Hurricane Maria death toll near 5,000

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't care the color of their skin.

You are blaming brown-skinned people for their deaths from a hurricane.

In other words, it's impossible for a brown-skinned person to have done wrong.

I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

What does that have to do with the OP and blaming the victims? I will wager you did not even bother to read the linked article in the OP which clearly states the OP point that

The death rate is a contentious subject, in part because federal and island governments haven't responded as rapidly to the disaster as they have in other hurricane emergencies.

Of course they responded slower--no roads lead to Puerto Rico and most of the stockpiles had just been used on other storms. For the response to have been as fast would have been a miracle.

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, it's impossible for a brown-skinned person to have done wrong.

What an idiotic straw man. It is bigoted babble to blame Puerto Ricans for the deaths from a NATURAL DISASTER.

Of course they responded slower--no roads lead to Puerto Rico and most of the stockpiles had just been used on other storms. For the response to have been as fast would have been a miracle.

Nonsense. The USA dragged its feet in getting aid to Puerto Rico, and the amount of aid, even including the hand-thrown paper towels by the POTUS, was still less than in Houston TX.

 

[Elixir]

But that STILL doesn't address why Trump failed so miserably to help U.S. citizens after Maria.

You gotta be kidding. We KNOW perfectly well why Trump failed to help Puerto Ricans. They are brown, and they mostly speak Spanish.
ANIMALS.
Somebody ask where the Hospital Ship Mercy went, after it pulled out of San Juan in the middle of the crisis.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem isn't just Donald Trump. See Nearly Half of Americans Don’t Know Puerto Ricans Are Fellow Citizens.

You can find the demographic breakdowns here: Morning Consult National Tracking Poll #170916, September 22-24, 2017

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, it's impossible for a brown-skinned person to have done wrong.

What an idiotic straw man. It is bigoted babble to blame Puerto Ricans for the deaths from a NATURAL DISASTER.

Of course they responded slower--no roads lead to Puerto Rico and most of the stockpiles had just been used on other storms. For the response to have been as fast would have been a miracle.

Nonsense. The USA dragged its feet in getting aid to Puerto Rico, and the amount of aid, even including the hand-thrown paper towels by the POTUS, was still less than in Houston TX.

Saying it's nonsense doesn't change the reality.

Shipping slows things down.

Depleted stocks slows things down.

 

[laughing dog]

What an idiotic straw man. It is bigoted babble to blame Puerto Ricans for the deaths from a NATURAL DISASTER.
Nonsense. The USA dragged its feet in getting aid to Puerto Rico, and the amount of aid, even including the hand-thrown paper towels by the POTUS, was still less than in Houston TX.

Saying it's nonsense doesn't change the reality.

True, your argument is nonsense whether I say it is or not.

Shipping slows things down.

Depleted stocks slows things down.

Excluding shipping time (which is not that much) the USA still dragged its feet in getting aid to Puerto Rico. You have not presented any actual evidence to support your claim about "depleted stocks". This article (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/27/donald-trump-fema-hurricane-maria-response-480557) (which has facts) shows your position is not based on reality

 

[ZiprHead]

Bone Spurs should be impeached for his disaster response.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The thing is the hurricane was more the straw that broke the camel's back. The maintenance wasn't being done because people wanted social spending. That's the real reason for the catastrophe.

First, the real reason for the catastrophe was the hurricane. Second, the OP is about the inadequacy of the response. But don't let either of those stop you from blaming those brown-skinned victims.

I don't care the color of their skin. I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

I think you misspelled, in 1996 Congress and President Clinton began removing a tax incentive over a period of 10 years for businesses doing business in Puerto Rico (admittedly pretty much a tax shelter), so those businesses fled, leaving Puerto Rico with much higher unemployment and dwindling tax revenue from said corporations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't care the color of their skin. I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

I think you misspelled, in 1996 Congress and President Clinton began removing a tax incentive over a period of 10 years for businesses doing business in Puerto Rico (admittedly pretty much a tax shelter), so those businesses fled, leaving Puerto Rico with much higher unemployment and dwindling tax revenue from said corporations.

True--but they responded with increased social spending while revenue went down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, your argument is nonsense whether I say it is or not.

Shipping slows things down.

Depleted stocks slows things down.

