Is America about to repeat Katrina in Iraq?!?!?

[GreedySmurf]

Now the only question is how can they get the dam to blow? Hmmm... Got it! Terrorism!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraqi Dam Seen in Danger of Deadly Collapse
By Amit R. Paley
The Washington Post[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Tuesday 30 October 2007[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] At the Mosul Dam, Iraq - The largest dam in Iraq is in serious danger of an imminent collapse that could unleash a trillion-gallon wave of water, possibly killing thousands of people and flooding two of the largest cities in the country, according to new assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other U.S. officials.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the Army Corps concluded in September 2006, according to the report to be released Tuesday. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902193.html?wpisrc=newsletter
[/FONT][/FONT]

Hmm... Those "dire warnings" sound real familiar!

 

[African Herbsman]

I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[QueEx]

Now the only question is how can they get the dam to blow? Hmmm... Got it! Terrorism!

There has not, to this day, been any credible evidence that someone blew a levee in New Orleans post Katrina. If someone wanted to drown the inhabitants of Mosol and half of Baghdad, it appears from the article that instead of blowing a hole in it the dam, all we have to do is, simply nothing. Doesn't quite match your theory does it ???

QueEx

 

[GreedySmurf]

There has not, to this day, been any credible evidence that someone blew a levee in New Orleans post Katrina. If someone wanted to drown the inhabitants of Mosol and half of Baghdad, it appears from the article that instead of blowing a hole in it the dam, all we have to do is, simply nothing. Doesn't quite match your theory does it ???

QueEx

You mean like the government did in New Orleans?

Just like in NO there were warnings for years about the dangers of the levee system. Nothing was done to permanently deal with the situation. So yes, just like you stated above, they simply did nothing. Then the disaster happened, and they continued to do nothing as long as they could. If you talk to some of the residents of NO, they'll tell you things still aren't being done to put the city back together properly, unless you're in a wealthier, tourist-oriented area.

Now we have this scenario in Iraq: warnings about an impending disaster that could kill up to 500,000 people. The Army Corp of Engineers says that the repairs that have been made are stopgap measures at best, that the work done by American contractors (Halliburton? Something to research) are inadequate to the task, that the local government doesn't want to spend the money required to permanently fix the problem. See the similarities?

Now as to waiting on the event to happen; yes, thats one potential strategy. Another is to help the event along when its useful to American interests to do so. What interests? More building contracts for favored contracts, more security contracts for companies like Blackwater (the same ones who were contracted to work in NO), land that can then be purchased by multinationals for future development at bargain prices, and fewer monies put into the human element of Iraq (e.g. schools, clinics). Since we already have a strong presence in the area that country could potentially come completely under our control by right of arms and via "humanitarian aid" efforts.

So no, my theory isn't as offbeat as you may want to think.

 

[QueEx]

You're right; that there were/are warnings of what might happen and that virtually nothing was/is being done are similar. But are you honestly suggesting that the inaction in the face of possible collaspse of the levee and the dam is for the purpose of generating lucrative contracts. ???

QueEx

 

[GreedySmurf]

You're right; that there were/are warnings of what might happen and that virtually nothing was/is being done are similar. But are you honestly suggesting that the inaction in the face of possible collaspse of the levee and the dam is for the purpose of generating lucrative contracts. ???

QueEx

I'm a fairly cynical person in light of what I've seen during the war, the Katrina incident, and all the way back to the Kennedy administration. I believe that financial gain is a primary motivation for a lot of people and organizations out there. I believe that the lack of proper action in NO has contributed to a lot of people getting richer while others who weren't in power got poorer, or dead. The concept of inaction or action being motivated by strictly economic reasons seems to be the american way now.

Are lucrative contracts the only motivation? No, not the only one but certainly a strong consideration. There are others: population control, redistribution of wealth/property, and cutbacks on social programs to help the disenfranchised.

Look at NO and the fact that the disaster has been used to diffuse the black population (and poor whites I suppose though I could care less about them) across america. Quite a few people who lived in NO won't ever go home and those who are there will never live the life they lived before. Was that planned from the start? I would hope not. Was it a "happy" consequence of the event that some have used as a way of forcing gentrification in that area? Most certainly. Its happened. Have a lot of people with connections made money off of the disaster? Definitely. Take a look at Harry Alford newsbriefs on the contract situation in NO for more details. Would the same thing happen in Iraq? Its already happening. Private contractors (e.g. Halliburton and its subsidiaries, Blackwater, etc.) are getting steadily richer because of the occupation and I don't hear the CEOs from either corporation or any other defense contractor coming out against the situation.

But getting back to the levees in Iraq, look at these paragraphs in the article:

The effort to prevent a failure of the dam has been complicated by behind-the-scenes wrangling between Iraqi and U.S. officials over the severity of the problem and how much money should be allocated to fix it. The Army Corps has recommended building a second dam downstream as a fail-safe measure, but Iraqi officials have rejected the proposal, arguing that it is unnecessary and too expensive.

The debate has taken place largely out of public view because both Iraqi and U.S. Embassy officials have refused to discuss the details of safety studies -- commissioned by the U.S. government for at least $6 million -- so as not to frighten Iraqi citizens.

