I would like to honor the men and women who died in the attacks on 09/11.

I was still in college (UCONN) at this point, and in a class, the news was playing on the screen as I walked in. My dad was supposed to be in Manhattan that day, but was running late. I thank God for that all the time....

Not only is this day the anniversary of that terrorist attack, but today is also the one year anniversary of Hurricane Ike, here in Texas. The devastation from this hurricane was amazing, especially on the Bolivar Peninsula. I know one family personally, who not only lost their home, but also their business. I know there are so many people that that happened to. But we recovered and are rebuilding in spots. I even had the opportunity to help repair some roofs after this happened. I think it was a time of community, we really hung together during this time.

So... Here's to the poeple who survived these two catastrophe's as well as to those who did not survive. You have my respect and my honor, and my prayers as well.

May God be with you.

I would like to honor the men and women who died in the attacks on 09/11.

I was still in college (UCONN) at this point, and in a class, the news was playing on the screen as I walked in. My dad was supposed to be in Manhattan that day, but was running late. I thank God for that all the time....

Not only is this day the anniversary of that terrorist attack, but today is also the one year anniversary of Hurricane Ike, here in Texas. The devastation from this hurricane was amazing, especially on the Bolivar Peninsula. I know one family personally, who not only lost their home, but also their business. I know there are so many people that that happened to. But we recovered and are rebuilding in spots. I even had the opportunity to help repair some roofs after this happened. I think it was a time of community, we really hung together during this time.

So... Here's to the poeple who survived these two catastrophe's as well as to those who did not survive. You have my respect and my honor, and my prayers as well.

May God be with you.

I was working in New York City on 9/11/2001, and was a direct witness to some of the events of the day. I would like to thank you and others like you who have offered me their good wishes and blessings. On that day, I learned that there are some memories that will probably remain with me for as long as I live, whether I want them to or not.

I would like to honor the men and women who died in the attacks on 09/11.


Barring some who also died... I am glad they are dead, otherwize I would have to murdalize them :eek:

Big proof of how much damage a few il-concieved-mad-hatter-smart-asses can do.

Barring some who also died... I am glad they are dead, otherwize I would have to murdalize them :eek:

Big proof of how much damage a few il-concieved-mad-hatter-smart-asses can do.

Very true. If they really want to commit suicide in the name of their religion, let them do it without taking anyone else out.

Religious fanatics of any type are insane.

I can just imagine the fuss the US TV stations made of this 11/9 palava.

I´m currently in Spain and there was nothing at all on the TV news about it, in fact I wouldn´t have known it was 11/9 except for a small paragraph and a photo tucked away in a Spanish newspaper. I´m afraid the Spanish care little for the USA - why should they? Thank God I haven´t met any Yanks on this trip. Maybe they´re getting the message and staying home so as not to upset anyone.

The funny thing is, that on the night of 11/9 on Spanish TV, they had a film on about a plane that was hijacked - usual thing - bomb on board, hostages, American flags in almost every shot of the military control, superhero on board (luckily) knew his way around a 747 and was able to disarm bomb kill terrorists and save the world. All good patriotic US drivel.

Col

I would like to honor the men and women who died in the attacks on 09/11.



I´m sure those that lost spouses that day and who´s marriages were on the rocks anyway are still thanking whatever god for the $5million compo they got. It must have been like christmas for them.

Col

And don't forget the events of that day unleashed two of the biggest terrorists on the planet, Bush & Bliar!:mad::rolleyes:

I can just imagine the fuss the US TV stations made of this 11/9 palava.

I´m currently in Spain and there was nothing at all on the TV news about it, in fact I wouldn´t have known it was 11/9 except for a small paragraph and a photo tucked away in a Spanish newspaper. I´m afraid the Spanish care little for the USA - why should they? Thank God I haven´t met any Yanks on this trip. Maybe they´re getting the message and staying home so as not to upset anyone.

The funny thing is, that on the night of 11/9 on Spanish TV, they had a film on about a plane that was hijacked - usual thing - bomb on board, hostages, American flags in almost every shot of the military control, superhero on board (luckily) knew his way around a 747 and was able to disarm bomb kill terrorists and save the world. All good patriotic US drivel.

Col

I am not sure there was much here either on TV about, I don't get any channels at home, so I miss alot, but I still remember what it was like, and regardless of anything that you disagree with about the US I still am sorry for all the innocent people who died in those attacks. Just as I am sorry for innocent people who die in other countries, it's sad. As to your other remarks about marriages on the rocks, I am so sorry that you are so bitter that you can't let someone grieve or show grief on the anniversary of the deaths of a lot of people. I hope that some day your bitterness dissipates. I am glad I live most of my life not knowing what goes on all the time, I would be sad and angry always, and I can't change anything. I don't want to spend my life that way.

These types of anniversaries result in much mental anguish. Those who suffered should be remembered, but it also points to the growing inability of the US to do anything. Analysis paralysis. Also think "peak oil" as an analogy.

The Washington Post wrote: Where the Towers Stood, Delays and Disagreements Mount (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091004282.html).

I don't know much about Hurricane Ike, but I have been following the Hurricane Katrina story. The Washington Times wrote: HUD secretary 'disturbed' by Katrina rebuilding (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/hud-secretary-disturbed-katrina-rebuilding/).

The World Trade Center should be turned into a simple memorial park. As for New Orleans, we should not be rebuilding homes in flood zones nor rebuilding the levees. It would be cheaper to simply condemn those properties and restore them to the wetlands they once were.

Instead of rationale solutions, the leadership of the US seems to be dedicated to ego driven exorbitant goals as empty gestures of "superiority".

I thank God for that all the time....



So do you also curse god all the time for the 3000+ people that he killed that day? I'm just saying, if he was responsible for saving your father, that means he was also responsible for killing the rest of them, right? Especially since the hijackers did what they did in the name of god.

I am glad I live most of my life not knowing what goes on all the time,

That is exactly what I have been saying for years about the US people - they know very little about what happens outside their own picket fence, especially if it is "overseas".

If you knew more about things, you (the USA) might not be so quick to chastise other people and attack and destroy innocent countries in the name of "justice" and democracy. When will you realise that has nothing to do with it, that´s just a cover line.

"Justice" in this sense is of course American justice, primarily centred around black gold and massive rebuilding contracts and payouts to friends of whoever is US president.

The ex Trade Centre site? To show a real extension of friendliness, it should be a world beating mosque.

Or build a runway there, then if they try it again at least they can land somewhere.

Col

As for New Orleans, we should not be rebuilding homes in flood zones nor rebuilding the levees. It would be cheaper to simply condemn those properties and restore them to the wetlands they once were.

This would be the "easy, logical, common sence, man from the corner, basic" solution... Then again who has seen a politician with any common sence, logic or eye for the easy solution?

On the other hand, these are not our homes... I can empathise with those that actually live there, that they want to continue living there where there "home" is/was/will be?
So do you also curse god all the time for the 3000+ people that he killed that day?
One god saved, while the act of killing was done in the name of "another" god...

<< PLEASE dont take offense, I dont mean to offend anyone >>

Religious people seem to find a difference between the different gods. While if you look at the different religions and the different "stories" in the books and legends and stuff... There are actually more simularities than there are differences, while to each there is the core sence of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" and stuff alike

Yet for some reason people / generations / religious leaders seem to be able to interpert / read into these books/texts that they should go murder anyone that doesnt agree and is not 'complying' with their religious rule (think Crusades).

This whole thing has been 'born' from the fact that Islam people felt 'mis-understood' / 'Alianated' / 'discriminated' / etc. against
Somehow these same people seem to believe that things will go better when a bunch of religious NUTS (sorry dont know any otherway to call them) take a few planes/bombs/etc and go kill a couple of thousand people.
Thing is things get worse yet, which in their eyes is proof that they were right to begin with! A self fullfiling proficy, which is self purpetuating.

IT IS JUST NUTS

I am sorry for the backlash that has come from my posts. I am not sorry for posting though for people such as MSAccessRookie, who actually got the purpose of the post. No, I don't keep up with things, does this mean I don't care about the world? Of course not.

Colin, I am sorry for what I said about you being bitter, I shouldn't have said it. Think of me what you will. I have to remind myself that you don't know me, you have preconceived notions (just as I do about you) about who I am. You have no idea the size of my heart, what my life is like, what I do with my time. Just as I have no idea about you.

I am sorry for the backlash that has come from my posts. I am not sorry for posting though for people such as MSAccessRookie, who actually got the purpose of the post. No, I don't keep up with things, does this mean I don't care about the world? Of course not.

Colin, I am sorry for what I said about you being bitter, I shouldn't have said it. Think of me what you will. I have to remind myself that you don't know me, you have preconceived notions (just as I do about you) about who I am. You have no idea the size of my heart, what my life is like, what I do with my time. Just as I have no idea about you.

Kryst51,

The secret to understanding certain people in here is to realize that their posts should never be taken as personal attacks or even attacks on groups of people. Instead should be taken as the rantings of people who are here to inflame and offend people with words.

I really doubt that these individuals hate the other people as much as they want you to think they do. They just get off people's reactions to the extreme comments that they make.

By the way, I would like to thank the extremists for leaving the date 9/11 alone and not posting until after the day was over.:)

Colin, I am sorry for what I said about you being bitter, I shouldn't have said it.

Why not? You have every right to base an opinion on what I write, I am bitter (not twisted) I have alot to be bitter about - I know that comment expects more qualification, I´m not going to though, just take my word for it.
Think of me what you will.
I don´t think anything of you personally, you have strange ideas but I put that down to you being American.

Col

By the way, I would like to thank the extremists for leaving the date 9/11 alone and not posting until after the day was over.:)

So has 11/9 reached a sacred status in the USA? Is it a public holiday?

Col

Why not? You have every right to base an opinion on what I write, I am bitter (not twisted) I have alot to be bitter about - I know that comment expects more qualification, I´m not going to though, just take my word for it.

I don´t think anything of you personally, you have strange ideas but I put that down to you being American.

Col

I really have no right to make judgements about anybody. And really my comment was based on annoyance and anger, and if I allow those emotions to get the better of me what kind of person am I? (That's rhetorical) And I think you have strange ideas too. But maybe mine aren't only from being American....there are a lot of different things that help contribute to the personality that is me. I have never really defined me by my country, I know people from all over the world, and that has never been a qualifier for who they were, nor for who I am.

I really have no right to make judgements about anybody.

Well, it´s a good job you´re not on a jury.:)

Col

Well, it´s a good job you´re not on a jury.:)

Col

It's definitely a good thing, I really would not want to make a wrong choice......:)

Leave it to Colin to turn a thread remembering thousands of people who died into another shit spewing argument.

It is sad when innocent people have to die for causes that they have no part in and just become the ultimate victim of circumstance. For this we owe the respect for those persons who have perished and also the respect to those left behind who now have an empty place in their hearts.



Empty vessels make a louder noise. I think it is deplorable that someone can be so lacking in humility to be able to taunt persons who have enough empathy in their hearts, thoughts and spirits to allow some understanding towards the mourning of others.
It is troubling when people want to degrade themselves by such an annoying practice of stirring up other people with bigotry and prejudice. I just need to wonder what they must be lacking in their lives to need to replace feeling of compassion for the need to disgrace themselves.

So has 11/9 reached a sacred status in the USA? Is it a public holiday?

Col

Initially, I thought I would ignore this senseless comment. Anyone with that read the thread should realize by now that 9/11/2001 is important to, and will probably never be forgotten by anyone who was in New York City, in or near the Pentagon, in or near a particular small Field in Pennsylvania on that day, or related to anyone that was killed on that day.

Nowhere has it been said that the day has been declared holiday or any other similar status, however, the senseless violence does deserve to be remembered by anyone who chooses to do so.

I truly hope that the good people in the County of Essex in England never have to live through a day like I lived on 9/11/2001. No one deserves that, no matter what anyone else thinks about their beliefs or politics.

Leave it to Colin to turn a thread remembering thousands of people who died into another shit spewing argument.

I was hoping that this would be one time that the thread could continue its purpose instead of being sidetracked by people with one track minds.

I don't know much about Hurricane Ike, but I have been following the Hurricane Katrina story. The Washington Times wrote: HUD secretary 'disturbed' by Katrina rebuilding (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/hud-secretary-disturbed-katrina-rebuilding/).

Check out these links

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike) - We all know how credible Wikipedia is, I just wanted to quickly add some things for informative purposes
The Houston Chronicle (http://www.stormpulse.com/hurricane-ike-2008) - This one is our Newspaper and is credible.
StormPulse (http://www.stormpulse.com/hurricane-ike-2008) - I just did a google search and came up with this.

Edit: hmmm, I want to display pics from my blog, but without giving access to my blog, and I can't get it to work.

Here's an interesting one. (http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/ike/photo-comparisons/images/Ike_photoPairs_galveston_TX_loc6LG.jpg) although not in Houston, this is Galveston
Another (http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/ike/photo-comparisons/images/Ike_photoPairs_galveston_TX_loc5LG.jpg)
Bolivar Peninsula (http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/ike/photo-comparisons/images/Ike_PhotoPair_crystal_bch_TX_Loc2LG.jpg)
Bolivar Again (http://www.bolivarchamber.org/Portals/0/News/CrystalBeachAerialsAfterIke2.jpg)

So has 11/9 reached a sacred status in the USA? Is it a public holiday?

