DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 06, 2008, 01:06:24 AM
-
I just heard him promise to rebuild New Orleans.
He ought to look into what this requires before he promises such a thing.
-
<<He ought to look into what this requires before he promises such a thing.>>
He already knows - - it's a fraction of what the U.S. has blown in Iraq. Although, it wouldn't benefit the same kind of people that Iraq benefits.
-
<<He ought to look into what this requires before he promises such a thing.>>
He already knows - - it's a fraction of what the U.S. has blown in Iraq. Although, it wouldn't benefit the same kind of people that Iraq benefits.
How do you know that twenty times the expense of the war in Iraq would be enough?
It is only a moveing ocean ,and a sinking land , how much could that cost to fix?
I know that Holland has reclaimed a lot of Polder from the Atlantic , but their land isn't sinking at such a redicuilous rate. Even Venice is sinking slower than New Orliens.
-
I think the significance is, when it's only black Americans lives at stake, nothing gets done.
When oil's at stake (or in your insane version of events, the "freedom" of the Iraqi people, which makes even less sense) the sky's the limit.
-
I don't think you'll have to worry about this. Many of the poor blacks who weren't killed will likely not return. If they do, they'll not have any public housing to come home to. Much of that land was "freed" by Katrina and "reclaimed" by developers who already have expensive condominiums in the works. The demographics of New Orleans are forever changed and why rebuild homes for the poor? There's no profit in that.
-
I think the significance is, when it's only black Americans lives at stake, nothing gets done.
When oil's at stake (or in your insane version of events, the "freedom" of the Iraqi people, which makes even less sense) the sky's the limit.
Who said that oil is not at stake?
Lots of oil is drilled for in the Gulf of Mexico , New Orliens is where it comes ashore by pipe and by ship.
What if all the oil in the world would buy a safe levvy for New Orliens , I don't know that it would , but the cost might be in that order of magnitude.
-
First time I ever heard that oil was a major factor in the New Orleans problem and I think it's pretty far-fetched. The rigs are offshore and the refineries and holding tanks can certainly be rebuilt (if they were ever damaged, they probably already have been) and secured without making a dent in the problems of the people of New Orleans. There has been virtually no recent press coverage of oil-supply problems related to the flooding of New Orleans, and so I think it's a pretty safe bet that if this ever HAD been a problem, it has long since been resolved.
-
First time I ever heard that oil was a major factor in the New Orleans problem and I think it's pretty far-fetched. The rigs are offshore and the refineries and holding tanks can certainly be rebuilt (if they were ever damaged, they probably already have been) and secured without making a dent in the problems of the people of New Orleans. There has been virtually no recent press coverage of oil-supply problems related to the flooding of New Orleans, and so I think it's a pretty safe bet that if this ever HAD been a problem, it has long since been resolved.
What is the number of US ports that can dock a supertanker?
Oil is involved , but the port facilitys and pipelines survived Katrina as did the old town due to a slightly better elevation.
Time is against them too , the land is sinking even under the most important parts of New Orliens ,
-
Which, I hope you realize, is a totally different issue from the fate of the people of New Orleans.
-
Which, I hope you realize, is a totally different issue from the fate of the people of New Orleans.
The port doesn't run itself , if there is no economic justifacation for the city there will be no city , there is also no city without citizens.
If New Orliens could pay its own way , what my Ilk thought of it would be of no consequence.
-
I'm confident that accommodation could be built for all the port and refinery workers without affecting more than a few percentage points of the general population. Worker or dormitory communities are built all over the planet, in terrain much more difficult than New Orleans.
-
I'm confident that accommodation could be built for all the port and refinery workers without affecting more than a few percentage points of the general population. Worker or dormitory communities are built all over the planet, in terrain much more difficult than New Orleans.
That is not much of a city.
The real City needs to be moved , either six miles inland or fifty feet verticly.
-
Wandering a little off topic, aren't we? You originally raised the oil issue to prove that New Orleans' rebuilding was also an oil-related issue, and so Bush's neglect of the problem couldn't be caused by his contempt for or indifference to the black citizens of the city.
Can we at least agree that New Orleans' rebuilding in no significant way involves the oil industry and its problems, and that Bush's indifference is explained by the facts that (a) oil is NOT involved and (b) poor black people ARE involved?
-
>>I just heard him promise to rebuild New Orleans. He ought to look into what this requires before he promises such a thing.<<
It's election season, so promises abound. I wonder if this promise will be seen as pandering to Blacks? Does Barrack Hussein Obama believe in a "chocolate" New Orleans?
-
Wandering a little off topic, aren't we? You originally raised the oil issue to prove that New Orleans' rebuilding was also an oil-related issue, and so Bush's neglect of the problem couldn't be caused by his contempt for or indifference to the black citizens of the city.
Can we at least agree that New Orleans' rebuilding in no significant way involves the oil industry and its problems, and that Bush's indifference is explained by the facts that (a) oil is NOT involved and (b) poor black people ARE involved?
Not only did you bring up Oil , now you bring up Bush.
The oilresores will have to be moved eventually to a place more protected from the Ocean , I hope that the people can also be placed more safely reguardless of which you place in higer priority.
There is a lot of Economic reason to build New Orleans , for the sake of humanity there is a lot of reason to move it.
'A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the US auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if US corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.
The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have low value-to-weight ratios. The US transport system was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities - assuming for the moment that the economics could be managed, which they can't be.
The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of about 15 percent of US-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport of these other commodities.
There is clearly good news as information comes in. By all accounts, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which services supertankers in the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of extraction operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable. The status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though not trivial - is manageable. "
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090605R.shtml
-
<<Not only did you bring up Oil , now you bring up Bush.>>
Of course I did - - because the criticism of Obama's idealistic promise to build up New Orleans comes from conservatives who support Bush's war for oil. It's always a good index of what these people's priorities really are - - hundreds of billions for Iraqi oil (or Iraqi "democracy" for the poor deluded boobs who still think that's really what it's all about) versus zip, zilch, nada for the poor black folks of New Orleans.
<<The oilresores will have to be moved eventually to a place more protected from the Ocean >>
I don't know anything about that, they might already be adequately secured.
<<I hope that the people can also be placed more safely reguardless of which you place in higer priority.>>
I think most people, if they're not dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, would agree that housing the homeless is a more important public-sector priority than securing the resources of the oil industry. the oil industry can look after itself, the homeless can't.
<<There is a lot of Economic reason to build New Orleans , for the sake of humanity there is a lot of reason to move it.>>
You've raised some technical issues that I just don't feel qualified to deal with.
-
<<Not only did you bring up Oil , now you bring up Bush.>>
Of course I did - - because the criticism of Obama's idealistic promise to build up New Orleans comes from conservatives who support Bush's war for oil. It's always a good index of what these people's priorities really are - - hundreds of billions for Iraqi oil (or Iraqi "democracy" for the poor deluded boobs who still think that's really what it's all about) versus zip, zilch, nada for the poor black folks of New Orleans.
<<The oilresores will have to be moved eventually to a place more protected from the Ocean >>
I don't know anything about that, they might already be adequately secured.
<<I hope that the people can also be placed more safely reguardless of which you place in higer priority.>>
I think most people, if they're not dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, would agree that housing the homeless is a more important public-sector priority than securing the resources of the oil industry. the oil industry can look after itself, the homeless can't.
<<There is a lot of Economic reason to build New Orleans , for the sake of humanity there is a lot of reason to move it.>>
You've raised some technical issues that I just don't feel qualified to deal with.
These tecnical issues kill people .
Tho oil could be moved by people who experience a massive die off every few decades .
The reason to move New Orliens is compassion and wisdom .
Let me rephrase my origional statement , that Obama should become aquainted with the tecnical issues before he makes a sweeping promise that might get him votes this year , but deaths a few years down.