Posted by Knight:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Knight:

I guess before we go to war we should check the weather forecast for 3 years down the road to determine if any hurricanes may strike. That's the lesson we learned I guess.

Knight, you are being a little sarcastic here. You know that no one can reasonably forecast weather or other spectacular events, but you CAN plan accordingly, and it's the planning part that is killing - literally and figuratively - the American people. We vote and hire high-ranking officials and give them access to big bucks, power, and influence for the planning (and execution) part of their job. I mean really, after 9/11 a big part of the gov't focus was disaster planning. A big part of Iraq is planning and executing, and more planning for both failure and sucess, planning for the unknown and the what-ifs. That's what leaders are supposed to do, and those who don't will often times get caught with their proverbial pants down and fail. In this case, in NO, failure means death, destruction, starvation, disease, etc.

Here is my question: If a hurricane hitting NO was such a huge, obvious threat--show me the people who were yelling at the president to do something about it--where were the protests in NO before the hurricane asking for more protection? I'm sure you will find a couple people who have talked about the possibility of a hurricane hitting because it was their job to determine that risk--but there was no public outcry until **** hit the fan. Now everyone wants to blame Bush for not forecasting this. What if NO was prepared for a hurricane but not the size of Katrina? Should you prepare for the biggest hurricane imaginable? Does government always have to plan for the absolute worst case scenario?

The gov't should at least look at the top three:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/opinion/02krugman.html

A Can't-Do Government
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all." It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening.

Also, read the thread again, there were plenty of examples of people and organizations asking for $ for protection around NO.

There is no single answer to that question but I have no doubt that people in the Bush administration actually perceived Iraq as a legitimate danger, directly or indirectly, to the US.

Posted by toodarkmark:

It's great to see that most of this site is politically informed and not blinded by the propaganda. But for the few that are...

GoNY: You seem to have a small grasp on reality, yet claim to have the largest. Few answers and just alot of attacks on those who question. Typical of a con. You've made the sarcastic statement a few times that the world started on 1/21/01 and thats when everything went bad. I dont know how old you are but the world was MUCHHHHH different in 1/21/01 before the neo-conservative coup de tait. And dont talk about 9-11. Im someone who works in a Career Services office and the fact is jobs went to hell within months of Bush's election. The point of a conservative power base is to destroy the middle class. And they have done everything in their power to succeed, and the fact is you dont know the numbers, you just recite something you've been fed. Take it from someone's whos job it is to track jobs in this country that 9-11 affected to job market, but not as much as the neo-conservatives attempt to cripple this country financially to drive their army recruitment.

As far as politicizing it? Thats a common reponse by a sheep. Dont ask questions! Dont think! What SHOULDNT be politicized is someone have sexual indiscretions, but when the Federal Govt cuts funding for research to save its own people, stretches its resources paper thin, all for what a majority of this country and now politicians consider a senseless war, than that sure does need to be politicized.

Knight: Hindight is not 20/20. The experts, officials and groups in charge of this told the administration, but the administration did not care. Just as experts told them there were no WMDs in IRAQ. Just as they told them that Osama Bin Ladin would attack the US months before 9-11 happened. The point is they are far too arrogant to listen, and far too into creating chaos and fear to maintain their control.

I think we went to war because, as I said, Iraq posed, directly or indirectly, a threat to the US.

Posted by toodarkmark:


Knight: Hindight is not 20/20. The experts, officials and groups in charge of this told the administration, but the administration did not care. Just as experts told them there were no WMDs in IRAQ. Just as they told them that Osama Bin Ladin would attack the US months before 9-11 happened. The point is they are far too arrogant to listen, and far too into creating chaos and fear to maintain their control.

Posted by martin:

man, this thread - not the disaster itself - is just what I needed in the Knicks dark season.

Posted by Knight:

Posted by fishmike:

I think we went to war because, as I said, Iraq posed, directly or indirectly, a threat to the US.

Are you in politics? Why wont you answer the question? Do you think Iraq was a threat to the US? Enough of a threat that merited a full scale invasion?

Its a yes or no.

I do think a full scale invasion was the only way to get rid of the Saddam regime. I think Saddam supported terrorism and was motivated to harm US interests. It's unfortunate the world community did not put more pressure on him prior to the war--but as we now see there was a lot of shady business being done in the oil for food program.