Is this not the same line of crap that was said about the NO levees? I translate this as "We spent money, identified a problem, but the local government won't do anything. Our asses are covered. Whatever happens, happens...!"

 

[actinanass]

First of all, Iraq isn't a state in the United States.

Secondly, its not our responsibility to fix any dam, in any country, unless we are getting paid to do it.

Third of all, in the case of Katrina, Louisiana dug itself in a hole because of corruption. Katrina situation was purely a political attack against Bush. Louisiana dropped the ball, so they passed the blame on Bush. Black people *poll wise* do not like Bush. New Orleans is a chocolate city. Therefore, not doing anything about New Orleans will make Bush look bad. Only because some political heads know that majority of US *black people* believes that the government should take care of us. This post proves that fact....

 

[GreedySmurf]

First of all, Iraq isn't a state in the United States.

Duh...

We now live in a global world system. The domino that falls in one part of the world knock down the next domino here.

Secondly, its not our responsibility to fix any dam, in any country, unless we are getting paid to do it.

And yet we're letting contracts to rebuild the entire infrastructure of that country, the schools, hospitals, roads, and yes, we're even expending money to keep those oil wells safe and sound. Are we getting paid for any of these things? And please don't tell me we're getting payback from Iraqi oil. That was Bush's financial justification and its been shown to be a lie.

Third of all, in the case of Katrina, Louisiana dug itself in a hole because of corruption. Katrina situation was purely a political attack against Bush.

So "someone" let a lot of people die, just to snipe Bush? You really need to go into more detail on this point...

Louisiana dropped the ball, so they passed the blame on Bush.

So the lack of FEMAs timely response was Louisiana dropping the ball? The Feds take no blame in this matter?

Only because some political heads know that majority of US *black people* believes that the government should take care of us. This post proves that fact....

I disagree. I think I can safely say that the majority of US black people know full well they can neither trust nor rely on the government. The only person who could even make that kind of statement would have to be someone NOT BLACK.

Would you perchance be not black?

The government has, at minimum, the responsibility to take proper care of those things that it has determined that it will. If the government forms an organization such as FEMA, funded it, staffed it, given it 1st responder responsibility, then they damn well need to do their job. If such is not the case, don't put my tax money into it.

Now if the Army Corp. of Engineers aren't going to take responsibility for the rebuilding of the Iraqi dam in question, why spend $6,000,000 studying the problem? Why even get into a discussion with the Iraqis over it? Either someone thinks its their responsibility or the military just threw a shitload of money out the window. Which is it?

 

[carlitos]

chaos, then order ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)..

 

[actinanass]

Duh...

We now live in a global world system. The domino that falls in one part of the world knock down the next domino here.



And yet we're letting contracts to rebuild the entire infrastructure of that country, the schools, hospitals, roads, and yes, we're even expending money to keep those oil wells safe and sound. Are we getting paid for any of these things? And please don't tell me we're getting payback from Iraqi oil. That was Bush's financial justification and its been shown to be a lie.



So "someone" let a lot of people die, just to snipe Bush? You really need to go into more detail on this point...



So the lack of FEMAs timely response was Louisiana dropping the ball? The Feds take no blame in this matter?



I disagree. I think I can safely say that the majority of US black people know full well they can neither trust nor rely on the government. The only person who could even make that kind of statement would have to be someone NOT BLACK.

Would you perchance be not black?

The government has, at minimum, the responsibility to take proper care of those things that it has determined that it will. If the government forms an organization such as FEMA, funded it, staffed it, given it 1st responder responsibility, then they damn well need to do their job. If such is not the case, don't put my tax money into it.

Now if the Army Corp. of Engineers aren't going to take responsibility for the rebuilding of the Iraqi dam in question, why spend $6,000,000 studying the problem? Why even get into a discussion with the Iraqis over it? Either someone thinks its their responsibility or the military just threw a shitload of money out the window. Which is it?

1. when you say "we" are getting contracts to fix the Iraqi infrastructure, I hope you mean PRIVATE BUSINESS. Our government might hire private contractors, however, that doesn't give us the responsibility to make sure they do the things right. Its IRAQ'S job to oversee whats happening to their infrastructure, not America's. Please understand how capitalism works.

2. The details in my "snipe bush" comment is very clear. Louisiana government is corrupt, unorganized, and weak. Even before Katrina, in Texas *where I reside at* you will see more Louisiana license plates than Texas in SOME areas. It isn't uncommon for someone to move from the bayou to Dallas. The reason they leave is because they were sick of HIGH TAXES, dirty cops, and the overall education system. While most of the people on this forum will think that people from Texas are a bunch of cowboy hat wearing hicks, we actually have a decent education system *still needs work but what educational system don't in America*. When disaster hits Texas *like floods, and tornadoes*, I guarantee that the city the disaster takes place in, will be rebuilt in a year. We will have all the emergency aid we need, majority of the victims will have shelter with clean clothes THAT NIGHT *no matter what race they are*. So how come a state, RIGHT NEXT TO LOUISIANA can do this without any help from the government? The point is, Louisiana is the only "blue" state in the south. It remains one of the most racial divided states in the nation *look at jena 6*. 95 percent of black people in Louisiana voted against Bush. That summer Bush approval ratings among the African American community were rising. Put 2+2 together....