Chris Barker wrote:
> I think that that has been made quite clear by the news media Chuck.
> It's a big area. But that makes it all the more appalling that it
> should have happened, that such a large area could have been allowed
> to remain vulnerable to flooding.
Appalling but understandable. The once-in-500-years-event won't happen
on our watch.
Mind
> you, in 1990, before the invasion of Kuwait, there were far more
> military units stationed in the CONUS; none of them was diverted on
> ghastly, fruitless adventures overseas. There were more people
> trained to carry out emergency procedures then.
Regardless of your view of "fruitless adventures overseas" there are
plenty of national guard and federal troops in the country to respond to
the crisis. The purpose of the WSJ editorial (part of which I posted on
John Lind's site) was to explain why they weren't there during and
immediately after the storm hit.
>
> I have spent many happy days in "Nawlans", first on holiday with my
> family on our way to Arkansas, then on TDY with my squadron from
> MacDill. We were up training with the Air National Guard and their
> F15s and the evenings on Bourbon Street (well, in just one bar
> actually ...).
I'm sad. Despite having seen about 2/3 of the states, "Nawlans" is a
place I'd never seen yet. Hope I live long enough to see it eventually.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|