Clinton Offers Flood Help To Thailand

[nurofiend]

I am glad as an American we are going to help. I am sure there will be the usual American bashing that accompanies every thread of this nature but I don't see anyone else spending the kind of cash the US spends on aid around the world.

it's called keeping your fingers in all the pies

nah, i'm joking... i'm not that skeptical, but there are certainly more political angles to it in some instances than just being the 'nice guy's', don't you think?

[erobando]

Why are people still posting about the big US boat? It's been like 3 weeks since that "story" came out. The floodwater wouldn't be deep enough for it to float in anyway.

Everyone is better off it goes back to launching missiles at Kabul or Tripoli or wherever.

You could use 'big US boat' instead of the 1000 boats considered by the thai expert to move the water down the canals.

I like that idea. It contains all of the best qualities of the 1,000 boats and the Big Bag Barrier plans.

Another option would be for the US to launch missiles at some point in the middle of the flood... anywhere outside of Inner Bangkok will do.

The Big Hole created by the missiles would act like the sink of a bathtub and suck all of the water away. If I remember my history correctly, that's how the US helped Japan end floods in Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in the 1940's.

[lungmi]

Cool down guys.

44 years ago (high school student) I had instruction with my classmates from US soldiers in Germany against a flood from the North Sea.

I learnt to put sandbags in the scientifical way (our teachers were boys from Lousiana and Mississipi, most members of the Big Brass Big Band

for Northern Europe of the US, from white to black, all colours of humanity, and a good Blues) to protect a dyke against breaching.

We won. Later in the Jazz corners where our teachers played in her free time we continued to live the Blues.

What I learnt about the art to put sandbags I could practise in a neighbourhood village two months ago. No big thing, a kind of tradtitional handicraft

from the Mississipi, and the Blues of good willing people.

Next....

[JSPS]

What do they want in return?

The same thing they got for responding to the Boxing Day Tsunami.

[Nisa]

Why are people still posting about the big US boat? It's been like 3 weeks since that "story" came out. The floodwater wouldn't be deep enough for it to float in anyway.

Everyone is better off it goes back to launching missiles at Kabul or Tripoli or wherever.

You could use 'big US boat' instead of the 1000 boats considered by the thai expert to move the water down the canals.

I like that idea. It contains all of the best qualities of the 1,000 boats and the Big Bag Barrier plans.

Another option would be for the US to launch missiles at some point in the middle of the flood... anywhere outside of Inner Bangkok will do.

The Big Hole created by the missiles would act like the sink of a bathtub and suck all of the water away. If I remember my history correctly, that's how the US helped Japan end floods in Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in the 1940's.

Hey don't knock the big bag, it seems to be working.

The whole 1,000 boat thing really does seem retarded. I kept waiting for them to announce they would need to close the bridge because of the damage they caused running full speed while roped to it. Although it really does seem retarded, surely they did increase the water speed going through the boats engine (propeller - whatever it is called) just as much as a water pump can displace water. However, I just can't imagine that speed increase would effect any water beyond x-meters behind the boat. Then again they are increasing some water speed and that energy has to go somewhere. Seems retarded but I bet it had some effect though probably barely measurable.

Holes in the ground might actually help though it is a little to late. The big reason Bangkok is sinking and has sunk is because of all the water that gets pumped out from beneath it for people's use. Too bad there wasn't a way to put these flood waters in the ground to replace the water taken and lift the city back up (figuratively and literally). One also has to wonder how much water would enter the ground if Bangkok wasn't almost all covered in concrete.

[Buchholz]

If the water is coming from and being handed out by the military it is military aid.

Are you joking?! That's one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while.

Hmmm, if US Military personnel make drinking water on a US Military Carrier and then distribute this water via US Military personnel and US Military Helicopters I can't see how anybody in their right mind would not call this Aid from the Military or Military Aid. You should write the the military in the US and tell them to stop taking credit for their efforts during Katrina because clearly their was no military aid then either. Geez, how far will you go to be argumentative and attack another poster?

It's ridiculous to call it military aid.

It's humanitarian aid, whoever provides it, whether it's Carrier Task Force 70 :

From CTF-70 Public Affairs

The USS George Washington Strike Group departed early from a port visit in Singapore Oct. 16 to be better postured to provide humanitarian aid if needed in the wake of the worst flooding in many years in Thailand.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/us-7th-fleet/uss-george-washington-strike-group-gets-underway/10150413263078615?ref=nf

or the Seventh-day Adventist Church :

The humanitarian arm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is responding to the worst flooding Thailand has seen in half a century. More than a third of the Southeast Asian country is currently flooded following months of unexpectedly heavy monsoon rains.

http://news.adventist.org/2011/10/-the-humanitarian-ar.html

or Malaysian volunteers :

Malaysia is deploying thousands of volunteers on its humanitarian aid mission to Thailand to which was hit by the worst flood in the country's history.

Among the participating bodies include Malaysia Red Crescent, St John's Ambulance of Malaysia (SJAM), CRSM, Global Peace Festival Malaysia, 1Malaysia Community Alliance (1MCA) Foundation, MAYC, Sukarelawan Pejabat Perdana Menteri, Persatuan Keselamatan Sukarela Kerian Perak, Barisan Kola, Kedah and GPMS Kedah.

http://www.malaysiandigest.com/news/34693-malaysia-sends-humanitarian-aid-to-flood-hit-thailand.html

Edited November 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Why are people still posting about the big US boat? It's been like 3 weeks since that "story" came out. The floodwater wouldn't be deep enough for it to float in anyway.

Everyone is better off it goes back to launching missiles at Kabul or Tripoli or wherever.

You could use 'big US boat' instead of the 1000 boats considered by the thai expert to move the water down the canals.

I like that idea. It contains all of the best qualities of the 1,000 boats and the Big Bag Barrier plans.

Another option would be for the US to launch missiles at some point in the middle of the flood... anywhere outside of Inner Bangkok will do.

The Big Hole created by the missiles would act like the sink of a bathtub and suck all of the water away. If I remember my history correctly, that's how the US helped Japan end floods in Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in the 1940's.

The whole 1,000 boat thing really does seem retarded. I kept waiting for them to announce they would need to close the bridge because of the damage they caused running full speed while roped to it. Although it really does seem retarded, surely they did increase the water speed going through the boats engine (propeller - whatever it is called) just as much as a water pump can displace water. However, I just can't imagine that speed increase would effect any water beyond x-meters behind the boat. Then again they are increasing some water speed and that energy has to go somewhere. Seems retarded but I bet it had some effect though probably barely measurable.

It's quite alright to just stop after calling it retarded.

It was.

.

[xen]

What do they want in return?

or is it just to show dumb people that america is such a great country that helps everyone.

I remember when i was a kid and i always thought americans were the good guys. How wrong was i.

Are you so full of hate that you can not appreciate a gesture of friendship and compassion? I don't see Russia or China offering this assistance. What of the oil rich arab countries?

Is it so hard to be appreciative of a positive gesture? America may not be perfect, but I'll take its imperfections any day of the week over the predictable harshness of Russia, China and many other nations.

Fortunately, you do not speak for the tens of thousands that will benefit from the US aid.

Occaisionally i do agree with you. However , it seems most people think Foreign Aid is just a gift from a good heart, just open the ol cheaque book and write a note for a few million. Most foreign aid also benifits the giver as much,if not more than the receiver . I have heard the figure or for every dollar spent three dollars are returned. Apart from the warm fuzzy feeling of doing something good it will,or should also foster better foreign relationships, open new markets, introduce new products to a market, benifit the home economy by the government buying goods to give away etc etc. It also spreads ideology too . The Saudis are huge in foreign aid too spreading the word of Islam. All the same Thailand needs all the help it can at the moment. Good on yer Hillary .

[Nisa]

If the water is coming from and being handed out by the military it is military aid.

Are you joking?! That's one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while.

Hmmm, if US Military personnel make drinking water on a US Military Carrier and then distribute this water via US Military personnel and US Military Helicopters I can't see how anybody in their right mind would not call this Aid from the Military or Military Aid. You should write the the military in the US and tell them to stop taking credit for their efforts during Katrina because clearly their was no military aid then either. Geez, how far will you go to be argumentative and attack another poster?

