Ask Yourself This

[Deb & Bill]

Good post, NED.

 

[snowy76]

It's not ridiculous at all. Many people may have become complacent after 9-11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It's good to realize that we are all basically on our own when it comes right down to it.

To think otherwise would be like leaving our front doors unlocked and open because we expect police to be our personal bodyguards at all hours. Or like sleeping with a lit cigarette because that fire department is there to take care of it, right?

I think on this point, political persuasion plays no part.

The Mormons have prioritized disaster preparedness for years (we're talking whole websites with supply kits, etc., just do a search). They're right on the ball with this one. You can't be complacent about this type of thing anymore. It could be a hurricane or a terror attack -- who's going to take better care of you than you??

 

[What the Heck]

Then why do you have a government at all?

You are talking about anarchy.

Then why have a State government at all? A City government? Why you are talking about is despotism.

 

[snowy76]

Anyone who's thinking they need to step up their own efforts to be ready...
http://www.ready.gov/index.html

 

[What the Heck]

I think it is amazing that people EVER though that the govt could 'ensure' the safety of the citizens during a large scale attack or disaster. That is an impossibility no matter what planning even the most brilliant amongst us could come up with and the most efficient could implement. We would have to have a body guard for every 5 people to do that.

I have never expected that the government would 'take care of me'. I have always thought they would do what they can and the rest is up to me. It is a BIG country, we have to be a little more self reliant and make our own plans for 'what ifs' because even in a small disaster, it usually takes time for others to bring resources to us.

I guess it is just that everyone has different expectations.

Well said.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Someone posted on another thread that natural disaster is a local/state event...while an attack is not. An attack would not necessitate waiting for the states permission to do anything. While a natural disaster does.

So yes--the response would have been different because it could happen much sooner and without the need for state permission.

In any case--we should all be prepared for something as help--even when immediate to an area, can be a long way off.

 

[Charade]

I agree with this so much!

I was naive in 2001. I remember watching all the people rushing ot stockpile food, water, and masks, and I thought, what is wrong with those people? If someone attacks, and I survive, this is America. I WILL be taken care of. Period.


Now, I have an entirely different perspective. I felt more secure in my country's ability to handle disaster during 9/11 than I do now. I worry now, what if something horrible happens in my area. What will we do? Will anyone come and help me?

By who? Where does personal responsibility come in if you are able bodied?

 

[totalia]

Then why have a State government at all? A City government? Why you are talking about is despotism.

Where do you get that?

How is it despotism to expect the gvt to have disaster relief plans in the work and to respond immediately to an extreme disaster to save the lives of their people instead of cutting birthday cake and playing the guitar?

If thats despotism, then so be it.

Better than thousands of dead.

If they can't handle a natural disaster, then how the hell are they going to be able to handle a major nuclear attack?

 

[Charade]

They're not prepared for anything and to rely on them would be foolish.. It wouldn't matter if it were a nuclear attack, biological attack, another massive hurricane, spaceships from Mars - you name it..

That's a load of baloney. They are prepared. Prepared to handle *this* with 100 percent efficiency? Nope but to say they aren't prepared for anything is out and out false.

You better figure out how to fend for yourself and figure it out now.. About the only people you can really depend on are the "every day people" - not the ones who are supposed to be in "charge" of leading this country through a major disaster..

That's a good thing to do regardless of how you feel about those "in charge".

 

[Charade]

Thank you! I haven't had that good of a laugh in days...

Hey, don't come asking to borrow some of mine when the poop hits the fan.

 

[staci]

By who? Where does personal responsibility come in if you are able bodied?

If you would have taken the time to actually READ my post, I said that I WAS NAIVE in 2001, I was talking in the PAST TENSE.



Why do people have to be mean if they dont even read the whole post?

 

[Charade]

Yup, that's what this whole situation has taught me.

No matter how much our "leader" talks, when push came to shove, he didn't walk the walk. He laid down like a little puppy and is now blaming everyone he can find for telling him to "heel". I thought this guy was supposed to be a tough, man's man? No real man would have watched what happened and sat on his hands for days. A real man would have demanded that every helicopter available be used to rescue and deliver supplies to those poor people who we all watched DIE on TV. A real man wouldn't have been cutting cake at a photo op as the flood waters rolled in.

The wheels have been coming off the bus for a long time. When I think that we impeached Clinton for not being honest about having oral sex, it really puts this in perspective. It is unfathomable to me that some people condemn Clinton for that, but not Bush for, oh, I don't know, going against the U.N. and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, or not getting just some frickin' water to those poor people in the superdome.

I found it ironic at best when I just read a few minutes ago that we are now asking for supplies from the UN. First of all...we don't have supplies in America??? Second of all, how dare we ask them for help after we gave them the finger over the war. We want them there when it benefits the agenda, and ignore them when it doesn't.

N.E.D.

(That's not to say I'm not terribly happy for any help these poor people give, I just can't believe we had the nerve to ask them after we shunned them. It's no wonder Bush wants to seperate us from the World Court - I bet he's honestly worried about ending up on trial himself)

This gets three...

 

[What the Heck]

Where do you get that?

How is it despotism to expect the gvt to have disaster relief plans in the work and to respond immediately to an extreme disaster to save the lives of their people instead of cutting birthday cake and playing the guitar?

If thats despotism, then so be it.

