Saturday, September 3



The Department of Defence compiled a list of the three most likely natural disasters to strike the United States a few years ago. A Category 5 Hurricane striking New Orleans was number three. In response, the U.S Army Corps engineers budget, containing money meant to go to flood prevention programs in the city, was slashed by $76 million.

The Louisiana Governor knew a Category 5 Hurricane was on its way to hit the city of New Orleans. The available National Guard in New Orleans, the troops on the ground who run recovery, rescue and relief programs, was less than ten thousand. More troops were not requested until days later. It has taken four days for the National Guard to begin delivering aid on a large-scale.

The same Governor then called the plan to evacuate thousands of New Orleans citizens to the Superdome stadium an 'experiment', when experts were reccomending a full scale military evacuation.

Currently FEMA, the organisation that manages emergencies is requesting people call an 800 number to request supplies.

In a city with no phones and no electricity.

A cesspool of water, waste, chemicals and dead bodies is rising in a city already flooded.

30,000 people are about to riot at the Convention Center, still looking for buses promised to them five days ago. Fox News' Geraldo Rivera got to the Convention Center with a cameraman and a producer, but the U.S National Guard could not.

How fucked.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

and the grand reason the americans diverted money away from preparing for a large scale hurricane?....cause some camel fucker in iraq happened to run a country that was cursed with oil, so in order to free the oppressed oil in iraq, the sepo's had to go and spend billions of dollars killing the civilians who were only pretending to want to live in safety and were really trying to plot against the evil western dogs. this seems strange to me because they had no real reason to. i mean, they had no infrastructure in the country since the americans broke it all in '91, and millions of children were born with horrible side affects and either died or are still suffering from all the damage that was done to water and sewerage systems, but, i mean, they dont even speak english so its not as if they deserve to live in safety, or autonomously.

Anonymous said...

a little off topic hippy

Anonymous said...

Yes they were living in 'safety' under Saddam who killed 180,000 Kurds in Anfal and 60,000 Shiites in 1991. With a total of 300,000 confirmed kills and a potential of 500,000 estimated by human rights oranisations, I am sure he was concerning himself with rebuilding infratructure for all.

Such a great leader who also tested VX nerve agents on civilians. How dare we interrupt the further development of one of the most horrific chemical weapons ever created.

How about you don't fill up your car with Iraq's oil this week and buy yourself a fucking clue.

Tommy said...

The Americans 'broke all' the infrastructure in Iraq because Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait and threaten global stability. It's not like George Bush Sr. was bored one day and decided to blow up some Arabs

Anonymous said...

yeah, invading kuwait wasnt cool, and the gulf war was an impressive display of the UNSC actually getting something done, but the method of war of buggering a countries infrastructure so that it will be crippled for a couple of decades aint cool. the sepos have been doing it this whole century and its just not right.

plus, what saddam did or didnt do only made a difference because theres oil in iraq. north korea has a nice little nuclear program going on, china executes thousands of its citizens each year, millions die in africa from civil and not so civil war, but america will step in only if youve got oil buried beneath you, OR, if their involvement will assist their causes in other areas (ie, propping up a new dictator, the placement of favourable trade deals etc)

Anonymous said...

Ah the good old fashioned oil conspiracy. Invading Iraq was one of the worst things for America, oil stocks crashed and the price per barrel had shot up.
Long term of course they are going to seek favourable trades! anonymous seems to think the world is usually a nice place where countries and leaders don't seek what is in their own best interests... How about Australia taking control of East Timor's natural gas deposits?

Tommy said...

and what's wrong with that? like it or not, oil powers the world economy. what hussein did in 1991 threatened global stability, a large chunk of the world's oil supplies would have been in the hands of a meglomaniacal dictator. i'm not denying iraq was on the top of america's list because of their oil btw. as an aussie i like the idea of at least some of the world's oil fields being controlled by a semi-friendly country rather than a tyrant.

and what's so wrong with america only stepping in certain places? would you like a war with China or North Korea? just as you think it was iraq's perogative to live autonomously, it is the u.s' perogative to defend its interest in any way it sees fit. if that means getting rid of an iraqi tyrant instead of a chinese one, i don't really see the problem. it sucks, but it's how the world works.

Anonymous said...

tommy is a souse

Anonymous said...

I like ham

Anonymous said...

America.... fuck yeah

Anonymous said...

cookie monster

Anonymous said...

cookies are a sometimes food

Anonymous said...

george bush does not care about black people

Anonymous said...

anonymous is left wing tree hugging hippy poose!!! I mean Michael Moore.