20,000 cash. He then went on to say that this was basically slavery all over again.

 

Yep, slavery.

 

The white man forced the hurricane to enslave him, naturally.

[kalimeeri]

However he believes that if you don't own your home and have no insurance, then you are less likely to evacuate.

 

People know the consequences of spending next month's rent on a motel room elsewhere better than they do the reality of a hurricane. Many don't have friends and family outside of their immediate area who will put them up. A shelter is a last resort--cots and unfamiliar people crammed into a stuffy, confined space, limited bathroom facilities, dry sandwiches, kids running everywhere in the excitement--not really an attractive choice for anyone who has a space to call his own. Staying home with familiar possessions also engenders a sense of security; by the time they realize it wasn't such a good idea, it's too late to go anywhere.

 

Nor can you discount the fact that people who grow up in a hurricane-prone area (or have lived there for a long time without incident) develop a strong sense of complacency. Dire predictions become a background litany of 'crying wolf'. Such bravado is part of local culture (as in the 'hurricane parties' in Key West). People simply refuse to leave, because they will feel like fools and look like cowards in front of their friends when the hurricane does a fly-by (as many have for New Orleans). 'Sticking it out' is a matter of pride; it's pervasive and stronger than you might think (until everything hits the fan).

[EnderAndrew]

I'm repeating the opinions of my step-father, which are not my opinions.

 

I live in tornado country, and there are people here who don't take tornados too seriously here because of how often we deal with them. So I understand those who felt a hurricane would be no big deal. And I'm sure a level 2 or 3 hurricane might have done nominal damage and passed, but a level 4 hurricane broke the leevies and presented new problems.

[Judge Hades]

Well, Katrina, being level 4, gave New Orleans a grazing hit and not a direct on. If Katrina hit New Orleans directly there wouldn't be any survivors. That grazing hit was the equivelent of a level 2 hurricane.

 

As for the poverty and welfare, I do think that our welfare system needs a major reform, but it is a symptom of the problem and that problem is poverty.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think the people of New Orleans who were told they could go home and then told to evacuate again are probably quite annoyed by now. Was it the mayor who made both decisions, or someone at state or federal level?