Excluding shipping time (which is not that much) the USA still dragged its feet in getting aid to Puerto Rico. You have not presented any actual evidence to support your claim about "depleted stocks". This article (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/27/donald-trump-fema-hurricane-maria-response-480557) (which has facts) shows your position is not based on reality

Within six days of Hurricane Harvey, U.S. Northern Command had deployed 73 helicopters over Houston, which are critical for saving victims and delivering emergency supplies. It took at least three weeks after Maria before it had more than 70 helicopters flying above Puerto Rico.

Logistics! Helicopters without fuel are useless and they can't operate long without additional support. The areas nearby were also hit and wouldn't serve as a good base. Florida is a thousand miles away, beyond their fuel range. Thus you either need to ship your fuel and other needs to there first, or operate them from ships--and note that you can't just take a land-based helicopter pilot and have him operate from a ship. The idea that the two situations are comparable is laughable.

I see no reason to think the rest of the article did better.

 

[laughing dog]

Within six days of Hurricane Harvey, U.S. Northern Command had deployed 73 helicopters over Houston, which are critical for saving victims and delivering emergency supplies. It took at least three weeks after Maria before it had more than 70 helicopters flying above Puerto Rico.

Logistics! Helicopters without fuel are useless and they can't operate long without additional support. The areas nearby were also hit and wouldn't serve as a good base. Florida is a thousand miles away, beyond their fuel range. Thus you either need to ship your fuel and other needs to there first, or operate them from ships--and note that you can't just take a land-based helicopter pilot and have him operate from a ship. The idea that the two situations are comparable is laughable.

The article points out it took 3 weeks to get a comparable number of hel0copters to Puerto Rico compared to one week for Houston. Your response does not quantify what a reasonable time difference would be. In addition, an expert disagrees with your "assessment":

“We have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. We go anywhere, anytime we want in the world,” bemoaned retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who led the military’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. “And [in Puerto Rico] we didn’t use those assets the way they should have been used.”

Can you explain why a retired military expert who led the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina disagrees with your assessment?

I see no reason to think the rest of the article did better.

Still no evidence you have a clue what you are posting about.

 

[bilby]

Within six days of Hurricane Harvey, U.S. Northern Command had deployed 73 helicopters over Houston, which are critical for saving victims and delivering emergency supplies. It took at least three weeks after Maria before it had more than 70 helicopters flying above Puerto Rico.

Logistics! Helicopters without fuel are useless and they can't operate long without additional support. The areas nearby were also hit and wouldn't serve as a good base. Florida is a thousand miles away, beyond their fuel range. Thus you either need to ship your fuel and other needs to there first, or operate them from ships--and note that you can't just take a land-based helicopter pilot and have him operate from a ship. The idea that the two situations are comparable is laughable.

I see no reason to think the rest of the article did better.

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The article points out it took 3 weeks to get a comparable number of hel0copters to Puerto Rico compared to one week for Houston. Your response does not quantify what a reasonable time difference would be. In addition, an expert disagrees with your "assessment":

“We have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. We go anywhere, anytime we want in the world,” bemoaned retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who led the military’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. “And [in Puerto Rico] we didn’t use those assets the way they should have been used.”

Can you explain why a retired military expert who led the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina disagrees with your assessment?

I see no reason to think the rest of the article did better.

Still no evidence you have a clue what you are posting about.

The point is helicopters operating in Houston had undamaged bases within range they could operate from. No such bases existed for Puerto Rico. Anything going there had to be loaded onto ships and sailed there--and most ships can't operate a helicopter. Many warships have the capability to operate one or two choppers but few can operate a lot of them.

Furthermore, you can't just take a land-based pilot and stick him in a chopper operating off a ship. You can't even consider a ship a divert point for a land-based helicopter as it won't be equipped to land in heavy seas.

Add all this together and it's ludicrous to expect helicopters to be deployed as fast in Puerto Rico as Houston. Thus showing that they weren't deployed as fast shows more of an interest in politics than the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

Sure we have helicopters on warships and they are routinely used for disaster relief in areas near the sea. Most warships operate only one or two, though, and the article was talking about 70 of them. Furthermore, warships are ships, they move at ship speed, not at aircraft speed. It's going to take time for those ships to reach Puerto Rico and put their helicopters to use.

 

[laughing dog]

The article points out it took 3 weeks to get a comparable number of hel0copters to Puerto Rico compared to one week for Houston. Your response does not quantify what a reasonable time difference would be. In addition, an expert disagrees with your "assessment":

Can you explain why a retired military expert who led the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina disagrees with your assessment?

Still no evidence you have a clue what you are posting about.

The point is helicopters operating in Houston had undamaged bases within range they could operate from. No such bases existed for Puerto Rico. Anything going there had to be loaded onto ships and sailed there--and most ships can't operate a helicopter. Many warships have the capability to operate one or two choppers but few can operate a lot of them.

Furthermore, you can't just take a land-based pilot and stick him in a chopper operating off a ship. You can't even consider a ship a divert point for a land-based helicopter as it won't be equipped to land in heavy seas.

Add all this together and it's ludicrous to expect helicopters to be deployed as fast in Puerto Rico as Houston. Thus showing that they weren't deployed as fast shows more of an interest in politics than the truth.

All of which a retired expert would know. And that retired expert disagrees with assessment. Can you explain why a retired military expert who led the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina disagrees with your assessment?

 

[bilby]

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

Sure we have helicopters on warships and they are routinely used for disaster relief in areas near the sea. Most warships operate only one or two, though, and the article was talking about 70 of them. Furthermore, warships are ships, they move at ship speed, not at aircraft speed. It's going to take time for those ships to reach Puerto Rico and put their helicopters to use.

It's about 1,000 miles from US mainland naval bases; That's maybe 48 hours for a warship. The Navy and Marine Corps are in the habit of providing a rapid response to unexpected events - they would be pretty useless as a defensive force otherwise - but a hurricane isn't unexpected; it was known at least a week in advance that it would likely cause severe damage. So the limiting factor in response time is just the time needed to move from holding positions outside the area of dangerous weather and sea conditions to the areas that needed help.

Any modern navy could do it. The US Navy are not that much less effective than the rest of the world, surely?

Bear in mind that the benchmark here is a one week response time. Most of which was, in the case of Louisiana, also due to needless prevarication by the man with the authority to say 'Go!'

The POTUS could easily, and at almost no marginal cost, have instituted a massive military recovery and assistance operation, which could have started within at most three or four days of his giving the order. He chose not to.

 

[ZiprHead]

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

Sure we have helicopters on warships and they are routinely used for disaster relief in areas near the sea. Most warships operate only one or two, though, and the article was talking about 70 of them. Furthermore, warships are ships, they move at ship speed, not at aircraft speed. It's going to take time for those ships to reach Puerto Rico and put their helicopters to use.

How long does it take for a ship to get from the US mainland to Puerto Rico? I know it's only been nine months but it's a really, really long trip.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

Sure we have helicopters on warships and they are routinely used for disaster relief in areas near the sea. Most warships operate only one or two, though, and the article was talking about 70 of them. Furthermore, warships are ships, they move at ship speed, not at aircraft speed. It's going to take time for those ships to reach Puerto Rico and put their helicopters to use.

How long does it take for a ship to get from the US mainland to Puerto Rico? I know it's only been nine months but it's a really, really long trip.

You have to remember that US Navy Captains and navigators were educated in the American school system. If you task them with finding a place on a map, you need to give them a lot of leeway before they'll be able to succeed at that.

 

[Elixir]

If only the US Navy or US Marine Corps (or the US Coast Guard; or all three) operated ship-borne helicopters, and all of the logistics and supply vessels to support them, that were already being paid for by the taxpayers, whether they were saving lives in Puerto Rico or doing their usual training exercises. Then the Supreme Commander could simply have ordered them to go help.

But sadly, your country simply doesn't have a large and well funded military. Perhaps you should invest in one. Then the marginal cost of mobilizing them for disaster relief would be tiny, and they could respond within a few days.

Sure we have helicopters on warships and they are routinely used for disaster relief in areas near the sea. Most warships operate only one or two, though, and the article was talking about 70 of them. Furthermore, warships are ships, they move at ship speed, not at aircraft speed. It's going to take time for those ships to reach Puerto Rico and put their helicopters to use.

How long does it take for a ship to get from the US mainland to Puerto Rico? I know it's only been nine months but it's a really, really long trip.

They had to go by way of The Philippines, to pay respects to that wonderful Duterte guy.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

How long does it take for a ship to get from the US mainland to Puerto Rico? I know it's only been nine months but it's a really, really long trip.

You have to remember that US Navy Captains and navigators were educated in the American school system. If you task them with finding a place on a map, you need to give them a lot of leeway before they'll be able to succeed at that.

Agreed.

USMA '97 (beat Navy)

aa