Originally Posted by Hazzle
I'll keep this brief.
Katrina killed less than 2,000.
9/11 killed over 3,000.
Without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened by now. It's all good and well having troops in your own country to prevent terrorist attacks Leonie, but how exactly do troops on the ground prevent planes flying into buildings? Troops in the US would've been wasted on saving Nagin's arse. If a few thousand people had to die to prove what an inept cunt he was, so be it. Better than another 9/11 killing even more people, which presumably Bush would've been slated for too. Let's face it, the knives were out because of how he won the election, who his father is, and his low IQ.
You also act as if the war began AFTER Katrina, what was Bush supposed to do, withdraw troops in mid-conflict? Presumably if he had and millions of Iraqis died in insurgency, he'd have been blamed for that too. As you point out, Katrina was unexpected. Or was Bush supposed to predict it when Nagin couldn't? As it happens the proof is that Nagin's infrastructure wasn't prepared, for any hurricane, it just so happens that he got hit by a particularly bad one and it caused more damage.
Priority-wise Katrina had to rank lower than the war. It would do with me, it would do with any sane President. Perhaps this is why they let men rule the world ladies
You make it sound as though I want ground troups to prevent a 9/11. I merely suggested some troups would have been helpful in evacuating people out of the struck area. He left his country in such a state that no people were available to help New Orleans. My point is: if there aren't enough soldiers to help out in the event of a natural disaster, Lord knows what could happen if they were needed after a terrorist attack. Like you said: it was unexpected, and the state failed on many levels, but isn't it a country's duty to ensure help is on its way in such an event? The FBI and the regular police and no doubt many a SWAT team can deal with 'regular' criminals, but wouldn't you want trained fighters up against deranged terrorists planning attacks on home soil, London-style for example?
Like I said before: I believe that fighting wars overseas should not mean that people struck by Katrina are left to fend for themselves. Going into a flooded area and saving those left there, locked in, is an army's job (Where I'm from it would be anyway: we've had many river floods and dams breaking, and the army there to try and keep the water out, get people out if need be. If the Netherlands are the only country in which this would be an army's job then I'll leave that point, and put it on the pile of "cultural differences.") They weren't there to do it. I do not disagree with Bush's foreign policy, but again, it shouldn't be mutually exclusive with caring for your people at home.
Lastly: without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened? Bollocks, there's absolutely no proof for that. I'll give you this: without the war in Afghanistan, another 9/11 could have happened. I don't think the war in Iraq is unjust, but I do believe that Afghanistan is a far more dangerous area than Iraq ever was. They're too busy killing their own people to make plans for an overseas attack. If we go by your logic, dividing the troups over the two areas is entirely unhelpful and will only weaken the US' force. I have nothing against the war in Iraq, but wish they'd focus on what has been proven to be a terrorist fieldtrip destination.