Hurricane Katrina...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Hey bro if I got sick or hurt and missed two "pay days" I'd be out in the street till my plan kicks in after 90 days . And I have one of the better ones . Let alone worry about my car payments .



Kind of puts it into perspective some there have no homes or jobs to go back to . :(

---

I don’t know how many companies are doing this but I do know that the Harrah’s Casino is paying all of their employees who were affected for 3 months. Harrah’s lost three properties due to the storm, one casino in Louisiana and 2 in Mississippi. So all of the employee’s of those three casinos will get their regular paycheck like they normally would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JunkBarMan

@mankar: Nice try, nice try. My good sir, you speak from both sides of your mouth. Post what you like, I am not your dictator. I said my peace, continue as you were.

---

That is quite possibly the most inane statement I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

while at the same time being incapable of organising what should have been a fairly straightforward emergency action.

---

Straightforward emergency action?!!!! :lol: :lol:

---

I'm not saying it is straightforward now. But what could have been arranged earlier would have been fairly straightforward, and consequently could have been started on time.

Certainly, subsequent action would still have been complex, but many lives could have been saved with simple prompt action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You really don't get it, do you?

You stand in judgement of every tiny thing that happens in the U.S., but wouldn't dream of being nearly so discerning, discriminating, or critical of ANYTHING that goes on at your beloved U.N..

Methinks the black pot is speaking out-of-turn, and from the shade, into the bargain.

You've got some nerve, calling me a hypocrite.

---

I get it exactly.

This is the third time in this thread that you've accused me of criticising the US. I've done no such thing, I've criticised you, but you probably think they are synonymous. Now you accuse me of ignoring what happens at the UN. Again, I've done no such thing. Unlike you, I waited for the outcome of the investigation.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of, a typical ploy by those who wish to divert attention from their own behaviour.

You criticised the UN and its head at a time when little information had been revealed and while an investigation was ongoing, actions which echoed those of many in the GOP. When I suggest you should simply be consistent you accuse me of making things up.

Frankly, if you can't even be consistent it lends weight to the argument that your opinions are worthless.

---

Oh.

Care to comment on any of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168829,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168648,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168591,00.html

There's much, much, more where that came from...

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. Having a shitload of money does not mean that you can supply the aid which is required. You can't buy what you need just because you have the money, the thing may not be available.

That is why countries like the UK send specialist resources, including equipment and more importantly highly trained people. I am quite sure it is these resources which were requested by the people organizing the relief effort.

Better that than sending more money to sit in a big pot. You save people by being there doing stuff, not by having money in the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I get it exactly.

This is the third time in this thread that you've accused me of criticising the US. I've done no such thing, I've criticised you, but you probably think they are synonymous. Now you accuse me of ignoring what happens at the UN. Again, I've done no such thing. Unlike you, I waited for the outcome of the investigation.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of, a typical ploy by those who wish to divert attention from their own behaviour.

You criticised the UN and its head at a time when little information had been revealed and while an investigation was ongoing, actions which echoed those of many in the GOP. When I suggest you should simply be consistent you accuse me of making things up.

Frankly, if you can't even be consistent it lends weight to the argument that your opinions are worthless.

---

Oh.

Care to comment on any of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168829,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168648,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168591,00.html

There's much, much, more where that came from...

---

Quote:

---

The Real Oil-for-Food Scam
Last year, right-wingers in Congress began kicking up a fuss about how the United Nations had allegedly allowed Saddam Hussein to rake in $10 billion in illegal cash through the Oil for Food program. Headlines screamed scandal. New York Times’ columnist William Safire referred to the alleged U.N. con game as “the richest rip-off in world history.”

But those who knew how the program had been set up and run – and under whose watch – were not swayed.

The initial accusations were based on a General Accounting Office report released in April 2004 and were later bolstered by a more detailed report commissioned by the CIA.

According to the GAO, Hussein smuggled $6 billion worth of oil out of Iraq – most of it through the Persian Gulf. Yet the U.N. fleet charged with intercepting any such smugglers was under direct command of American officers, and consisted overwhelmingly of U.S. Navy ships. In 2001, for example, 90 of its vessels belonged to the United States, while Britain contributed only four, Joy Gordon wrote in a December article for Harper’s magazine.

Most of the oil that left Iraq by land did so through Jordan and Turkey – with the approval of the United States. The first Bush administration informally exempted Jordan from the ban on purchasing Iraqi oil – an arrangement that provided Hussein with $4.4 billion over 10 years, according to the CIA’s own findings. The United States later allowed Iraq to leak another $710 million worth of oil through Turkey – “all while U.S. planes enforcing no-fly zones flew overhead,” Gordon wrote.

Scott Ritter, a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq during the first six years of economic sanctions against the country, unearthed yet another scam: The United States allegedly allowed an oil company run by Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov’s sister to purchase cheap oil from Iraq and resell it to U.S. companies at market value – purportedly earning Hussein “hundreds of millions” more.

“It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under ‘oil for food’ ended up in the United States,” Ritter wrote in the U.K. Independent

---

sores: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0908-05.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. Having a shitload of money does not mean that you can supply the aid which is required. You can't buy what you need just because you have the money, the thing may not be available.

That is why countries like the UK send specialist resources, including equipment and more importantly highly trained people. I am quite sure it is these resources which were requested by the people organizing the relief effort.

Better that than sending more money to sit in a big pot. You save people by being there doing stuff, not by having money in the bank.

---

I doubt there was a misunderstanding.

Unless it's charity and sometimes military, money buys resources anyway. :ermm:

Question

Now that the US military and governement is so displaced, is it not the best strategic moment to attack as an enemy?


silence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. Having a shitload of money does not mean that you can supply the aid which is required. You can't buy what you need just because you have the money, the thing may not be available.

That is why countries like the UK send specialist resources, including equipment and more importantly highly trained people. I am quite sure it is these resources which were requested by the people organizing the relief effort.

Better that than sending more money to sit in a big pot. You save people by being there doing stuff, not by having money in the bank.

---

I doubt there was a misunderstanding.

Unless it's charity and sometimes military, money buys resources anyway. :ermm:

---

Are you really that dense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I doubt there was a misunderstanding.

Unless it's charity and sometimes military, money buys resources anyway. :ermm:

---

Are you really that dense.

---

why would the government say just send money if they don't want money, just other resources?