NEWS: Red Cross Banned from New Orleans

So they are lying about the 80 days? When you flush it comes out in the water. If the lift station is underwater then the sewage empties into the water. How much assistance is it required to be supplied? If the job get much harder with people there isn't there a point where you should stop? I don't know that everyone should leave. I'm not there and can't make that call from here, but I think it's clear that there is a point and I would want more info before saying they are wrong.

To answer your questions in order:

They are slowly letting people in neighboring parishes (counties to everyone else) return. Conditions of the return are vaild proof of residency, food and a full tank of gas. New Orleans itself is still locked down.

New Orleans has not been denied funds to rebuild the levees. Money set aside to improve the levees to handle a catagory 5 storm a year ago was diverted to fund operations in Southwest Asia.

The last question is up for debate. To me it's not a question of who is on whose side. It's more of a communication breakdown issue than a larger conspiracy.

Read the rest of the posts, it'll give some good background.

As will this FAQ from the American Red Cross.



[Edited on Sep 05, 2005 by TwoToner]

No, if you read my post again, you'll see what I was saying: "The organization of relief efforts has to be carefully put in place before we can just send people in there. Yes, people need water, food and shelter and they need it now, but going in there and arbitrarily throwing supplies around isn't the way to do things. Not to trivialize the situation, but you just don't throw a box of popsicles to a group of children. Someone is bound to get a black eye."

You need to find a fair way to evenly distribute scarce resources.

Check the other paragraph in the post. The rescue operations are up to emergency medical services. That's fire crews, the US Coast Guard, etc. Red Cross does the relief work, not the rescue.

While I do agree it's probably better that people leave the city instead of living surrounded by the current stew of human waste, brackish water, oil, chemicals and rotting corpses, trying to starve them out is idiotic.

Even ignoring the fact that they have already been without access to food and water for a WEEK now---maybe they have a good reason to stay. Maybe they're so traumatized they can't leave. Maybe they just don't really comprehend the situation. It seems to me that, if the Red Cross, which has the experience to help people with just these problems, is allowed into the city, it might help get people moving out. Certainly, saying, "Hey, come with us, we'll take care of you---by the way, if you don't trust us to take care of you and yours, you can fucking starve to death" isn't the best way to reach out to these people.


[Edited on Sep 05, 2005 by et_ux]

[Edited on Sep 05, 2005 by et_ux]

I still don't understand why the red cross didn't accept water from a bottling company and instead told them to give money.

Prob because they can get it closer to the area.

Okay what I was saying was that the organisations that WANTED to go in because they had already assessed the risk and thought it low enough to enter safely, were not been ALLOWED to go in.
That's what I was saying. the PR comment is not in relation to the aid organisations at all. Unfortunately I disagree with you, I'm pretty certain they know how long someone can survive without water.

P.S. One thing I've got to say is in unrelated but vaguely related way is lets make sure this thread doesn't descend to name calling and mud slinging because you disagree with someone.


[Edited on Sep 06, 2005 by chilung]