Why do we think we can rule the world, when we can't organize an evacuation in Louisiana?

Question

Our policy is to rule the world, isn't it?

And...the evacuation after Katrina...that was supposed to be organized by the governor and the mayor...and they want to rule the world, don't they?

Answer 1

Years and years of democratically controlled opportunity to properly prepare for such an inevitable event - and what do we get? School buses left to flood in several lots while crying "we have no transportation" - no back up water supply while crying "no drinking water", housing washed away while crying "no shelters" and, evidently, looking for help from a local and state government that apparently had no damned plans what so ever.
No where in the constitution does it mandate that the federal government should baby sit local and state governments - perhaps if they want to be more protected and prepared, they might try taking on a little responsibility themselves. If I lived below sea level surrounded by aging levies - I would.
As far as ruling the world, I fail to see the connection.

Answer 2

I don't even know where to begin with this one. At least you correctly attributed the failure to the mayor and govenor and not Bush.

Some missed assumptions
- The U.S. does not want to rule the world. It recognizes soveriegn nations
-There was never a need to evacuate the entire state
-The hurricane would not have been as bad as it was if not for the levees. It was an unprecidented catastraphe
-The governor and the mayor have no intension of ruling the world.

Answer 3

First spare me the "rule the world" routine, if that were the case would we be on the DMZ in South Korea protecting their butts rather than occupying the place? would we have left the Philippines?, would we have spent trillions in Europe during and after WWII first liberating them then rebuilding them and making the free and prosperous?, and then leaving for the most part?. If that's "conquering the world" that's one pretty dumb as- way of doing it. As far as Katrina is concerned, the people of New Orleans were told that the levies were inadequate and the people voted "not" to do the upgrades, but it doesn't fit some peoples agendas to let that get out.

Answer 4

Let me say this one more time.

It is not the federal government's responsibility to save your azz. State government is responsible for natural emergencies. Fema is only used in nationwide disasters and as a backup, read that again BACK-UP to the state resources.

If you choose to live in a hurricane zone underneath sea-level and don't leave when the hurricanes come, then you're not smart enough to share the air with the rest of us.

The Louisiana state government and specifically the New Orleans city government have been corrupt since their founding and the same people who drown in their tenements continue to vote them into office. SO once again, whose fault is it?

I am so tired of hearing about Katrina. You know Minnesota has a Muslim congressman and a bridge recently collapsed so obviously its the Muslims' fault.

Answer 5

Our policy. I don't have a policy on ruling the world. They mayor and governor were/are dems, did anyone really expect leadership from them?

Answer 6

I agree with Steelegrave .. it is each state governments responsibility to help in a crunch. Futher more it is your responsibility to live responsibly. Retire to Florida? How stupid is that?

Answer 7

Don't blame Nagin and Blanco for Katrina. They simply were overmatched.

Answer 8

Iraq = OIL $$$$$$$$$
New Orleans = money-sucking poverty

Do the math! Our priorities are mathematically sound.

Down with taxes!

Answer 9

how can you evacute people who refuse to leave, and rule the world? where the heck did you come up with that conclusion?

Answer 10

actually we want the people in iraq to "rule" themselves....then we could bring our U.S soldiers home.