Comments on: Homeland Secure?

By: alb123456

alb123456 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:39:00 +0000

00000000000000000000

By: yuryu

yuryu — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:47:55 +0000

SEX????????????????????????????????????????????????????SM??????????????????????mixi?????????????????????????????????????mixi??????????????????????

By: Sword of the New World money

Sword of the New World money — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:40:09 +0000

Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.

By: buy Lunia gold

buy Lunia gold — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:39:30 +0000

My friends also told me that there is a web site http://www.hameim.com supplies cheap Lunia gold. If one day you want to buy Lunia gold you can go to the above company.

By: kamas

kamas — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:05:30 +0000

For you, I would rather to give up my all treasures and the kamas which I practice the level hard.

By: rush

rush — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 04:12:41 +0000

“Its theyre [sic] policies as to why WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH GASOLINE & the 3.00 gal in CA today.
Blame the Eco Movement.
Blame Sierra Club, EPA, etc for our NO Gasoline event IE 1973 again.“
Nice ditto-head argument.
Is it so difficult to understand that given a supply and demand problem, you can attack the problem from either side? Reduce demand and the supply becomes sufficient?
I realize that’s tricky, but I’m sure with some effort you’ll grasp it.

By: cirby

cirby — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:14:39 +0000

“Why is it again that relief assets (water trucks, medical supplies, generators, refugee camps) weren’t placed close enough but out of harms way (as they were for Andrew)? Oh right, because 80,000 Guardsman are in Iraq,“
Actually, it’s less than that, and since you mentioned it, if the other QUARTER-MILLION Guardsmen can’t handle it, what makes you think the rest will help, especially since we’ve only deployed 30,000 in the disaster area so far (more would just get in each other’s way)?
There *were* prepositionings going on. The President declared the disaster *Saturday* (a full day before the Mayor of NO even announced the mandatory evacuation). Supplies started moving that night. It takes days to get things moving in the right direction, and with the footprint of possible impacts, you can’t put those things anywhere near the possible disaster areas.
The relief supplies were *not*, by any stretch, predeployed when Andrew hit in 1992. They called people up, and started looking at what to do, but it was much slower. It took almost five days before they saw half as much response as we saw yesterday alone.
After Katrina, major roads and bridges were blocked or destroyed. It took a couple of days to clear those hundreds of miles of Interstates alone.
You’re talking about deploying 20,000 to 30,000 troops, and literally thousands of tons of supplies, before you can even *think* about “doing” stuff.
Lo and behold, we’re starting to see results. Post-disaster evac started yesterday. Troops are starting to get in.
Except, for some reaon, you missed it.

By: Tom Ames

Tom Ames — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:51:57 +0000

kneeslider:
The same could be said about a terrorist attack. So you’d agree, I assume, that the NO situation reveals the administration’s incompetence and lack of planning?
Or would they have responded differently if this had been a dirty bomb attack on New Orleans?

By: uurf

uurf — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:36:24 +0000

“Please feel free to make an unerring set of predictions about where the next unexpected disasters will strike so we can be sure to spend the money in the right place.“
Well in 2001 FEMA estimated that a cat 5 hurricane in NO would be one of the three biggest (and most likely) disasters…
And the weather service had several days to warn that a big storm was coming…
Why is it again that relief assets (water trucks, medical supplies, generators, refugee camps) weren’t placed close enough but out of harms way (as they were for Andrew)? Oh right, because 80,000 Guardsman are in Iraq, $200b are in Iraq, and no one in the eviscerated FEMA has any experience dealing with actual disasters (being a policeman and lawyer, that they got in spades). And because no one told W that it wouldn’t look good to be learning a G chord while people were dying on rooftops during the aftermath of a hurricane.
gg gw

By: Marshall Astor

Marshall Astor — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:01:51 +0000

The big issue here, is that we need to take an objective look at how using our resources benefits the most people. In terms of damage, Katrina, or any other large natural disaster dwarfs the kinds of attacks that terrorists are likely to inflict on the United States (including 9/11). I’ve always been enthusiastic for the “elephant” model of dealing with terrorists, that is, we largely ignore them, as their real world effects are minor compared to the real problems that government needs to be addressing at all times.
Is a billion spent to prevent one terrorist attack that kills a few hundred people (imagining a major incident here) worth it when the same billion would save countless lives and economic resources when natural disasters strike? The problem with the “War on Terror” from an economic standpoint, is that you can have an infinitely large investment and still be subject to attacks. Whereas, we know that if you spend money on disaster preparedness, education, health care, or social welfare programs, there are measurable benefits that reflect your investment and save more lives than will ever be taken in a terrorist attack or series of attacks.