It's ridiculous to call it military aid.

It's humanitarian aid, whoever provides it, whether it's Carrier Task Force 70 :

From CTF-70 Public Affairs

The USS George Washington Strike Group departed early from a port visit in Singapore Oct. 16 to be better postured to provide humanitarian aid if needed in the wake of the worst flooding in many years in Thailand.

http://www.facebook....63078615?ref=nf

or the Seventh-day Adventist Church :

The humanitarian arm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is responding to the worst flooding Thailand has seen in half a century. More than a third of the Southeast Asian country is currently flooded following months of unexpectedly heavy monsoon rains.

http://news.adventis...itarian-ar.html

or Malaysian volunteers :

Malaysia is deploying thousands of volunteers on its humanitarian aid mission to Thailand to which was hit by the worst flood in the country's history.

Among the participating bodies include Malaysia Red Crescent, St John's Ambulance of Malaysia (SJAM), CRSM, Global Peace Festival Malaysia, 1Malaysia Community Alliance (1MCA) Foundation, MAYC, Sukarelawan Pejabat Perdana Menteri, Persatuan Keselamatan Sukarela Kerian Perak, Barisan Kola, Kedah and GPMS Kedah.

http://www.malaysian...t-thailand.html

Unreal what people will argue about ...

Military Aid to the Civil Community:

Military Aid to the Civil Community

(

MACC

) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aid_to_the_Civil_Community

But the real point is, who gives a rat's @zz? Call it what you want.

[Buchholz]

Military Aid to the Civil Community: Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aid_to_the_Civil_Community[/indent]

But the real point is, who gives a rat's @zz? Call it what you want.

Your Link Says

It is used in many countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

The Brits can call it whatever they want, but the American Navy calls it:

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/quotes.asp?q=253&c=9

and you're right, it doesn't really matter, but proper descriptions are helpful to better understanding, eg. avoiding the over-exaggeration of the socio-political aspects of the presence of Navy personnel or under-describing the capabilities of an aircraft carrier task force.

.

.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[rakman]

What do they want in return?

or is it just to show dumb people that america is such a great country that helps everyone.

I remember when i was a kid and i always thought americans were the good guys. How wrong was i.

I'd really like to know who think the "good guys" are?

[moe666]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

[Nisa]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

Thanks for sharing. I was wondering why the article about the carrier producing water for Haiti was sitting 5-miles off the coast producing water and then having problems supplying the water in part because they were not closer..

Edited November 12, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Military Aid to the Civil Community: Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community

http://en.wikipedia....Civil_Community[/indent]

But the real point is, who gives a rat's @zz? Call it what you want.

Your Link Says

It is used in many countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

The Brits can call it whatever they want, but the American Navy calls it:

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

http://www.navy.mil/...s.asp?q=253&c=9

and you're right, it doesn't really matter, but proper descriptions are helpful to better understanding, eg. avoiding the over-exaggeration of the socio-political aspects of the presence of Navy personnel or under-describing the capabilities of an aircraft carrier task force.

If I have over-exaggerated (and I admit I was purposely trying to stress it was aid from a foreign military) then clearly you are doing the same on the opposite spectrum by calling it "Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief" with no need to clarify it is foreign military providing the assistance.

There was no newspaper that reported that it was 6,000 Humanitarian Assistance workers showed up in the gulf of Thailand but were not needed or turned away. Every news account made clear it was a US Military Carrier.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Nisa

[BuckarooBanzai]

Military Aid to the Civil Community: Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community

http://en.wikipedia....Civil_Community[/indent]

But the real point is, who gives a rat's @zz? Call it what you want.

Your Link Says

It is used in many countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

The Brits can call it whatever they want, but the American Navy calls it:

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

http://www.navy.mil/...s.asp?q=253&c=9

and you're right, it doesn't really matter, but proper descriptions are helpful to better understanding, eg. avoiding the over-exaggeration of the socio-political aspects of the presence of Navy personnel or under-describing the capabilities of an aircraft carrier task force.

If I have over-exaggerated (and I admit I was purposely trying to stress it was aid from a foreign military) then clearly you are doing the same on the opposite spectrum by calling it "Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief" with no need to clarify it is foreign military providing the assistance.

