• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Katrina!

lomiller said:
How do you propose the military deal with surface oil? Do you think they have some ultra-secret oil skimmer in some skunkworks someplace that is vastly superior to the ones BP is using?
Click to expand...
Sort of. You take an aircraft carrier and turn it on its side.
 
lomiller said:
How do you propose the military deal with surface oil? Do you think they have some ultra-secret oil skimmer in some skunkworks someplace that is vastly superior to the ones BP is using?
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing ultra-secret; just the best ability on the planet to provide Command, Control, and Execution in difficult circumstances.

Or as I've always said, coordination, logistics, and staffing.
 
AlBell said:
Nope. Nothing ultra-secret; just the best ability on the planet to provide Command, Control, and Execution in difficult circumstances.

Or as I've always said, coordination, logistics, and staffing.
Click to expand...

This is a situation that requires very specialized knowledge and training. You're speaking in generalities. You might as well have said "Send in the military because they're good at stuff" for as much meaning as your statement has.
 
There are things the military can do especially once oil hits the beach. You don't need a lot of training for cleanup, plus they're likely to own protective clothing. But there's very little they can do either about stopping the blowout or containing the oil while in the water.
 
AlBell said:
Nope. Nothing ultra-secret; just the best ability on the planet to provide Command, Control, and Execution in difficult circumstances.

Or as I've always said, coordination, logistics, and staffing.
Click to expand...

"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril. "
 
Drysdale said:
Lay it out for me.

What's inaccurate about it?
Click to expand...
As I said before.
joobz said:
Let me see if I get this straight:

A largely unregulated oil rig controlled by private interests causes an ecological disaster of epic proportions. A disaster created by an industry that has been demanding an opening up of drilling restrictions so that more private money can be earned.

Simultaneously, the responsible company, who has made record profits over the past 2-3 years thanks to high price of oil, had substandard contingency plans in place, making a cleanup response impossible.

Now, free market people are holding the government at fault for the mess because....what? Because they haven't stepped in and made it all better already? That they haven't fixed the mess the private sector created, at the cost of the american people?

I thought the free market was supposed to fix all. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that is supposed to be handled best by the private sector? I thought that when government gets involved, things go bad?

Why, on this still green earth, are free market people so intent on asking for government intervention? Talk about corporate entitlement. We have already bailed out the auto industry, the banking industry, and now tax money is expected to be used to clean up the mess of the oil industry? Why?

If the government did fix it, would conservatives agree with increased regulations in the oil industry? With increased taxing and closing of corporate tax loop holes as a means of paying for the cost of cleanup? Or, are we expected to clean this up and say, thank you sir BP, may I have another?

Tell you the truth, the OP tells it all. It has nothing to do with the oil spill. It has all to do with making Obama look bad. As if the failure to clean up an oil spill is his fault. BP has failed completely and totally. The failed to have any effective level of redundant protections in place. This is BP's error. Not Obama's.
Click to expand...
 
AlBell (and pretty much anyone else showing ODS):

Can you explain what response by the government didn't come in a timely fashion? Please, be as specific as you can without being pedantic (read: demanding that this precise sentence be uttered).

What response do you feel the government should have made that would have been (in your opinion) more satisfying to the public?

If you feel someone else's administration would have handled this the way you prefer, could you explain who this someone would be and how they would have reacted any differently?


When answering the above questions feel free to use timelines like this or this (or others out there) to illustrate your point-- I strongly suggest actually going with facts instead of repeating pundit lies, though (like the claim/lie that "the military" wasn't on this quickly).
 
GreNME said:
AlBell (and pretty much anyone else showing ODS):

Can you explain what response by the government didn't come in a timely fashion? Please, be as specific as you can without being pedantic (read: demanding that this precise sentence be uttered).

What response do you feel the government should have made that would have been (in your opinion) more satisfying to the public?

If you feel someone else's administration would have handled this the way you prefer, could you explain who this someone would be and how they would have reacted any differently?


When answering the above questions feel free to use timelines like this or this (or others out there) to illustrate your point-- I strongly suggest actually going with facts instead of repeating pundit lies, though (like the claim/lie that "the military" wasn't on this quickly).
Click to expand...
Don't often agree with GreNME.
Do this time. Well said.
 
applecorped said:
:confused: - someone earlier in the thread offered an explanation that I agree with. See if you can find it. My comment was in reference to the poll, not the government. Relax, stop being defensive.
Click to expand...

You're the only one who said "month and half response time" in the OP. I checked the links, none of them made such a statement. My response was directly related to the statement you made (which I quoted) and was challenging you to clarify. Instead of clarification, you've now claimed that you're just referencing the poll (which does not actually state what you say) and you suggest I follow a goose chase to guess what poster already said what you agree with-- both Hannity-like non-committal, evasive responses to a request for you to actually clarify yourself.

Or, you know, you could just admit that your statement was mistaken. Is that so difficult?
 
AlBell said:
Nope. Nothing ultra-secret; just the best ability on the planet to provide Command, Control, and Execution in difficult circumstances.
Click to expand...

Command of what? Control of what? And most importantly, Execution of what?

The US government can't (effectively) tell people to do things that aren't possible. They can't conjure equipment out of thin air to make things possible. It's not like the Department of Energy keeps a set of well repair robots in a basement in Virginia. The people who keep repair robots handy are, unsurprisingly, the companies that build and maintain pipelines (like BP).

Most importantly, the government can't tell people what to do when the government doesn't know what needs to be done, either. The Secretary of Energy doesn't have any specialized knowledge about repairing oil wells. That specialized knowledge is also at places like BP.
 
drkitten said:
Command of what? Control of what? And most importantly, Execution of what?

The US government can't (effectively) tell people to do things that aren't possible. They can't conjure equipment out of thin air to make things possible. It's not like the Department of Energy keeps a set of well repair robots in a basement in Virginia. The people who keep repair robots handy are, unsurprisingly, the companies that build and maintain pipelines (like BP).

Most importantly, the government can't tell people what to do when the government doesn't know what needs to be done, either. The Secretary of Energy doesn't have any specialized knowledge about repairing oil wells. That specialized knowledge is also at places like BP.
Click to expand...
As I've said now multiple times, I'm discussing the mediation and cleanup problem, not plugging the well; the military has no expertise useful in that problem, and in fact could only get in the way.

Boom placement and tending same, berm building, etc, are the kinds of activities I suggest need full military coordination.
 
Obama does'nt need help looking bad. I think he's doing that quite well on his own.

But to the post. Who has argued it's solely the company's responsibility other than the dems? When it starts affecting wildlife, beaches, nature, people's lives in general it is the govt's responsibility to step in is it not?

If a Boy Scout unit starts a forest fire is it solely their responsibility to extinguish it or do they call in fireman,forest rangers etc?

When it affects the multiple states and many lives be it human or nonhumans it becomes the govt's problem does'nt it?

Which republicans,libertarians or independents, have said we need no govt we need anarchy? Please point them out.

It's past time for the federal govt to step in and take control. Now if they want to hold BP accountable for the expenses that's between them and BP. But it needs to be resolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom