Here's How The US Will Respond To Haiti

[Kathianne]

Not 'Obama', he just orders the resources into action. They will have their job cut out for them, seems the port is in very bad shape. :

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4342398.html


Tragedy in Haiti: The American Response
The U.S. is working on a fast Haitian rescue with a handful of Coast Guard cutters, a hospital ship—the USNS Comfort—and aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. Here is how the rescue effort will go down.
By Joe Pappalardo
Published on: January 13, 2010

When calamity on the level of Haiti's earthquake strikes, the first U.S. responders bear a heavy load. Outnumbered and overwhelmed, Navy sailors, Coast Guardsmen and professional urban rescue teams will be some of the first to save lives amid the rubble.

The first ones on the scene will be the Coast Guard. They have the rescue training and equipment to deliver help quickly. (After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Coast Guard helicopters were plucking victims from roofs while the rest of the military was still mobilizing.) Four large Coast Guard ships—a 210-foot Reliance-class cutter and three 270-foot medium Endurance-class cutters—left Miami today, bound for Haiti. These cutters conduct routine patrols in the Caribbean, hunting smugglers who transport drugs and illegal immigrants, and rescuing people in distress. Each ship is equipped with helicopters ready for sling rescues and small boats that can reach places with little infrastructure. Perhaps most importantly, the ships have water desalination equipment that could help stave off disease in the quake's aftermath...

[Agnapostate]

Not 'Obama', he just orders the resources into action.

That's the role of every head of state in every executive-decreed action. *shrug*

[Kathianne]

That's the role of every head of state in every executive-decreed action. *shrug*

Yeah, but not all say, "I will..." "My team...", ya know, they actually know who's paying and who will do the work. :rolleyes:

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, but not all say, "I will..." "My team...", ya know, they actually know who's paying and who will do the work. :rolleyes:

But enough do. And their presence and office alone indicates that they believe that a top figure is necessary for effective administration.

[Pericles]

Yeah, but not all say, "I will..." "My team...", ya know, they actually know who's paying and who will do the work. :rolleyes:

Aw crap. This thread says a whole lot more about the Con mentality, than it does about anything else. The unspeakable happens, tens of thousands of human beings are dead, and first thing on your mind is that your political opponents don't get points simply for doing (what is only) the right thing. Sure, they shouldn't - but please, what Democrat is out there trying to capitalize on this politically? Are the Cons so embittered about being out of power, that they'll use even this occasion as an excuse to attack the president?

Looks like it. Sad. Pathetic.

[Abbey Marie]

Aw crap. This thread says a whole lot more about the Con mentality, than it does about anything else. The unspeakable happens, tens of thousands of human beings are dead, and first thing on your mind is that your political opponents don't get points simply for doing (what is only) the right thing. Sure, they shouldn't - but please, what Democrat is out there trying to capitalize on this politically? Are the Cons so embittered about being out of power, that they'll use even this occasion as an excuse to attack the president?

Looks like it. Sad. Pathetic.

If politicizing tragedy bothers you so much, I am sure you will find lots to condemn in Aggie's post about Haiti:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=26074

Can't wait to hear it.

[Nukeman]

Aw crap. This thread says a whole lot more about the Con mentality, than it does about anything else. The unspeakable happens, tens of thousands of human beings are dead, and first thing on your mind is that your political opponents don't get points simply for doing (what is only) the right thing. Sure, they shouldn't - but please, what Democrat is out there trying to capitalize on this politically? Are the Cons so embittered about being out of power, that they'll use even this occasion as an excuse to attack the president?

Looks like it. Sad. Pathetic.
And ohhhhh soooo many "cons" have posted on this thread for you to use your broad brush to paint them all in the same light.... In the immortal words of Bugs bunny "What a maroon" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:poke:

[Pericles]

If politicizing tragedy bothers you so much, I am sure you will find lots to condemn in Aggie's post about Haiti:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=26074

Can't wait to hear it.

Sure it bothers me - I take it from your remark here, that such politicization doesn't bother you?

As far as Agnapostate goes: the guy may be a bit radical in his views, but he's entitled to it 'cause the guy's informed. And I should make a point which is probably lost on you: Agna has put forward a general critique of American foreign-policy vis-a-vis Haiti - not Republican foreign policy. And the history of our relations with Haiti, indeed, is not pure as snow. When Agna's making a general critique like this, it may please you to call it "anti-American," but it's not a politically partisan, Democrat-vs.-Republican sort of thing.

[Pericles]

And ohhhhh soooo many "cons" have posted on this thread for you to use your broad brush to paint them all in the same light.... In the immortal words of Bugs bunny "What a maroon" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:poke:

Alright, that's fair. I should'nt overgeneralize...

[Kathianne]

Alright, that's fair. I should'nt overgeneralize...

Yeah, right, you did. You haven't a clue to my beliefs because you took one post and generalized. I promise if you researched the site, you'd find very different than your 'condemnation' that no one would buy.

[Abbey Marie]

Sure it bothers me - I take it from your remark here, that such politicization doesn't bother you?

As far as Agnapostate goes: the guy may be a bit radical in his views, but he's entitled to it 'cause the guy's informed. And I should make a point which is probably lost on you: Agna has put forward a general critique of American foreign-policy vis-a-vis Haiti - not Republican foreign policy. And the history of our relations with Haiti, indeed, is not pure as snow. When Agna's making a general critique like this, it may please you to call it "anti-American," but it's not a politically partisan, Democrat-vs.-Republican sort of thing.

K... that's all nice, but why did you not post in Aggie's thread about how his politicization "says a lot more about the lib mentality", or socialist mentality, or commie mentality; whatever Aggie's pushing. His thread was even there first. Seems hypocritical. Tsk tsk.

[Pericles]

Yeah, right, you did. You haven't a clue to my beliefs because you took one post and generalized. I promise if you researched the site, you'd find very different than your 'condemnation' that no one would buy.

Hah. Just 'cause, as Nukeman pointed out, it might be unfair for me to say the Cons generally are looking for political angles in this terrible event, that doesn't mean I was wrong about you.

[Pericles]

K... that's all nice, but why did you not post in Aggie's thread about how his politicization "says a lot more about the lib mentality", or socialist mentality, or commie mentality; whatever Aggie's pushing. His thread was even there first. Seems hypocritical. Tsk tsk.

Well, Agna's politics are clearly extreme left. I would not say that his views are typical of the left in America. It is typical of his kind of perspective to "blame America first," whether it's a terrorist attack or a different kind of human tragedy like what we have now in Haiti. But, I guess I have to point out again: his criticism applies to America generally, and not to one party or another. Since, in one way or another, we're all implicated, he can't exactly be accused of trying to make partisan political hay out of this.

Besides, his critique is grounded in the history of the relationship between the United States and Haiti (and, more broadly, with the whole Southern Hemisphere) - he has an actual argument to make, he's not playing some cable-news game about who's up, who's down this week. His views are somewhat extreme, but dammit, that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time, or even most of the time. What are you - too afraid to look into the mirror he's holding up - ?

[bullypulpit]

Not 'Obama', he just orders the resources into action. They will have their job cut out for them, seems the port is in very bad shape. :

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4342398.html

The port isn't just in bad shape...it's destroyed. As for Obama, well, as C-in-C, he's head of the "team". And it's his job to decide how, and to what extent, the "team" will be deployed.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, Agna's politics are clearly extreme left. I would not say that his views are typical of the left in America. It is typical of his kind of perspective to "blame America first," whether it's a terrorist attack or a different kind of human tragedy like what we have now in Haiti. But, I guess I have to point out again: his criticism applies to America generally, and not to one party or another. Since, in one way or another, we're all implicated, he can't exactly be accused of trying to make partisan political hay out of this.

Besides, his critique is grounded in the history of the relationship between the United States and Haiti (and, more broadly, with the whole Southern Hemisphere) - he has an actual argument to make, he's not playing some cable-news game about who's up, who's down this week. His views are somewhat extreme, but dammit, that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time, or even most of the time. What are you - too afraid to look into the mirror he's holding up - ?

None of those supposed distinctions are relevant, since it was the act of politicizing the tragedy that you stated bothered you. That Aggie clearly did.

[Kathianne]

Hah. Just 'cause, as Nukeman pointed out, it might be unfair for me to say the Cons generally are looking for political angles in this terrible event, that doesn't mean I was wrong about you.

Actually you are, so your logic is flawed. OTOH, your opinion matters naught to me.

[Nukeman]

The port isn't just in bad shape...it's destroyed. As for Obama, well, as C-in-C, he's head of the "team". And it's his job to decide how, and to what extent, the "team" will be deployed.

But bully that is not the ONLY port. Also they can use the airport in the DR to land MORE planes and move fresh supplies. I just don't understand why they are not doing just that. These people are going to riot and very soon if they are not given at least the essentials. How long does it take to get a bulldozer to move some earth to make a freaking path for trucks loaded with food stuffs to get through????????

This is the only time I will say anything political about this... since Bully brought up the condition of the port. You do remember the grief given to Bush about Katrina don't you. They had the SAME kind of conditions to work with NO EASY ACCESS TO THE AFFECTED AREA all was flooded and the roads were impassable but it didn't stop the likes of you condemning our president for not moving faster.... Why the double standard Bully. You give Obama a pass yet condemn Bush?????!!!! WHY?????????????????

[Trigg]

personally I am disgusted every time I read a report about the "looters" going through the grocery stores and houses. These people are sitting in 90degree heat with NO water and NO food. It isn't looting if they are going after FOOD.

I commend the US and other countries. I'm sure they are doing all they can in a country with no infrastructure and basically no government to help them out with distribution of supplies.

They first have to deliver the supplies, organize them and THEN ship them out to first Aid spots. 3 days in and now the supplies are shipped and organized, not bad when you consider this is an island nation without the ability to help itself.

I feel so bad for the people who are suffering, there will be tremendous loss of life. NO ONE IS TO BLAIM BUT THE HATIAN GOVERNERMENT.

[Agnapostate]

If politicizing tragedy bothers you so much, I am sure you will find lots to condemn in Aggie's post about Haiti:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=26074

Can't wait to hear it.

As Pericles pointed out, there's a rather significant distinction between your petty partisan bickering (which I see as something like an internal party dispute between two factions, to be honest), and a criticism of the behavior of U.S. political regimes in general. There's an important difference between the two kinds of "politicization" in that partisan shots are usually intended to advance party interests through criticism of the opponent party without much serious consideration of the issues involved, whereas this deeper criticism isn't going to "advance" anything, as radicals have no political influence in the U.S. We therefore have no motivation to offer such criticism other than honest belief.

[Abbey Marie]

As Pericles pointed out, there's a rather significant distinction between your petty partisan bickering (which I see as something like an internal party dispute between two factions, to be honest), and a criticism of the behavior of U.S. political regimes in general. There's an important difference between the two kinds of "politicization" in that partisan shots are usually intended to advance party interests through criticism of the opponent party without much serious consideration of the issues involved, whereas this deeper criticism isn't going to "advance" anything, as radicals have no political influence in the U.S. We therefore have no motivation to offer such criticism other than honest belief.

This is just getting better and better, lol.

"My politicization of the tragedy is important and significantly different, yours is not"

"My politicization of the tragedy won't 'advance' anything, whereas yours will, so mine is special and acceptable; yours is not"

"My politicization of the tragedy is ok, damn it, yours is not"

Sure it is!

[Agnapostate]

This is just getting better and better, lol.

"My politicization of the tragedy is important and significantly different, yours is not"

"My politicization of the tragedy won't 'advance' anything, whereas yours will, so mine is special and acceptable; yours is not"

"My politicization of the tragedy is ok, damn it, yours is not"

Sure it is!

You seem to have forgotten to include arguments in your post. Silly Billy.