Mark, Technically, I couldn't agree more. It's just as foolish as those who build homes on ocean front property. They WILL be washed away one day.. just a bad idea. But you're never going to win the argument that we should just leave New Orleans behind.
New Orleans is there - bad idea or not - and so it needs protection. I believe it is possible to build a protection system that will withstand 500 year storms. But you have to first understand what it takes to do that, and the best way is to study your failures. What Mike continues to miss (intentionally or otherwise) is that it was the fundamental design of the levee system that failed. No armor, massive soil failure, an imbalance of various components of the system, etc. On Jan 22, 3:25 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > It does not really matter who is right. ANY idiot that thinks a man > made item can stand up to Mother Natures rage is a fool as well. > > Any person or governmental agency that builds or issues building > permits for a zone that exists below both sea and river level is at > fault as well. > > The taxpayers who allow their money to help guarantee the rebuilding > of such a zone is just as wacko as those that do or allow the > construction of anything but a swamp. > > On 1/22/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > frank to put it bluntly you are full of shit ! > > if you had done any research at all you would know that the levees > > failed because the maintenance on them was not done. and the reason it > > wasn't done was because bush cut the funding for SELA . and if you had > > bothered to think or read anything at all about the levees system you > > wold know that the corps of engineers does the work on the levees not > > the mayor or the Governor . > > On Jan 22, 11:52 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've done extensive research on this, but I seriously doubt you have. > > > Unlike you, who thrives on blaming Bush, I'm indifferent. If he's at > > > fault, I've got no problem pointing that out. But unlike you, I look > > > at the facts and make informed decisions without any preconceived > > > ideas on who to blame and no incentive to falsely assign blame for > > > political gain. > > > > You ignore the role that Blanco played in the disaster. > > > You ignore the role that Nagin played in the disaster. > > > You ignore the history of the levee system and the role the levee > > > commission played, via its corruption, negligence and mismanagement. > > > You ignore what the ACoE and NOAA said concerning the design of the > > > levees and its basic inability to resist a storm the size of Katrina. > > > > The only thing you pay attention to are the Bush cuts - cuts I would > > > consider shortsighted and ill-advised - but which, by all 'expert and > > > official' accounts - played little to no role in the disaster. You've > > > never posted anything that supports your argument other than your own > > > opinion. The ACoE is responsible for the levees. Can you post anything > > > from them saying the cuts caused the failure? Do you understand the > > > history of the levee system and do you understand that if not for > > > corruption and mismanagement, this would never have been an issue to > > > debate? Have you read the details of the actual projects affected by > > > the cuts and do you understand what they were designed to achieve? Do > > > you understand the impact of the eradication of the wetlands that > > > created a natural barrier for New Orleans, and what impact that had on > > > the disaster? I doubt you understand any of this. You just want to > > > blame Bush.. screw the details. > > > > Quote: > > > You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the > > > Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters > > > already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people > > > maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding > > > would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has > > > essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and > > > it's been more of a design issue with the levees. > > > > Quote: > > > The worst has happened in New Orleans and not everyone is surprised. > > > For years, specialists have warned that the city, built partly below > > > sea level and in an area of radically depleted wetlands, was a natural > > > disaster waiting to happen. And when it did, they said, we would have > > > no one to blame but ourselves. > > > ... > > > But, according to the US Geological Survey, Louisiana has lost 1,900 > > > square miles of wetland in the past seven decades - an area larger > > > than the state of Rhode Island. > > > > The draining of the wetlands to make way for roads, malls, beach > > > communities, marinas and condominiums has also meant shrinkage of the > > > shoreline. Louisiana, in fact, loses 25 square miles of coast every > > > year. > > > > On Jan 22, 10:33 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > like it or not the actions of G W Bush when he cut the funds for SELA > > > > caused the deaths of thousands of Americans ! > > > > and i would suggest you do some research before you blindly except a > > > > report written by one of bush's administration . > > > > On Jan 22, 10:22 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > No one ever said it was poor design; it simply was an inadequate > > > > > design for something other than a fast moving cat 3 storm. The ACoE > > > > > has said it wasn't designed for that type of storm, and would have > > > > > failed regardless. There are storm simulations that were done by NOAA > > > > > prior to Katrina that indicated that under exactly the conditions > > > > > Katrina presented, New Orleans would flood. All these experts tell us > > > > > New Orleans would flood, but Mike knows better. Your arrogance is > > > > > impressive, if nothing else. > > > > > > Yeah, the center of the storm was to the east of New Orleans. That > > > > > spared it the worst of the winds, but had little bearing on the storm > > > > > surge, which was over 28', yet you choose to ignore that fact. I > > > > > provided you a link to give you a 20 year history of corruption and > > > > > mismanagement regarding the levees - proof that long before Bush was > > > > > president the seeds to disaster were being sewn, but you choose to > > > > > ignore the facts. It's public record that the levee committee > > > > > routinely channeled funds to casinos and other 'more important' > > > > > projects, but you choose to ignore the facts. You're not interested in > > > > > why the levees didn't hold the storm back, nor are you interested in > > > > > what was done wrong that cost lives, because you have consistently > > > > > ignored the facts. All you are interested in is your anti-Bush > > > > > rhetoric, and anything that gets in the way of that is to be ignored. > > > > > But not to worry; as is always the case, once the politically > > > > > motivated stop their shouting and the facts are examined, the truth > > > > > eventually comes out. There are very few remaining who don't > > > > > understand the history of the levee system, and that the Bush cuts had > > > > > little to do with Katrina. So keep on blowing your BS if you like, but > > > > > be advised you are only fooling yourself. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2:58 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > what is certain is that the levees failed for lack of maintenance . > > > > > > not poor design ! > > > > > > the storm did not even hit New Orleans it hit to the east of the > > > > > > city > > > > > > and the levees failed after the storm was long gone . because bush > > > > > > cut > > > > > > the funds for the SELA project . > > > > > > On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I get he cut the funds. What I don't get is how you are > > > > > > > connecting the > > > > > > > dot between his cutting funds and the levees failing. Have you > > > > > > > read > > > > > > > anything about this? Exactly how many people need to tell you the > > > > > > > levees would have failed, even if in perfect condition? > > > > > > > > It's like you blaming me for not funding the shutters on your home > > > > > > > which caused the house to collapse when the tornado hit it. The > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > was going to go down either way. The levees were not designed to > > > > > > > handle that size storm. It's pretty straight forward Mike. You're > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > choosing to ignore it for political gain. > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 4:38 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > what don't you get about bush cutting the funds for the SELA > > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > which caused the levees to fail ? > > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:29 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike, you just don't get it (or you don't want to). And > > > > > > > > > apparently, > > > > > > > > > you also refuse to read. So let me post part of what you > > > > > > > > > aren't > > > > > > > > > reading; > > > > > > > > > > "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's > > > > > > > > > (NOAA's) > > > > > > > > > official storm surge model SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland > > > > > > > > > Surges from > > > > > > > > > Hurricanes) was developed in the late 1960s, and Leuttich and > > > > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > collaborators have created a more sophisticated model called > > > > > > > > > ADCIRC > > > > > > > > > (Advanced Circulation) that has been adopted by the Army > > > > > > > > > Corps of > > > > > > > > > Engineers and other groups. Last year, in an exercise > > > > > > > > > simulating a > > > > > > > > > direct hit by a slow-moving category 3 hurricane, both models > > > > > > > > > showed > > > > > > > > > that the levees would not prevent the flooding of New > > > > > > > > > Orleans." > > > > > > > > > > "We asked the Corps about that "design issue." David > > > > > > > > > Hewitt, a > > > > > > > > > spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was > > > > > > > > > referring to the fact that "the levees were designed for a > > > > > > > > > category 3 > > > > > > > > > hurricane." He told us that, consequently, "when it became > > > > > > > > > apparent > > > > > > > > > that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the > > > > > > > > > city was > > > > > > > > > ordered." (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no more > > > > > > > > > than 130 > > > > > > > > > miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds exceeding > > > > > > > > > 155 miles > > > > > > > > > per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it approached > > > > > > > > > shore, but > > > > > > > > > later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made landfall, > > > > > > > > > making it a > > > > > > > > > strong category 4 storm, according to the National Hurricane > > > > > > > > > Center.)" > > > > > > > > > … > > > > > > > > > "The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only > > > > > > > > > 60 to 90 > > > > > > > > > percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