Better than thousands of dead.

If they can't handle a natural disaster, then how the hell are they going to be able to handle a major nuclear attack?

We differ on which governemtn should be responding first. In order to respond immediately, the troops would have had to be there, which means they would have been victims, not rescuers. It also means that the city and state governments would have relinqueshed their responsibility and authority - why not have them do that now? Lets give the responsibility for everythign in the nation, garbage control, police control, fire control, over to the federal government. What a good idea that would be - not. And your response would be that you don't think they should, but it is exactly what you are blaming the federal government for not doing. Evacuation plans belong to the local government, as they should. Disaster recovery plans belong to the local government as they should. Rescue responses belong to the local government as they should. A major nuclear attack is a military response that belongs to the federal government, it is not a natural disaster.

 

[Charade]

If you would have taken the time to actually READ my post, I said that I WAS NAIVE in 2001, I was talking in the PAST TENSE.



Why do people have to be mean if they dont even read the whole post?

I did read your post. Twice. I'm not trying to be mean. I'd still like to know where does personal responsibility come in?

 

[What the Heck]

That's basically what I and my family asked by Tuesday,
(and we're still discussing it)!
If it was the same scenario, would FEMA be insisting on
the correct forms in the correct order to be dispatched first?
Would the Pentagon be waiting for the National Guard,
or any branch of our military to be given permission
to enter the strike zone?

We have retired military in our family,
and perhaps some would be surprised to know that during
the Cold War we knew that Russia had plans to
destroy our levees, they recoginized a weakness - including Louisiana.

Exactly how is a military attack similar to a natural disaster? You have retired military in your family - how many would advocate a takeover of power by another governmental agency? How many of them would have said when something was wrong "I have to wait for the Navy to take care of this Army problem"? How many would advocate the military take over of civilian authority at any time, which is exactly the only way they could have gone in before being asked? I'm sure they would be appalled at the mere suggestion of any of these things, which is exactly what we are really talking about.

 

[totalia]

We differ on which governemtn should be responding first. In order to respond immediately, the troops would have had to be there, which means they would have been victims, not rescuers. It also means that the city and state governments would have relinqueshed their responsibility and authority - why not have them do that now? Lets give the responsibility for everythign in the nation, garbage control, police control, fire control, over to the federal government. What a good idea that would be - not. And your response would be that you don't think they should, but it is exactly what you are blaming the federal government for not doing. Evacuation plans belong to the local government, as they should. Disaster recovery plans belong to the local government as they should. Rescue responses belong to the local government as they should. A major nuclear attack is a military response that belongs to the federal government, it is not a natural disaster.

Were you even watching the news?

Did you even notice the NOPD out there? Why do you think the cops are freaking out? THEY were the ones dealing with it all while the feds took forever to help.

Have you even been watching the news as this has been going on?

 

[totalia]

Ahh I see, so... Homeland Security only applies to someone trying to bomb your country. National disasters mean nothing and only are to be dealt with by local gvt and the feds can just shrug it all off because its up to the people to survive or die on their own.

I mean, they aren't dying from gun shots or bombs so let them all starve and dehydrate to death on their roof knowing that no one cares whether they live or die.

Do you understand that what you are suggesting will weaken your country and make it vulnerable to attack from outside as your citizens know they can't count on anyone but themselves?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Were you even watching the news?

Did you even notice the NOPD out there? Why do you think the cops are freaking out? THEY were the ones dealing with it all while the feds took forever to help.

Have you even been watching the news as this has been going on?

Regardless--it is the governors responsibility to okay entry--per our constitution. The states run themselves.

An "attack" of war needs no permission. A natural disaster is not an attack.

(someone posted all this on another thread--I have lost it..so this is what I remember).

I agree response was slow--but we may find it was b/c the governor had something to do with that. I do hope that in the future--that the pre-natural disaster declaration will be the automatic implied permission.

I assumed that when you are declared a federal disaster in advance--as Louisiana was...that that was the permission necessary to enter afterwards.
Seems like that isn't the case.

 

[totalia]

People were dying. You enter other countries without permission to "save them". Why is it so horrible to enter an area of your own country to save them?

Now, let's look at the definition of security....

http://www.dictionary.com

gives the definition of security as

1. Freedom from risk or danger; safety.
2. Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.
3. Something that gives or assures safety
4. Something deposited or given as assurance of the fulfillment of an obligation; a pledge.
5. One who undertakes to fulfill the obligation of another; a surety.
6. A document indicating ownership or creditorship; a stock certificate or bond.

hmm, seems security is meant to help with the exact problem we saw from this hurricane. Yet, that security meant very little. Billions spent that mean nothing.

 

[ThAnswr]

Then why do you have a government at all?

You are talking about anarchy.

Let me explain this line of thinking. The righties have this belief in social Darwinism and they all think they're at the top of the food chain and will always be there. That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell.

What happened in the Gulf Coast could happen to any of us. Any of us, at any time, can find ourselves out of food, out of water, and out of communication with the outside world. Limbaugh will not be there to hand you a bottle of water, nor will O'Reilly hand you some food. Although, he may make a suggestion involving a loofa.......ahem.

Maybe all the righties can sign a paper so that in the next national emergency, we could just pass them by because they don't need any of the government help because they've exercised "personal responsiblity".

Any takers?