There was no newspaper that reported that it was 6,000 Humanitarian Assistance workers showed up in the gulf of Thailand but were not needed or turned away. Every news account made clear it was a US Military Carrier.

Unlike most countries, the United States military is not under the ultimate control of the United States Military. It is under control of the Executive Branch and by proxy the people of the United States of America. The US military has been serving several rolls over the years, many of which were good and some of which were extremely questionable. From a humanitarian standpoint however, the US Military has likely exceeded any other countries contributions to foreign nations in time of disaster.

The reason many strongly object to the use of the term "Military Aid" as descriptive of the current US Military's offers to assist is that it implies there are some military objectives as a precursor to this aid. The proper definition Military aid is aid which is used to assist a country in its defense efforts, or to assist a poor country in maintaining control over its own territory. is quite clear as having military objectives. The aid the US is providing and has offered to provide is aid to an ally and it's citizenry pure and simple. Trying to classify this as a military maneuver is misguided at least and inflammatory for sure.

Edited November 12, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[Buchholz]

Military Aid to the Civil Community: Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community

http://en.wikipedia....Civil_Community[/indent]

But the real point is, who gives a rat's @zz? Call it what you want.

Your Link Says

It is used in many countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

The Brits can call it whatever they want, but the American Navy calls it:

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

http://www.navy.mil/...s.asp?q=253&c=9

and you're right, it doesn't really matter, but proper descriptions are helpful to better understanding, eg. avoiding the over-exaggeration of the socio-political aspects of the presence of Navy personnel or under-describing the capabilities of an aircraft carrier task force.

If I have over-exaggerated (and I admit I was purposely trying to stress it was aid from a foreign military) then clearly you are doing the same on the opposite spectrum by calling it "Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief" with no need to clarify it is foreign military providing the assistance.

There was no newspaper that reported that it was 6,000 Humanitarian Assistance workers showed up in the gulf of Thailand but were not needed or turned away. Every news account made clear it was a US Military Carrier.

Of course, it's called a US Military Carrier. That's because there is no US Civilian Carrier.

The U.S. Navy calls it it humanitarian assistance because that it is what it is.

Provided was food, water, and medical care services. That is humanitarian.

Not provided was ammunition, fighter jet fuel, and radar jamming services. That is military.

There is no exaggeration whatsoever in any of the above.

.

[Buchholz]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

While it's not ideal, ships can make potable water from seawater while in port. A ship's distiller does just that, it makes distilled water. Distillation kills most bacteria. On top of that, super chlorination would be done to any drinking water made while still in port. The dual process is going to produce safe drinking water.

All the necessary information is contained in here:

Again, it's not the ideal water way to make it potable water, but it is do-able.

I was part of a crew that did it in port and in turn provided that to a foreign country that was hosting us and was in need of water.

btw, the reference also details the daily water requirement you mentioned. It has been updated to 50 gallons per man per day... but there is a caveat that under adverse situations, it can be lowered to 2 gallons per man per day. It's all situational.

Fair winds to you.

.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[Shurup]

NB they use salt water because it is free and plentiful (just like the drinking water that they offered!). Strangely enough Navy decks and equipment are designed to a specification which allows regular contact with salt water. though the decks of nuke carriers don't frequently get waves breaking over them, I have seen a video of such happening in heavy weather.

I haven't been on the US Navy ships so can't say if it's truth, but I work on the offshore drilling rig (tender style) and we DO NOT use sea water in flush toilets and DO NOT wash the decks with sea water, it is corrosive and unless US Navy ships are built of stainless steel (which I doubt) whey won't be using sea water for those purposes either. Stainless steel pretty much only advantage is being corrosion proof, its other properties don't make it a good building material. Perhaps you can specify which specifications you were talking about?

[Buchholz]

NB they use salt water because it is free and plentiful (just like the drinking water that they offered!). Strangely enough Navy decks and equipment are designed to a specification which allows regular contact with salt water. though the decks of nuke carriers don't frequently get waves breaking over them, I have seen a video of such happening in heavy weather.

