Those levees are a job for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Seabees... not a bunch of random weekend warriors (no offense meant, but they're probably only going to be good for raw manpower).
Plus when our economy is going to slump some from having to deal with rising gas prices, it probably isn't smart to pull 200,000 people away from jobs that they're already doing.
Just thinking. Not that they would have a huge impact given the population of the country, but the localized damage especially in small areas would be enough to shake some consumer confidence.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- New Orleans rebuilding
New Orleans rebuildingFollow
I did a little reading on the National Guard and you sir, are full of sh[u][/u]it.
1) A large amount of our National Guard is overseas at the moment.
2) There are around 450,000 people in the national guard. You are proposing mobilizing half.
3) How do you get them into New Orleans? Helicopter... bwahahahaha. Air... no. Boat... to what port?
4) Set up shelters on what? All the dry land?
5) If the president mobilizes them (federalizes) then they have no law enforcement authority, greatly reducing thier effectiveness.
6) If they bring all those MRE's into town thats for them to eat, and doesn't really help the people living there. If they bring rice bags in, there is little to cook the rice with.
7) Small units of soliders (squads) would become targets because the equipment and suplies they cary. They would be hesitant to fire on citizens who would attack them.
8) Every rescue worker in the area isn't some 1500 calorie burning refugee... they are 5000 calorie buring workhorses.
And learn to quote moron.
1) A large amount of our National Guard is overseas at the moment.
2) There are around 450,000 people in the national guard. You are proposing mobilizing half.
3) How do you get them into New Orleans? Helicopter... bwahahahaha. Air... no. Boat... to what port?
4) Set up shelters on what? All the dry land?
5) If the president mobilizes them (federalizes) then they have no law enforcement authority, greatly reducing thier effectiveness.
6) If they bring all those MRE's into town thats for them to eat, and doesn't really help the people living there. If they bring rice bags in, there is little to cook the rice with.
7) Small units of soliders (squads) would become targets because the equipment and suplies they cary. They would be hesitant to fire on citizens who would attack them.
8) Every rescue worker in the area isn't some 1500 calorie burning refugee... they are 5000 calorie buring workhorses.
And learn to quote moron.
Quote:
your hippie dippie "Don't try to defy nature" **** for someone who has the mental fortitude of boiled spaghetti, such as yourself.
New Orleans has sunk 7-9 feet from 300 years ago.
As Joph noted, it is the largest seaport in the U.S. With fall harvest coming in the next month or two, there will be food issues too, since so much of the Midwest farms rely on floating there product down the Mississippi to New Orleans and then on to other areas.
I am sure the local government found it easy to ignore the levee problem since they had no precedent. Why fix something if it isn't broke, right?
I give kudos to the city government for having a contingency plan that initially worked very well. They had 10 "secure" locations where they sent everyone that couldn't flee. The only ones who died (initially at least) were those who refused to leave their homes. Where they are falling apart is that they clearly weren't ready for the aftermath. Of course having several of the Louisiana national guards in Iraq hasn't exactly helped matters.
I worry that Mississippi is going to be largely ignored in all of this, though they were actually hit worse then NO.
My biggest concern is that these are some of the poorest states in the U.S. I fear that the vast majority of the people don't have insurance that would help them. And for those with insurance, we all know that insurance companies are always willing to fork over the cash they deserve.
As Joph noted, it is the largest seaport in the U.S. With fall harvest coming in the next month or two, there will be food issues too, since so much of the Midwest farms rely on floating there product down the Mississippi to New Orleans and then on to other areas.
I am sure the local government found it easy to ignore the levee problem since they had no precedent. Why fix something if it isn't broke, right?
I give kudos to the city government for having a contingency plan that initially worked very well. They had 10 "secure" locations where they sent everyone that couldn't flee. The only ones who died (initially at least) were those who refused to leave their homes. Where they are falling apart is that they clearly weren't ready for the aftermath. Of course having several of the Louisiana national guards in Iraq hasn't exactly helped matters.
I worry that Mississippi is going to be largely ignored in all of this, though they were actually hit worse then NO.
My biggest concern is that these are some of the poorest states in the U.S. I fear that the vast majority of the people don't have insurance that would help them. And for those with insurance, we all know that insurance companies are always willing to fork over the cash they deserve.
Send sponges
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
So New Orleans is spongeworthy?
Quote:
Do the ******* world a favor and look up the word 'fjord' and save your hippie dippie "Don't try to defy nature" **** for someone who has the mental fortitude of boiled spaghetti, such as yourself.
I am hardly a hippie dippie anything, as you can clearly see if you bothered to read posts on this board, rather than spamming away in your whorish way. I am quite obviously smarter than you, as I know what a levie is.
Quote:
Basically, just hit an encyclopedia and read up on Denmark. Pushing the sea back is not impossible. It has been done for many many years. Granted, northern Europe doesnt have the same issues with hurricanes as the Gulf of Mexico, but it still exists in the realm of feasible.
There's yer sign, ladies and gentlemen.
Quote:
City planners in New Orleans have known since the 70s that a direct hit from a Cat4+ hurricane would put New Orleans under, but they never strengthened the levees.
Duh, ok Yogi! I think that's what I said, you moron.
Quote:
Don't get pissed off at the people, get pissed off at the local government that turned a long standing issue into a national tragedy.
I am not pissed at the people for this thing happening. I am pissed off at the people for staying when they were told to get the f'uck out, then expecting a hand out. I am pissed off at the people for knowing they live in a place where you can't bury dead people underground, then expecting us to rebuild their flooded city. And I am not even close to being pissed off at a local government that 48 hours before hand said "Get the f'uck out!" because they knew all hell was about to break loose.
What next, genius?
Moebius' Pwnage Classes.
Lesson #34, "Use your enemy's suckage as a weapon"
Lesson #34, "Use your enemy's suckage as a weapon"
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
I actually have to agree with the original posting.
Sure, the city may have been above sea level when it was first built, but it's getting to be a major hassle. Yes, we can take a cue from Amsterdam and Rotterdam and drain out half the Gulf, but really, how feasable is it down the line? Channeling the flow of the Mississippi has already created huge problems, in the Gulf and along the shore. This looks to be an uphill battle from now on, if it hadn't been so before. I'm sure some proper land could be found for a new New Orleans. Somewhere in the midle of South Dakota sounds good.
Sure, the city may have been above sea level when it was first built, but it's getting to be a major hassle. Yes, we can take a cue from Amsterdam and Rotterdam and drain out half the Gulf, but really, how feasable is it down the line? Channeling the flow of the Mississippi has already created huge problems, in the Gulf and along the shore. This looks to be an uphill battle from now on, if it hadn't been so before. I'm sure some proper land could be found for a new New Orleans. Somewhere in the midle of South Dakota sounds good.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I agree with Moe.
To all those homeless people and others who didn't have a choice as to whether or not they could stay, I feel for ya.
To all of the f[b][/b]ucking morons who didn't heed the warning when a million people evacuated the city and every major and minor news station was reporting that New Orleans was going to get wiped off the face of the Earth, you can die a slow, painful death for all I care. You had it coming.
To all those homeless people and others who didn't have a choice as to whether or not they could stay, I feel for ya.
To all of the f[b][/b]ucking morons who didn't heed the warning when a million people evacuated the city and every major and minor news station was reporting that New Orleans was going to get wiped off the face of the Earth, you can die a slow, painful death for all I care. You had it coming.
Found the article about New Orleans from National Geographic I was using. Won't quote the whole thing, but here's what they say about the sinking coast.
National Geographic article entitled "Gone with the Water" by Joel K Bourne Jr. Oct 2004.
Quote:
The oil industry has been good to Louisiana, providing low taxes and high-paying jobs. But such largesse hasn't come without a cost, largely exacted from coastal wetlands. The most startling impact has only recently come to light—the effect of oil and gas withdrawal on subsidence rates. For decades geologists believed that the petroleum deposits were too deep and the geology of the coast too complex for drilling to have any impact on the surface. But two years ago former petroleum geologist Bob
Morton, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, noticed that the highest rates of wetland loss occurred during or just after the period of peak oil and gas production in the 1970s and early 1980s. After much study, Morton concluded that the removal of millions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and tens of millions of barrels of saline formation water lying with the petroleum deposits caused a drop in subsurface pressure—a theory known as regional depressurization. That led nearby underground faults to slip and the land above them to slump.
"When you stick a straw in a soda and suck on it, everything goes down," Morton explains. "That's very simplified, but you get the idea." The phenomenon isn't new: It was first documented in Texas in 1926 and has been reported in other oil-producing areas such as the North Sea and Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. Morton won't speculate on what percentage of wetland loss can be pinned on the oil industry. "What I can tell you is that much of the loss between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne was caused by induced subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal. The wetlands are still there, they're just underwater." The area Morton refers to, part of the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary, has one of the highest rates of wetland loss in the state.
The oil industry and its consultants dispute Morton's theory, but they've been unable to disprove it.
Morton, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, noticed that the highest rates of wetland loss occurred during or just after the period of peak oil and gas production in the 1970s and early 1980s. After much study, Morton concluded that the removal of millions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and tens of millions of barrels of saline formation water lying with the petroleum deposits caused a drop in subsurface pressure—a theory known as regional depressurization. That led nearby underground faults to slip and the land above them to slump.
"When you stick a straw in a soda and suck on it, everything goes down," Morton explains. "That's very simplified, but you get the idea." The phenomenon isn't new: It was first documented in Texas in 1926 and has been reported in other oil-producing areas such as the North Sea and Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. Morton won't speculate on what percentage of wetland loss can be pinned on the oil industry. "What I can tell you is that much of the loss between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne was caused by induced subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal. The wetlands are still there, they're just underwater." The area Morton refers to, part of the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary, has one of the highest rates of wetland loss in the state.
The oil industry and its consultants dispute Morton's theory, but they've been unable to disprove it.
Recent Visitors: 212
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (212)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- New Orleans rebuilding
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC