Jump to content

Military Mobilised To Deal With Bangkok Flood


Recommended Posts

Posted

A US carrier is not equipped to provide drinking water to a dispersed civilian population. Did you think this through? The water resources on board the vessel are used by the ship. It is not a bottling plant. Even if the vessel could supply all the water you wish, just how would it transport this water to the people that need it? Do you propose stringing fire hoses over several kilometers?

The meals that can be prepared are intended for the crew. The aircraft carrier is not a meals on wheels service. Yes food could be spared for a few days, but there is no way an important warship will strip its supplies for foreign refugees. Get real. None of the euipment on board the aircraft carrier is intended for refugee support purposes. Each piece of equipment has a purpose and the removal of equipment degrades the effectiveness of the ship. The supplies that can be used for offloarding are intended to support the marines attached to the vessel. I will repeat again, catastrophe assistance is provided by hospital ships and tenders.Warships are intnded for a completely different use.

JFYI You need to get real you're so far out in space your about to enter moons orbit.

Thanks for the point by point analysis of GK's post.....er, sorry, dimwit flame of GK.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Yep, not to mention most of them are now under as much as 2 or more meters of the most rancid, polluted water you'd ever want to know about....................

Actually I was disturbed to learn in all of this that the local Bangkok water supply is provided through that nasty, polluted, mud pit of a klong they call klong bra pa and not through a deep well like I'm used to back home, nasty surface water :bah: gag me..

No more need be said, it's amazing if not disturbing the amount of blinkered and myopic people there are amongst us..

Obviously wells in the flood zone are under water, and there is a need for potable water.

The idea that the US aircraft carrier is a good way to supply that water is ludicrous when you need only go outside the flood zone, load up the necessary transport with potable water and take it to the people who need it. As for the rest of the support that this aircraft carrier can provide, the flooding (unlike this some of it this spring) is on the mainland and everything that could have been provided by an aircraft carrier can be found on the mainland. Finally, the Thai Royal Navy has its own aircraft carrier as well as other resources. I had the good fortune to see them in action supporting flood relief efforts in March and they are doing it again now.

I certainly do not mean to disparage the people in need or those who are flooded. I was flooded in March. I have friends who are flooded now. Good luck to everyone.

Only ludicrous to the simpletons kinda like the Simpsons, are you one of those??

Another one who thinks he knows more then the professionals who are tasked with the evaluation, you still don't get it! You're a rank, uneducated, amateur, know nothing compared to the people who have made the recommendations.. I know that because otherwise you'd be making them on their request and your not are you?.. Rhetorical question BTW

Hi WarpSpeed, as I recall from your posts, you are currently in the middle of the flood, so I wish you luck in dealing with it and also with the clean up and the recovery.

I'm not one of those experts tasked with the evaluation, no, but as you are aware, the experts were involved already, and it was that group of experts who sent the US aircraft carrier on its way again.

Although here on TVF there were plenty of "rank, uneducated, amateurs", as you call them, who disagreed vehemently with the decision of these experts.

Again, I hope that you and your neighbors get through this as well as possible. I was in the same boat, so to speak, just last March. Good luck.

I wasn't talking about "Thai Experts" which is an oxymoron, IMO there is no such thing, and it wasn't them who sent it on it's way anyway's, it was uninformed politicians playing politics. I was referring to the "AMERICAN" expert recon team 10 of which were dispatched and were sent in to evaluate what services could be offered and were most at need.. Those experts.

Thank you for your well wishes, my family and I have been displaced for weeks now and it's been some kind of stress and disorientation and it's not all that temporary with many more weeks to come hence my late reply. We've been back a couple of times and it's sickening to see and experience the damage to the community first hand, it is just too much to take in really.. Now we're in the path again, that was unavoidable unfortunately, it's a long story but hopefully the preparations I see about are an over reaction :) ..

Posted

A US carrier is not equipped to provide drinking water to a dispersed civilian population. Did you think this through? The water resources on board the vessel are used by the ship. It is not a bottling plant. Even if the vessel could supply all the water you wish, just how would it transport this water to the people that need it? Do you propose stringing fire hoses over several kilometers?

The meals that can be prepared are intended for the crew. The aircraft carrier is not a meals on wheels service. Yes food could be spared for a few days, but there is no way an important warship will strip its supplies for foreign refugees. Get real. None of the euipment on board the aircraft carrier is intended for refugee support purposes. Each piece of equipment has a purpose and the removal of equipment degrades the effectiveness of the ship. The supplies that can be used for offloarding are intended to support the marines attached to the vessel. I will repeat again, catastrophe assistance is provided by hospital ships and tenders.Warships are intnded for a completely different use.

JFYI You need to get real you're so far out in space your about to enter moons orbit.

Thanks for the point by point analysis of GK's post.....er, sorry, dimwit flame of GK.

I already did a point by point explanation that was ignored prior to his post but I guess that conveniently escaped you too since it didn't fit into your agenda..

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...