Col

I don't know about sacred status.
They read the names every year in new york.
It IS recognized as "Patriots Day" although I have no idea why they would call it that. But it's not a "Holiday" in the sense of it being a paid day off work or anything. As for my own experience, it was Sept 11th.... a normal day, just like the infamous Sept 11th started out as being, but this Sept 11, it was normal all the day through.

I truly hope that the good people in the County of Essex in England never have to live through a day like I lived on 9/11/2001. No one deserves that, no matter what anyone else thinks about their beliefs or politics.

What a typically ignorant American response!, we suffered 25 YEARS of terrorist attacks thanks to Americans funding their terrorism, when we came on not wanting to sing the praises of that chief fund raiser Kennedy we were spat at and branded anti-American:rolleyes:

I was hoping that this would be one time that the thread could continue its purpose instead of being sidetracked by people with one track minds.
Yes one track that wishes to remember the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in the American revenge attacks:rolleyes:

Leave it to Colin to turn a thread remembering thousands of people who died into another shit spewing argument.

I was also remembering the thousands of people the USA killed for no reason in Iraq, Vietnam and maybe a dozen or so other wars the USA started for the sole reason it seems, it had nothing better to do.

Where I live in Colchester Essex UK, we did have an IRA bomb explode funded of course by the USA as did many cities in the UK. Yet Ted Kennedy is treated as an all-American good old boy.

Don´t accuse me of turning this thread around, you can´t just remember those who died on 11/9/2001, try looking beyond the USA borders Vass - there´s more to the world than the bloody USA.
Try looking at what destruction, chaos, misery, death, injury and disasters the USA has caused, purely to line it´s own pockets. When you have worked it out, then come back to me and say I´m shit spewing, and I´ll call you a hypocrit.

Just because a few thousand get killed in one hit in the USA, you think that´s terrible - ok, it is to a certain extent, and I along with everyone else couldn´t believe what I was seeing on the news live. But add up all the people the Americans have killed for no reason and it pales the twin towers deaths into an eggcup.

Col

I was also remembering the thousands of people the USA killed for no reason in Iraq, Vietnam and maybe a dozen or so other wars the USA started for the sole reason it seems, it had nothing better to do.

Where I live in Colchester Essex UK, we did have an IRA bomb explode funded of course by the USA as did many cities in the UK. Yet Ted Kennedy is treated as an all-American good old boy.

Don´t accuse me of turning this thread around, you can´t just remember those who died on 11/9/2001, try looking beyond the USA borders Vass - there´s more to the world than the bloody USA.
Try looking at what destruction, chaos, misery, death, injury and disasters the USA has caused, purely to line it´s own pockets. When you have worked it out, then come back to me and say I´m shit spewing, and I´ll call you a hypocrit.

Just because a few thousand get killed in one hit in the USA, you think that´s terrible - ok, it is to a certain extent, and I along with everyone else couldn´t believe what I was seeing on the news live. But add up all the people the Americans have killed for no reason and it pales the twin towers deaths into an eggcup.

Col

I had originally typed a pretty long response to this, but decided I'd rather not keep this "discussion" going on this thread. You usually ignore the questions brought to you that you can't answer anyway.

I had originally typed a pretty long response to this, but decided I'd rather not keep this "discussion" going on this thread. You usually ignore the questions brought to you that you can't answer anyway.

Yes, I had a little wager with myself that you´d cop out of answering. You´re not related to Bob are you?

You see, being as Americans are brainwashed by their "democratic" government and their TV is censored to only show the glorious USA, I doubt you would be able to comprehend what I´m talking about anyway.

That´s why USA people here think that Rich and I make things up - I only wish we did.

Col

Initially, I thought I would ignore this senseless comment.

You should have. In a discussion you grant at least a little bit of legitamacy to anyone you engage in direct talks with. If someone says something incredibly off the wall or inflammatory, they are usually doing it (as has been previously surmised) in order to get a reaction of some type.

By responding to that off the wall/inflammatory post you're making it out to be more important that it is. If you ignore it, and everyone ignores it, then its just 1 or 2 people yelling into a vaccuum and agreeing with each other.


It IS recognized as "Patriots Day" although I have no idea why they would call it that.


I think the rationale is that the people who lost their lives were immediately elevated to "Patroit" status as they died in the War On Terror.

You should have. In a discussion you grant at least a little bit of legitamacy to anyone you engage in direct talks with. If someone says something incredibly off the wall or inflammatory, they are usually doing it (as has been previously surmised) in order to get a reaction of some type.

By responding to that off the wall/inflammatory post you're making it out to be more important that it is. If you ignore it, and everyone ignores it, then its just 1 or 2 people yelling into a vaccuum and agreeing with each other.



I think the rationale is that the people who lost their lives were immediately elevated to "Patroit" status as they died in the War On Terror.

I am not sure about anyone else's area, but in my town, "Patriots Day" celebrates all patriots, including Military, Police Fire and other Emergency Services Personnel who have died in the line of duty, as well as the innocents who have died. While the "War against Terror" may explain some of the patriots, it does not have to be the only reason.

I think the rationale is that the people who lost their lives were immediately elevated to "Patroit" status as they died in the War On Terror.

So you have to be killed to be a patriot, even if you were just sitting at a pc or having a coffee?

Mind you we has a WPC standing outside the Lybian embassy elevated to heroine status just because she was shot by some murdering bastard, an event conveniently forgotten by the s***heads governing these islands.

Brian

Ok, here´s a serious question.

The spouses of the Trade Centre dead got $5million each in compensation. If another "patriot" is killed, say a fireman or police - do they get $5million? How about all the dead US soldiers spouses - $5million?

Is that the going rate for being a bereaved spouse?

Col

Ok, here´s a serious question.

The spouses of the Trade Centre dead got $5million each in compensation. If another "patriot" is killed, say a fireman or police - do they get $5million? How about all the dead US soldiers spouses - $5million?

Is that the going rate for being a bereaved spouse?

Col

Can you cite a source for this "fact"? I couldn't find anything that stated they recieved $5 million each. I know for a fact my friends who had relatives die did not.

Can you cite a source for this "fact"? I couldn't find anything that stated they recieved $5 million each. I know for a fact my friends who had relatives die did not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/18/national/main656434.shtml

any help?

So you have to be killed to be a patriot, even if you were just sitting at a pc or having a coffee?


If you're asking for the official policy, I do not know. If you're asking me for my opinion, I would say no. The word "Patriot" holds a lot of value in America, but like most other labels it is very subjective in its meaning and application.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/18/national/main656434.shtml

any help?

It doesn't state anywhere in that article that EACH victim's spouse will receive $5 million. It does state the average payout is $2 million, but that's misleading. I'd much rather see what the median value is, I'm sure it's much lower than that.

I would think the higher values are going to large families with children, especially with disabilities, to support that previously would have been covered by the deceased party's insurance policies.. As I stated, my friends families didn't get nearly that amount, or I doubt they would be living where they live. :D

Anyway Col, since you seem to assume all Americans are ignorant to matters outside of the US, that makes you just as ignorant, and in fact a hypocrit. I certainly don't believe all Brits are as ignorant as you are of Americans.

It doesn't state anywhere in that article that EACH victim's spouse will receive $5 million. It does state the average payout is $2 million, but that's misleading. I'd much rather see what the median value is, I'm sure it's much lower than that.

I would think the higher values are going to large families with children, especially with disabilities, to support that previously would have been covered by the deceased party's insurance policies.. As I stated, my friends families didn't get nearly that amount, or I doubt they would be living where they live. :D

Anyway Col, since you seem to assume all Americans are ignorant to matters outside of the US, that makes you just as ignorant, and in fact a hypocrit. I certainly don't believe all Brits are as ignorant as you are of Americans.

Also the article talked about those who were injured during the rescue efforts and not only those who died, those with respiratory problems, etc...

It doesn't state anywhere in that article that EACH victim's spouse will receive $5 million. It does state the average payout is $2 million, but that's misleading. I'd much rather see what the median value is, I'm sure it's much lower than that.

I would think the higher values are going to large families with children, especially with disabilities, to support that previously would have been covered by the deceased party's insurance policies.. As I stated, my friends families didn't get nearly that amount, or I doubt they would be living where they live. :D

Anyway Col, since you seem to assume all Americans are ignorant to matters outside of the US, that makes you just as ignorant, and in fact a hypocrit. I certainly don't believe all Brits are as ignorant as you are of Americans.

Nice one - that made me laugh.

Ever seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11"? - If not I suggest you do, you may learn something, of course you´ll disbelieve it all as most Yankees do on this forum.

Col

Also the article talked about those who were injured during the rescue efforts and not only those who died, those with respiratory problems, etc...

It seems in the USA, you only have to break a fingernail and you get compo. If you´re a soldier and get a scratch you get a sparkly medal.

I´d love shares in the company that makes purple hearts (that´s the medal, not the drug)

Col

It seems in the USA, you only have to break a fingernail and you get compo. If you´re a soldier and get a scratch you get a sparkly medal.

I´d love shares in the company that makes purple hearts (that´s the medal, not the drug)

Col

Can you teach me how to get comp for a broken fingernail? Because I could surely take advantage of that.....

Can you teach me how to get comp for a broken fingernail? Because I could surely take advantage of that.....

Claim from the government, or the military.

Col

Claim from the government, or the military.

Col

Thank you oh wise one that clears it up for me. :p:rolleyes:

Thank you oh wise one that clears it up for me. :p:rolleyes:

You´re more than welcome.

Col

Ever seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11"? - If not I suggest you do, you may learn something, of course you´ll disbelieve it all as most Yankees do on this forum.

Col

I've seen that. I've watch several of Michael Moore's films.
Sicko and Bowling for Columbine as well.

Although I have heard that Mr. Moore can use information to skew actual facts. However, I have no personal knowledge of anything.

For instance, as a young girl, my Sunday school teacher told me there was a God. My father told me there was not. I still have no concrete evidence to side with either my Sunday school teach or my father.

So here is the question. How do you know who to believe? How can you tell a good source from a bad source?

Nice one - that made me laugh.

Ever seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11"? - If not I suggest you do, you may learn something, of course you´ll disbelieve it all as most Yankees do on this forum.

Col

And I would further suggest that anyone who has seen the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 go to a Web Browser and search for "Fahrenheit 9/11 Errors". There are literally Dozens of authors that point out intentional errors in the film. While they may not all agree as to exactly how many there are, it is very clear that the number is at least 55 and could be much higher. I am sure that some people will Pooh Pooh the idea as biased against the movie in some way, but I am hoping that people who do not already have an opinion will be eilling to take a look.

By the way, I have seen the movie, and it is neither a fair nor an accurate portrayal of the events. Everything that can be is intentionally portrayed to with a bias against the government and people of the USA. Feel free not to believe, but if you are not willing to read the rebuttals that I have referred to, then you will remain among the uninformed.

And I would further suggest that anyone who has seen the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 go to a Web Browser and search for "Fahrenheit 9/11 Errors". There are literally Dozens of authors that point out intentional errors in the film. While they may not all agree as to exactly how many there are, it is very clear that the number is at least 55 and could be much higher. I am sure that some people will Pooh Pooh the idea as biased against the movie in some way, but I am hoping that people who do not already have an opinion will be eilling to take a look.

By the way, I have seen the movie, and it is neither a fair nor an accurate portrayal of the events. Everything that can be is intentionally portrayed to with a bias against the government and people of the USA. Feel free not to believe, but if you are not willing to read the rebuttals that I have referred to, then you will remain among the uninformed.

There's just as many rebuttals against the bible and everything it entails for people that are unbiased and openminded enough to read them. :D

I have seen the movie and thought it was very good. It shows a very narrow point of view that is obviously anti-government, but it really dives into what drives that point of view and why people feel the way they do. I enjoyed it. That movie alone should contradict your own feelings about all Americans being ignorant, Col.

There's just as many rebuttals against the bible and everything it entails for people that are unbiased and openminded enough to read them. :D

I have seen the movie and thought it was very good. It shows a very narrow point of view that is obviously anti-government, but it really dives into what drives that point of view and why people feel the way they do. I enjoyed it. That movie alone should contradict your own feelings about all Americans being ignorant, Col.

Take time to read some of the posts regarding the errors. There is one that points out 56 errors, over half of which were blatent and intentional. While I agree that the movie was entertaining to some degree, it should not be viewed as an representation of Fact.

There's just as many rebuttals against the bible and everything it entails for people that are unbiased and openminded enough to read them. :D


That was rather the point of my post.
You have people all around you telling you different things.
Who do you believe?
And why do you choose to believe them?

If you do not have first hand, direct knowledge of something, you have no choice but to try and discern, from all the cacaphony of voices spewing information, what is the truth. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it nearly impossible to do so with any true certainty.

And if you are taught, from the time you were a child, to believe in something, what would cause you to disbelieve it? Changing people's belief system is almost impossible. Understanding it is easier. You don't have to agree with it. But you can respect where it came from. (yes, yes, I know.... dangling participle. It should be "from whence it came" or something. But that would make me sound fairily snobbish, would it not?)

I've seen that. I've watch several of Michael Moore's films.
Sicko and Bowling for Columbine as well.

Although I have heard that Mr. Moore can use information to skew actual facts. However, I have no personal knowledge of anything.

For instance, as a young girl, my Sunday school teacher told me there was a God. My father told me there was not. I still have no concrete evidence to side with either my Sunday school teach or my father.

So here is the question. How do you know who to believe? How can you tell a good source from a bad source?
Your dad was obviously a very wise man, I know which one I'd rather trust;)

For instance, as a young girl, my Sunday school teacher told me there was a God. My father told me there was not. I still have no concrete evidence to side with either my Sunday school teach or my father.


I find that interesting to see that your father sent you to Sunday school but did not believe in God. :confused:
I'm in a similar situation now where I was brought up as a Christian and like yourselves went to Sunday school and all that but as I grew up I began to change my believes & now I'm not religious at all

The thing is I would like my little boy to go to Sunday school even though my religious believes have changed. Not to confuse the poor kid but mainly because I think Sunday school is good for teaching good family values, manners, respect etc.

I find that interesting to see that your father sent you to Sunday school but did not believe in God. :confused:
I'm in a similar situation now where I was brought up as a Christian and like yourselves went to Sunday school and all that but as I grew up I began to change my believes & now I'm not religious at all

The thing is I would like my little boy to go to Sunday school even though my religious believes have changed. Not to confuse the poor kid but mainly because I think Sunday school is good for teaching good family values, manners, respect etc.

It would depend on which faith "school" they're sent to ;)

I find that interesting to see that your father sent you to Sunday school but did not believe in God. :confused:
I'm in a similar situation now where I was brought up as a Christian and like yourselves went to Sunday school and all that but as I grew up I began to change my believes & now I'm not religious at all

The thing is I would like my little boy to go to Sunday school even though my religious believes have changed. Not to confuse the poor kid but mainly because I think Sunday school is good for teaching good family values, manners, respect etc.

My father did not send me to church. I'm a joiner. lol.
I grew up in a small town and quite honestly, it was just something to do. There were people there and I like to be around people. Although I am not at all athletic, when I was in middle school, I joined the basketball team, (they let me keep score) the floor hockey team (they let me announce the players), the volleyball team (they let me actually play there), took part in every school play and chorus, volunteered to spend an hour a week with the lunch ladies washing lunch trays, signed up to be the librarian's assistant, and volunteered as a "buddy" to the mentally challenged class on campus. Church was just another opportunity to be part of something. Thankfully, the school system and the church had a great bus program. My parents said I could do anything I wanted to as long as it didn't cost them any money and they didn't have to bring me anywhere. That's the only reason I wasn't in band. (Musical instruments cost money)

Everytime Colin gets on his high horse and start talking about the American soldiers who died in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and other places I can't help thinking about the thousands of red-coated soldiers who died in:
North America to maintain a monopoly on the fur trade
Asia to maintain a monopoly on opium
Africa to keep other countries out
Australia to kill aboriginals so that sheep herding could become profitable.
I'm certain that the number of innocents killed in these campaigns rivals any that America may have inflicted.
It took Britan 300 years to discover that they could not change the world before they finally gave up.
Let's hope America can learn the lesson quicker.

As to the World Trade Centre, those families who lost loved ones and hired lawyers to sue settled for millions of dollars. Those that didn't settled for much less.

At least we didn't pretend to be "liberating" those countries, although in the end of course we did along with freedom and education etc., etc..........:rolleyes:

It took Britan 300 years to discover that they could not change the world before they finally gave up.


I wont bother with the other rediculous statements but this one is so daft it displays this persons total ignorance of history, of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better, though the European carve up of Africa is still leaving a legacy of problems, perhaps if we had indulged in the genocidal approach as the US did then things would have been ok.

Brian

I wont bother with the other rediculous statements but this one is so daft it displays this persons total ignorance of history, of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better, though the European carve up of Africa is still leaving a legacy of problems, perhaps if we had indulged in the genocidal approach as the US did then things would have been ok.

Brian

Trying to paint the policies of the British empire as altruistic is pretty weak, IMHO.

The British along with the Dutch and Spanish fully indulged in the trans-Atlantic slave trade of the 1700's.
The tax policies of the Raj helped to kill millions in India via famine.

You may retort with the US slave trade continuing long after the British equivalent but may I remind you that, that policy as much of America's, was INHERITED from British policy. It took a civil war at a cost of much human life to dispense with it.

I know that I'll get the predictable response that the US far outscores the British in the tyranny charts. But that's not what I'm contesting. Just the suggestion that the British Empire barely caused any discomfort to the common man.

I wont bother with the other rediculous statements but this one is so daft it displays this persons total ignorance of history, of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better, though the European carve up of Africa is still leaving a legacy of problems, perhaps if we had indulged in the genocidal approach as the US did then things would have been ok.


That's a beast of a run-on sentence there Brian.

It is interesting that you think Britan changed the world for the better. I know that there are many countries that would disagree. I seem to remember reading an article just recently out of Kenya where the government there is demanding Britan pay them for all the damages, murders, etc that were part of that country's history.

I also have no doubt that some Americans truly believe that we are changing Iraq and Afghanistan for the better.

In my opinion, Britan, through history, has tried to dominate and subjugate many countries in the world. In doing so they forced these other countries to change and adopt British laws, rules, culture, etc.

It may be 'better' for Britan, America, and other English speaking countries that these subjugated countries speak English, have legal systems very similar to ours, etc. However, I can't imagine that those countries put to the sword would have agreed at the time that it was for the better. Some may now, after many years of indoctrination to the British way of life.

Interesting that Adam chooses Kenya for his example when I had already accepted that the European carve up of Africa had left problems, hardly worth entering into a discussion with people who do not correctly acknowledge what has been written.

FWIW Slavery has existed since the beginning of time, Britain was the first country to abolish it.
The american civil war was about power, the slavery issue was an excuse, didn't I read that Lincoln had slaves?

Brian

Originally Posted by Brianwarnock http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=887241#post887241)
I wont bother with the other rediculous statements but this one is so daft it displays this persons total ignorance of history, of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better, though the European carve up of Africa is still leaving a legacy of problems, perhaps if we had indulged in the genocidal approach as the US did then things would have been ok.


It is interesting that you think Britan changed the world for the better. I know that there are many countries that would disagree. I seem to remember reading an article just recently out of Kenya where the government there is demanding Britan pay them for all the damages, murders, etc that were part of that country's history.

Unless it's changed very recently, Kenya would fall under the umbrella of 'Africa' and so is covered by Brian's statement. You're using a point that agrees with what he said to argue against him.

I also have no doubt that some Americans truly believe that we are changing Iraq and Afghanistan for the better.

Some people have strange beliefs. It's not just Americans.

In my opinion, Britan, through history, has tried to dominate and subjugate many countries in the world. In doing so they forced these other countries to change and adopt British laws, rules, culture, etc.

Yes it did (hardly a controversial viewpoint).
As did the Greeks, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Spanish, the French, the Mongols, the Persians, and every other nation that's expanded. I can't think of many, if any, examples of countries that expanded their emipre by asking to be invited into a foreign land and taking a vote among the native population as to whether this new land wanted to take on aspects of the arriving culture.
The Greeks took their knowledge of science to the countries they invaded.
Rome invaded Britain. Lots of Britons died. They left behind advances like paved roads.
The Mongols took advances in science and weaponry from places like China and spread them to the West.
In the long term, there are many, many places that have improved as a result of having been conquered.
Was it all good? Of course not, but a lot of good did come of it.

It may be 'better' for Britan, America, and other English speaking countries that these subjugated countries speak English, have legal systems very similar to ours, etc. However, I can't imagine that those countries put to the sword would have agreed at the time that it was for the better. Some may now, after many years of indoctrination to the British way of life.
'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?

FWIW Slavery has existed since the beginning of time, Britain was the first country to abolish it.
The american civil war was about power, the slavery issue was an excuse, didn't I read that Lincoln had slaves?

Brian

You've just jumped straight into the old point scoring routine in an attempt to make out your country is something special. Britain was fully complicit in slavery. End Of.

As Alc has pointed out, the British empire was just like any other. An exercise in power. Not a selfless institution motivated by the desire to improve the quality of life for all.

'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Native Americans were getting slaughtered. How could you possibly ask them to think from such a utilitarian point of view?

[QUOTE=dan-cat;887322]You've just jumped straight into the old point scoring routine in an attempt to make out your country is something special. Britain was fully complicit in slavery. End Of.

[QUOTE]

Its a total lack of respect to engage in such things on a thread with the obvious purpose this thread had.

Its not too difficult to start another thread is it.

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Native Americans were getting slaughtered. How could you possibly ask them to think from such a utilitarian point of view?
I didn't ask the native Americans who were getting slaughtered.

quote:
"Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?"

That question was directed at present-day Americans. I imagine very few of you would prefer it if you were living how Americans lived in the 15th century, before us evil Europeans subjugated you and forced you to our way of doing things.

That question was directed at present-day Americans. I imagine very few of you would prefer it if you were living how Americans lived in the 15th century, before us evil Europeans subjugated you and forced you to our way of doing things.

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.
That's a cop-out and you know it. I answered one post with another.

Adam stated the obvious with:
"In my opinion, Britan, through history, has tried to dominate and subjugate many countries in the world. In doing so they forced these other countries to change and adopt British laws, rules, culture, etc."

and followed up with the equally obvious
"It may be 'better' for Britan, America, and other English speaking countries that these subjugated countries speak English, have legal systems very similar to ours, etc. However, I can't imagine that those countries put to the sword would have agreed at the time that it was for the better. Some may now, after many years of indoctrination to the British way of life."

I gave evidence that this is true of many countries, not just the UK.

I used the examples of the UK and USA as those were the ones I was handed by him. If he'd used Spain and South America in his post, I'd have used those in the response.

I didn't notice you accusing him of scoring points when he made the initial statements, or does this point system of yours only work one-way?

Interesting that Adam chooses Kenya for his example when I had already accepted that the European carve up of Africa had left problems, hardly worth entering into a discussion with people who do not correctly acknowledge what has been written.


I chose Kenya simply because I just recently read something about it, not trying to score any points against you.


Unless it's changed very recently, Kenya would fall under the umbrella of 'Africa' and so is covered by Brian's statement. You're using a point that agrees with what he said to argue against him.


He's agreeing that Europeans carved up Africa. I was using a specific case of Great Britan rather than Europeans as a whole.


'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?


I think there is quite a bit of difference in the situation of America. Most Americans are descendents of the subjugators rather than the subjugated.

If I was a Native American, then your analogy and following question would make more sense.

If I was a Native American, then your analogy and following question would make more sense.
So the original point that, in many cases, one country invading another has been good for the invaded country in the long term isn't true if the people at the time of the invasion weren't happy about it?

Since nobody likes being killed or subjugated, it would follow that no good has come from any country being conquered by another. Technology, etc. wouldn't have spread anywhere near as fast and human advancement would be considerably farther back than it is.

So the original point that, in many cases, one country invading another has been good for the invaded country in the long term isn't true if the people at the time of the invasion weren't happy about it?


Ah, but was that the point? Once again, you seem to be taking what is written and changing the scope.

Brian stated:

...of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better...


My contention with that statement was that the people who Britan 'changed' would probably not have agreed with the statement at the time Britan was 'changing' them.

Ah, but was that the point? Once again, you seem to be taking what is written and changing the scope.

My contention with that statement was that the people who Britan 'changed' would probably not have agreed with the statement at the time Britan was 'changing' them.
Nor would any country ever changed, at the time it was being changed.
Brian used Britain in his example, as Statsman had used it in his.

My point is that whatever is being said about Britain, specifically, can be applied - to varying degrees - to any country that ever engaged in the conquering of others.

You may retort with the US slave trade continuing long after the British equivalent but may I remind you that, that policy as much of America's, was INHERITED from British policy. It took a civil war at a cost of much human life to dispense with it.


You're missing the point that we became civilised centuries ago and the US continues with its colonisation policies disguised as "freedom":rolleyes:

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.

So, anyway..... who else played sports in school, or was in drama or chorus?

:D

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

I agree, as it has completely digressed from the title and purpose.

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

You might have a point there, but with the attitudes of the people that like to misdirect threads in the Water Cooler, I suspect that more than a trivial amount of posts would wind up there. Imagine the work that would make for the poor Forum Monitors.

Britain did change the world, but for the most part the change really didn't take.

Starting in 1945, Britain began divesting itself of its Empire. The reason, beating Hitler had bankrupted the country and Britain no longer had the means to continue it. Those places around the world that were British colonies were quickly granted Dominion status. By the 1960s, the British Empire consisted of Gibraltor and Hong Kong (and a few other places).
I will give Britain credit. When independance came there was a well trained in-place native civil service so that the new country had a good chance to succeed. Dictatorships quickly overthrew democracy however, many of which continue to this day based primarily on tribal factions.
After a few hundred years of British rule, the whole place went back to the government they had before the British arrived.

Note: I am not saying ALL the countries that left the Colonial Office for the Commonwealth office have suffered this fate.

So, anyway..... who else played sports in school, or was in drama or chorus?

:D

Football here. American football :p

Football here. American football :p

:pI was in the band:eek:

:pI was in the band:eek:

Football, choir, chess club, French club.

Britain did change the world, but for the most part the change really didn't take.

Starting in 1945, Britain began divesting itself of its Empire. The reason, beating Hitler had bankrupted the country and Britain no longer had the means to continue it. Those places around the world that were British colonies were quickly granted Dominion status. By the 1960s, the British Empire consisted of Gibraltor and Hong Kong (and a few other places).
I will give Britain credit. When independance came there was a well trained in-place native civil service so that the new country had a good chance to succeed. Dictatorships quickly overthrew democracy however, many of which continue to this day based primarily on tribal factions.
After a few hundred years of British rule, the whole place went back to the government they had before the British arrived.

Note: I am not saying ALL the countries that left the Colonial Office for the Commonwealth office have suffered this fate.
Where's Gibraltor and does your generalisation include the worlds largest democracy, that's India by the way, for the Americans?

Football, choir, chess club, French club.
I preferred to play with the girls and ended up getting led astray:mad:

I preferred to play with the girls and ended up getting led astray:mad:

is it led astray or laid astray?

:D
:o

Where's Gibraltor and does your generalisation include the worlds largest democracy, that's India by the way, for the Americans?


Please go back and read the last line in the quote.
I'll make it 24 point next time if that will help.

The original Indian colony included Pakistan (dictatorship) and Myanmar/Burma (dictatorship).
I win two-out-of-three. :D

is it led astray or laid astray?

:D
:o
and they lied too:D

Britain did change the world, but for the most part the change really didn't take.

Starting in 1945, Britain began divesting itself of its Empire. The reason, beating Hitler had bankrupted the country and Britain no longer had the means to continue it. Those places around the world that were British colonies were quickly granted Dominion status. By the 1960s, the British Empire consisted of Gibraltor and Hong Kong (and a few other places).
I will give Britain credit. When independance came there was a well trained in-place native civil service so that the new country had a good chance to succeed. Dictatorships quickly overthrew democracy however, many of which continue to this day based primarily on tribal factions.
After a few hundred years of British rule, the whole place went back to the government they had before the British arrived.

Note: I am not saying ALL the countries that left the Colonial Office for the Commonwealth office have suffered this fate.
Is the change we're talking about limited solely to which countries remained part of the British empire or retained the British system of government? If so, you're absolutely correct.

If, however, we're using the word 'change' in the more usual sense of 'not remaining the same', then it's pretty far from correct. Every empire that's expanded - be it Greek, Roman, Spanish, British, or whoever else - has had varying effects on the areas it conquered. This includes, but isn't limited to, language, clothes, architecture, engineering, weaponry, agriculture and transport.

Are you suggesting that other than a civil service, you can travel to various countries that were once 'ruled' by Britain and see no remnants of it?

Is the change we're talking about limited solely to which countries remained part of the British empire or retained the British system of government? If so, you're absolutely correct.

If, however, we're using the word 'change' in the more usual sense of 'not remaining the same', then it's pretty far from correct. Every empire that's expanded - be it Greek, Roman, Spanish, British, or whoever else - has had varying effects on the areas it conquered. This includes, but isn't limited to, language, clothes, architecture, engineering, weaponry, agriculture and transport.

Are you suggesting that other than a civil service, you can travel to various countries that were once 'ruled' by Britain and see no remnants of it?

The remnants remain. The attempt to install a "British" system of Parliamentary democracy failed.

The original Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) worked remarkably well. Because of this, Britain attempted to expand the experiment.

The original Dominions had long histories of local democratic government long before they became Dominions. The newly independant colonies in Africa and Asia had no such traditions. Most of the folks had no idea what a vote was. Turns out they only got to cast one.

Areas like the Carribbean had exposure to democracy due to links to the USA or the other democratic countries of North America. Most have maintained democracy.

NOW

Having said that, even though the countries are dictatorships, most retain many of the British institutions that were left for them and they are proud to be members of the Commonwealth.

The remnants remain. The attempt to install a "British" system of Parliementary democracy failed.
So when you said 'change' you meant 'install a British parliamentary system'. That wasn't clear from your first post, so I apologise for the misunderstanding. I assumed that you meant change in a far broader sense.

Areas like the Carribbean had exposure to democracy due to links to the USA or the other democratic countries of North America. Most have maintained democracy.
The United States is not a democracy so that knocks that theory on the head:rolleyes:

The United States is not a democracy so that knocks that theory on the head:rolleyes:

You should stop trying to be provocative. You're really not very good at it.

Why not try sharing some of the intelligence I'm sure is in there someplace.

I bet you would find it far more entertaining.

I've been drinking so I couldn't quite make out the last posts.
Are people still arguing?

Are people still arguing?
Only Statsman again....................

You should stop trying to be provocative. You're really not very good at it.

Why not try sharing some of the intelligence I'm sure is in there someplace.

I bet you would find it far more entertaining.
I will if you start posting facts not theories, the US is a Republic, not a democracy:rolleyes:

Britain was fully complicit in slavery. End Of.



Britain was a major supplier of slaves. Alot of major cities like Bristol and Liverpool were built on slavery - we (the British) did really well out of it, many historic buildings and city centres were build using the proceeds from slavery. Then it was banned.

So now we use slavery in a more covert manner - we use small children and women in eastern countries to make our goods for us. They get paid peanuts (which in their case is better than nothing) and we get the goods. Everyone's a winner.

Little fingers = little neat stiches.

We also sneak in Eastern Block people for illegal work in agriculture, sex industry etc. And for doing jobs many in the UK don't want to do.

Slavery in a slightly different form is alive and well and is a growth industry.

Col

I will if you start posting facts not theories, the US is a Republic, not a democracy:rolleyes:

I would respond on point but you would accuse me of agruing. :rolleyes:

We played lacrosse but not as a school activity because I was not good enough for the team. We also played football (Canadian) and soccor (real football).

A couple of years back we tried to play baseball at a municipal park but got shooed off because we were just a bunch of people and not an actual team - which I think is wrong as local taxes pay for the facility and we were not playing during any 'teams' allotted time...:mad:

So, anyway..... who else played sports in school, or was in drama or chorus?

:D

I would respond on point but you would accuse me of agruing. :rolleyes:
What's agruing, try agreeing for a change then:rolleyes:

I've been drinking so I couldn't quite make out the last posts.
Are people still arguing?

Yes, they are.

What's agruing, try agreeing for a change then:rolleyes:

I would respond on point but you would accuse me of agruing. :rolleyes:

I've been off the forum for a few days and wow things moved on, I thank ALC for saving me the trouble of responding to many of the arguments. I especially agree with the following.

So when you said 'change' you meant 'install a British parliamentary system'. That wasn't clear from your first post, so I apologise for the misunderstanding. I assumed that you meant change in a far broader sense.

I do "like" Dan-cats approach, suggest I have said something daft and then knock it down, way to win an argument.:D Only he raised the issue of altruism the rest of us always knew that colonialism was from self interest.
I also like the way he raised the issue of the slave trade and when I gave him some true facts accused me of point scoring, not sure whom I was scoring them against.

Brian

I would respond on point but you would accuse me of agruing. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't because the word's not in the English language:rolleyes:

This is a reply narrowly targeted to Steve R and his comments about rebuilding New Orleans post-Katrina, plus the others who bypassed some of his implications.

Steve, first there are sections of the city that are not rebuilding very quickly if at all. Many houses are just now being razed to the ground, four years after the event. It took that long for some of the time-limits to expire on public notification and the attempts to find property owners. So it is hard for me to say that a lot of people are rebuilding in the worst flood areas.

I drive daily through one of the hardest-hit areas. I personally know folks who were rescued off of their roof while surrounded by 10 feet of water in cases. At least four families, none of whom are rebuilding, fall into my personal sphere of acquaintance. There are houses in this area, called the "Lakeview" subdivision, that are still unoccupied and not rebuilding or renovating. I believe their "public blight" clocks are ticking. Having said that, many others have raised their homes by three or four feet, some even by more. So the rebuilding isn't blind.

But here is the question that I always have to ask whenever I see any variant of the "why rebuild there?" question. Are you aware of the infrastructure of the USA that is invested in New Orleans? We rebuild because the city represents one of the busiest ports in the USA. Our roads and rail lines run to the docks. With the shipping traffic that we support, you have to ask if you can afford to relocate the infrastructure of so much shipping and commerce. Further, if you look at the riverfront property upriver from the city, that is taken up by factories and refineries and chemical plants that use their dock facilities for direct onloading or offloading (as appropriate). So you would have to buy them out to get river ports. Let's try other nearby ports to take up the slack...

Gulfport MS and Biloxi MS? Limited docking area because the geograaphy is wrong. Plus, they are also subject to Gulf storms.

Mobile, AL? They are better than either of the MS ports, but still have less docking area than New Orleans. Also subject to Gulf storms.

Florida? Their ports are unable to take up the slack and they are also subject to either Gulf storms or Atlantic storms.

Let's go the other way. Galveston? Look at what Hurricane Ike did. Got any other big candidates?

The whole point of building a port where you build it is because it is on a seacoast or inland up a large river. But in the Gulf, that exposes you to storms. Do you step away from the coast and do without the shipping? A lot of hungry people around the world depend on that shipping, since inbound goods pay for food elsewhere (through the economic chain) and outbound food directly feeds people elsewhere. What do you give up?

The population of the city is geographically spreading out onto the north shore of the lakes and the western area beyond the marshes, but the longer commute costs time, gas, and money, plus adds wear and tear to the roads. And stress to the drivers. Net result, they will seek places to live that are closer to their work. Which is .... the city of New Orleans. So they rebuild in a dangerous place and try to take precautions.

Let us not forget, either, that the city was managing OK until the levees on three of the major drainage canals broke and certain unwise decisions were made to allow pumps to stop in selected areas. The investigation of the levees has clearly shown that this was a man-made disaster because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has essentially failed in its role to protect the navigable waterways of the USA. (See, for example, the Navigable Waterways Act of 1975, and as subsequently amended.) The city and surrounding areas would have had some street flooding but not the massive disaster they actually had were it not for unwise decisions and failures by the USACE to inspect the work on the levees to assure compliance with specifications.

Why do we continue to inhabit the city? No place else to go, really, unless we want to abandon jobs, family, friends, and our homes.

I won't enter into a discussion of the insurance fiascos. Some of those are still in litigation and will take years to resolve.

I will if you start posting facts not theories, the US is a Republic, not a democracy:rolleyes:
The two are not imcompatible. A republic can be democratic although in practice very few countries are truly democratic. The electoral systemss usually favour the larger parties at the expense ofthe the smaller. For example the UK where to achieve a large parliamentary majority usually requires not more than 42- 45% of the vote.

Why do we continue to inhabit the city? No place else to go, really, unless we want to abandon jobs, family, friends, and our homes.



Just get a job elsewhere. Done it loads of times - it's a good way to broaden ones experience of life and different places instead of being stuck in one place and knowing nothing about outside your area, like many US posters here.

Families are a pain, friends are usually false and homes can be bought and sold.

Gotta be better than sticking around in a city that can flood at any time. Especially if the President cuts expenditure on keeping the levees up to scratch.

I worry about Americans who live in dangerous areas like Florida and their hurricanes, or in Tornado alley - plus, I heard that the price of houses on the San Andreas fault are much higher than normal because it's 'macho' to say you live on the fault. . . . . how wierd is that?


Col

Families are a pain, friends are usually false and homes can be bought and sold.

Col

Not much you can do about family but you choose your friends so take responsibility for your choice. Not always possible to sell your home in a depression or to find a new job so moving isn't always practical.

BTW as you are always keen on correct spelling it is Weird not Wierd.:) I would hate to see you giving our US friends a chance to taunt you:D

Families are a pain, friends are usually false and homes can be bought and sold.
To quote a dutch song:
Vriendschap is een illusie, Vriendschap is een droom een pakketje schroot met een dun laagje chroom.

Or rougly
Friendship is an Illusion, friendship is a dream, a lot of scrap with a nice but paper thin layer of chrome...

It has been my moto in life for a long time after royally beeing screwed over by people I considered "good friends".

Family is mostly around when
a) You dont want/need them around
b) They want something from you

Then when you need them, oops they are to busy ....


Gotta be better than sticking around in a city that can flood at any time. Especially if the President cuts expenditure on keeping the levees up to scratch.

Talking about wierdness, we have Schiphol airport here near Amsterdam. There are some nice villages that you fly over as you land on or depart from Schiphol.

You guess what people complain about airplane noise? Those that have lived there for 10 years or less.

Guess how long Schiphol has been on that very spot, with the airplanes flying the exact same route?? 50 years or more!

offcourse they didnt wonder why the average house on the "schiphol route villages" is roughly 10% cheaper....
Or stuff like that, then they come and live there and there is this "new thing" called airplanes flying overhead???!!!

I think it is the same with New Orleans and other such area's... If I know I am moving to an area where I have increased risk of Flooding/storms/etc, I should not be complaining about it when the floods do happen.

Now the risk of flooding is present in 50+% of the Netherlands, which is why I have my personal doubts about staying, then again we have to pay "levee tax" to actually maintain the Levee's and such to keep the water away... so our government SHOULD be maintaining them and stuff.... making sure we keep "our feet dry"

Here is hoping the Netherlands stay "above water" :)