Text 45036, 112 rader
Skriven 2006-12-26 19:18:59 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 44993 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
Ärende: Christmas food
======================
Björn Forsström -> Ed Hulett wrote:

 BF>>> Then, why wasn't England allowed to ship food to New Orleans after
 BF>>> Katrina?

 EH>> Cite please.

 BF> It's soon 1.5 years ago and I haven't saved anything.

God excuse.

 BF>>> It was perfectly good NATO food that your governmment turned down
 BF> and if
 BF>>> I'm not wrong it is somewhere in Patriot Act.

 EH>> You mean it was food the US provided in the first place?

 BF> I don't know if it was made in England or USA or where ever.

NATO food is usually US military MREs.

 EH>> Please feel free to provide evidence to back up your claim.

 BF> Sometimes one expect to be taken serious without having to prove
everything
 BF> but feel free to visit:

 BF> http://www.unknownnews.org/0509260919MREs.html
 BF> http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/5460.php/

Jeez, you make it too easy. Nowhere in that story (it was the exact same story
posted to two sites) does it indicate that the US rejected because of any
"Patriot Act" regulation.

In the second sentence it says that it was deemed unfit for human consumption.
The story tries to make it sound like it was some huge US conspiracy to let the
Katrina victims starve, but there is nothing in the story to back up that
claim.

Why should the US feed the poor victims food that is unfit for human
consumption?

Besides, the US had no problem feeding the Katrina victims.

 BF>>> If you recieved some, do you think the customs have time to go
 BF> through
 BF>>> every single parcel that comes to USA? I've heard them say that
 BF> only 20
 BF>>> or 30% is checked.

 EH>> Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 EH>> So, "no food is allowed" but if I did get some it must have got
 BF> past them.

 BF> Of course it must have, just like the terrorists that flew the planes and
all the
 BF> drugs that enters your country even today. Or you perhaps haven't a drog-
 BF> problem either?

Now you're equating food items with terrorists and illegal drugs?

 EH>> If you had any facts to back up your assertion, you'd not look so
 BF> foolish
 EH>> when you have to backpedal when challenged.

 BF> Visit the url I gave you.....

URLs to two obscure "news" websites for a story that doesn't support your
assertion? You mean those URLs?

 EH>>>> Anecdotal stories are always fun to read... but usually have
 BF>>> nothing to do
 EH>>>> with the truth.

 BF>>> Is it in your personality to call everyone a liar that doesn't
 BF> agree with
 BF>>> you?

 EH>> Did I call yo a liar? Hmmmm... that must have something to do with the
 EH>> fact that you are making assertions that cannot be backed up with
 BF> facts.

 BF> Get back to me after you have visited the url:s above but then I guess you
 BF> will say that they are not to be trusted and they are anti-American or
 BF> something.

The story (one story on two sites) doesn't support your assertion. It quotes
"unnamed" sources and reads like the only victims of Katrina were in New
Orleans.

While New Orleans was one of the areas affected, most of the distruction was
outside of NO. The victims inside NO were mostly victims of poor coordination
between state and local authorities.

First the story says that the FDA recalled the NATO food, then it says it was
the Department of Agriculture. Which is it?

I don't see anything anti-American, but it is very poorly researched and
suspect because none of the sources were named.

Ed

-- 
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue,
and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." -- Thomas Jefferson

Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.
 * Origin: Veritas Vos Leberabit! (1:123/789.0)