Hurricaine Practice?
 

Good afternoon. As a new poster, still feeling my way around so to speak, this may be out of order, in which case, my apology. I have a question for my American cousins?

Sitting in England watching the scenes from Katrina and Rita, a thought occurred.

Katrina cound have been solved by moving food, aid and troops INTO New Orleans, not by moving the masses out.

You cannot tell me that a city like Houston, the 4th biggest in the US I think, cannot withstand Rita?

so my question is this.

Is the Federal Government using Katrina and Rita to PRACTICE the mass movement and control of millions of US citizens?

in the event of a major terrorist attack, ie: a dirty nuke in a metro area, sarin gas released, coordinated bombs in a wide metro area - people would need to relocate on mass very quickly.

and it seems the US Government has learned many lessons from Katrina and Rita.

Coincidence?

Re: Hurricaine Practice?
 

I think the answer lies in the original charter of FEMA as defined by the Reagan admnistration (there is a thread about this somewhere else I believe).
FEMA was never intended to be an emergency assistance agency. It is an emergency response arm of the federal government, whose sole overriding objective is to establish and maintain order in the even of a disaster, not to assist those imperiled by the disaster.
Yes, it has been getting a lot of practice at what it does best -- and the response it displayed to Hurricane Katrina would probably rate it an A+ grade from its original founders.

Re: Hurricaine Practice?
 

Social Security was never meant to more than a temporary solution either, and it's now dragging America's economy down, and every other nation which implemented the structural long term socialistic change into their yearly budgets because America did so first.

Don't make excuses, Freeman.

Re: Hurricaine Practice?
 

I think that they are trying to reinforce the feeling of hopelessness on the population.

New Orleans "proved" that staying back to weather it out is the wrong decision.

Texas is "proving" that if you try to do the opposite (get out), you'll be stuck, run out of fuel in a hundred mile long car-park, exposed to the elements.

If your only two options are futile, then what's the point ?