||[Sep. 2nd, 2005|10:04 am]
This reply about securing below sea-level territory against flooding is an excellent response to those who think we should abandon NOLA. Thank you to culculhen for sharing it.
So, if the money for levee repair that could have spared NOLA from the flooding was diverted to fighting the war in Iraq, and the 9,000 National Guard troops who are deployed in Iraq from the region could have saved the lives of many of the stranded who are now dying on their rooftops and in their attics, should we consider those people war casualties?
You know, this whole flooding of New Orleans had me wondering...
Could the levees have been a viable terrorist target? I haven't seen any pictures of the non-submerged levees, so I don't know if they would be susceptible to attack by explosives.
If they were, I certainly hope measures were being taken to safeguard them.
levees are very tricky to tamper with. I mean you have to shift hundreds to thousands of tons of earth without anybody noticing it. and even then the damage would be nowhere near this disaster.
It would take a lot to blow the levees - they are huge and thick, and the water involved in breaking them was a fearsome force.
It's a much less vulnerable target than, say, the Alaska Pipeline.
It still amazes me that people are even thinking about just writing off New Orleans as a loss. What an insane thought. It's got so much history and culture. Sure, a lot of it (if not most of it) has been lost, but you know what? Rebuilding it makes a statement and just ADDS to that history.
Plus, as you said earlier, it's not economically or socially practical.
Here is a different prospect, if you are running a peace march on the mall, and use up all the policy recources to mainain safty for the march, and something bad happens cause those resources where used elsewhere, would those deaths be the responsibility of the peace march?
If we call all the national guard back to the state to help out, and tens of thousands die cause of the removal of their protection in the countries they where pulled out of, would those people be counted as deaths of the storm?
I always like to flip statements like this around and see if people like the flip side as much. Sometimes it helps put things in prespective. I also 2nd badlydrawnjeff post. There was no money or project that could have been done in time to save the city from this storm that was not started a decade or more ago.
I showed this post to my dad and he suggested you send it in to one of the news stations but he guarantees the president considers it "collateral damage".
I don't think they'd be considered casualties of war. Look at it the opposite way - if we first had a natural disaster, and then a war, and many of our troops were deployed to the natural disaster relief and unable to actually fight in the war, would we consider the deaths in that war to be casualties of the natural disaster?