What should they knock down next "below sea level". Amsterdam??
Printable View
What should they knock down next "below sea level". Amsterdam??
Now I did NOT say they SHOULD KNOCK IT DOWN!
I said they should rebuild it above sea level or another hurricane could destroy it again!!! Or at least that's what I MEANT to say! (just reread my earlier post and yep, that's what I said)
I DO NOT APPROVE OF KNOCKING ANY CITIES DOWN!
And by the way, my heart does go out to the ones who lost everything they had !!!
Not saying it couldn't happen again, but after the storms and flooding back in 1953, the Dutch spend mega amounts of money to protect the country, including Amsterdam.
Written into Dutch law is the requirement that the coastal dikes be able to withstand the fiercest storm imaginable.
I saw a show on TV about their system of dikes; it was quite impressive - and compared to Louisiana, very new and state of the art.
Venice, Italy has also been flooded, the last big one in 1966. Italy launched the 4 Billion dollar project Moses to protect the city from future flooding.
That could be something New Orleans should look into. By all accounts I have read, the dam that broke is not being repaired very effectivly.
I am sure more could be done to help protect it than is being done now at any rate. I think it would be better to spend money to rebuild it right and better if possible. It would save on property loss and loss of lives in the long run.
There are major differences between the cities of Amsterdam and Venice, and the City of New Orleans.
Amsterdam has had a national government lead the way in financing and running the dike/flood protection projects. Venice is the same.
The Army Corps of Engineers (the agency that handles most flood control and river projects in the US) was (im)politely told to butt out. The ACoE's plans were fought by both local officials and environmental groups. Local officials because the ACoE would have been running the contracts (no more kickbacks, pools of levee tax money, shoddily built levees at a premium price, etc), and environmentalists because the project would have disturbed the local wetlands.
After refusing Federal help to avoid the problem in the first place, now they want the Federal government to step in and take control.
The original city, the French Quarter, is above sea level, and can be easily protected from storms. The rest of the city needs to go, unless the local and state governments agree not to interfere with the ACoE's plans.
I was thinking about this and I wonder....our tax dollars were spent blowing the #%#$ out of Iraq and are now being spent rebuilding Iraq....just in time for their civil war to blow it up again.
How does that differ? and why is it OUR federal government's job to do? Or to subcontract to close and personal firms to do? (and please...spare me any 9/11....just last week in a press conference GW AGAIN said there is no connection with Iraq....)
Sara, two words. It ain't. The money to rebuild Iraq should come out of their oil revenue.
How about the money to blow it up in the first place?
Read it and weep - THE COST OF WAR
What an absolute waste of money, lives and good will.
Sara, if they hadn't been shooting at us in the first place, and had abided by the UN resolutions in place, we wouldn't have had any reason to blow it up.
Besides, we had all this old cold war ordnance we had to use up before it went bad, and what better way to eliminate it from the inventory than use it on someone? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
I believe it's called "rotating stock"....
Look at all the old ordnance lying around Iraq. Not safe at all.
The only thing we had to pay for was the gas and the people to drop the bombs....I paid for all the rest before.
----------------------
ANd in typical AH fashion, there is Mayor Noggin slapping the Prez on the arm like a long lost pal.....
Funny, ain't that the guy that you were talking smack about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
???????????
Newsflash....Iraqis firing on US...did I miss it? Or do you mean after we invaded their country?
It's the psycho militants in Iraq that are the problem...not the general Iraqi population. Most of them support our help.
Maybe if we had just blown the crap out of Baghdad in 1991 we wouldn't have had this problem. Mike was within 50km of the capital in '91 and they were ready to go in when Bush 1 backed down. Saddam would have been long gone if we had just gone in and taken care of it then, but, we had to be PC about it and leave...and look where it got us...
Oh well...neither side is going to understand the other, so it really isn't worth arguing about it since no one is going to change anyone elses' mind about it.
As for New Orleans...re-build if you so choose and enter at your own risk. But next time...listen to the radio and when they tell you a week in advance to make plans to leave, then do it. And the government needs to pull their heads out and when people want to bring their animals...let them!
Surface to air missiles and AAA (anti aircraft artillery) fired at coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.
(Sams obtained in violation of UN sanctions to boot)
Mugsy, I totally, totally agree with you here ~ on all points. Good to "see" you by the way :)