I haven't been on the US Navy ships so can't say if it's truth, but I work on the offshore drilling rig (tender style) and we DO NOT use sea water in flush toilets and DO NOT wash the decks with sea water, it is corrosive and unless US Navy ships are built of stainless steel (which I doubt) whey won't be using sea water for those purposes either. Stainless steel pretty much only advantage is being corrosion proof, its other properties don't make it a good building material. Perhaps you can specify which specifications you were talking about?

A U.S. Navy ship commode is made of stainless steel and uses sea water to flush it.

.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[Shurup]

if it would not be for the Americans (and other Western countries) in the second WW, you would be either speaking Japanese now or German.....mmmm...short memory and barking up the wrong tree.....

America did and still do a great job... brainwashing their people and here is a really good example if it.

US didn't win the WW2, they helped, I won't deny that. They waited years before pitching in and if they waited some more, war would have been over without their assistance, it would just took a little longer. So here, I'll say it: thx for the assistance, don't take a credit for winning the war however.

[animatic]

I see nationalistic paranoia is far from exclusive to Thailands denizens.

This dear friends is called looking a gift horse in the mouth,

and then smacking it across the face.

[SteeleJoe]

Hmmm, if US Military personnel make drinking water on a US Military Carrier and then distribute this water via US Military personnel and US Military Helicopters I can't see how anybody in their right mind would not call this Aid from the Military or Military Aid. You should write the the military in the US and tell them to stop taking credit for their efforts during Katrina...

...It wasn't only the USSGW that arrived that day and they did in fact provide boats and water pumps as well as leaving ships behind. There was NO OFFER OF HELP DECLINED. Both the US and Thailand discussed what was needed and what could be provided and then it was done. Obviously neither the US nor Thailand felt a US nuclear aircraft carrier would be beneficial to the operations.

1) I'm quite confident in saying that to the vast majority of people, "Military Aid" has a very specific meaning and is potentially, and quite rightly, a sensitive issue. (As you well know and that's the very reason you used the term, consciously or not, and capitalized it rather than say aid from the military -- it's negative connotations). Your usual derisive sarcasm or your not so subtle backpedal notwithstanding ("or Aid from the MIlitary" all of a sudden) , using my definition of Military Aid would not sem to indicate one is not their right mind (I know you're not averse to citing Wiki):

Military aid is aid which is used to assist an ally in its defense efforts, or to assist a poor country in maintaining control over its own territory.

And your strawman about Katrina is just lame (as strawman tactics always are): I never claimed nor implied there was no aid from the military, did I?

2) I'm aware the USSGW didn't arrive alone. (And would have been even it if it hadn't been explicitly mentioned in every report I recall seeing -- because carriers NEVER do.)

3) To my knowledge it has not been proven that there was NO OFFER OF HELP DECLINED. I don't know that what you say transpired is what actually happened -- and you don't either.

'Kay? Bye.

[BuckarooBanzai]

if it would not be for the Americans (and other Western countries) in the second WW, you would be either speaking Japanese now or German.....mmmm...short memory and barking up the wrong tree.....

America did and still do a great job... brainwashing their people and here is a really good example if it.

US didn't win the WW2, they helped, I won't deny that. They waited years before pitching in and if they waited some more, war would have been over without their assistance, it would just took a little longer. So here, I'll say it: thx for the assistance, don't take a credit for winning the war however.

thx for the assistance

bitte schön

I do not believe I have ever read a more obtuse post. "bitte schön" - Thank you to for your wisdom what ever that may be.

[Nisa]

Hmmm, if US Military personnel make drinking water on a US Military Carrier and then distribute this water via US Military personnel and US Military Helicopters I can't see how anybody in their right mind would not call this Aid from the Military or Military Aid. You should write the the military in the US and tell them to stop taking credit for their efforts during Katrina...

...It wasn't only the USSGW that arrived that day and they did in fact provide boats and water pumps as well as leaving ships behind. There was NO OFFER OF HELP DECLINED. Both the US and Thailand discussed what was needed and what could be provided and then it was done. Obviously neither the US nor Thailand felt a US nuclear aircraft carrier would be beneficial to the operations.

1) I'm quite confident in saying that to the vast majority of people, "Military Aid" has a very specific meaning and is potentially, and quite rightly, a sensitive issue. (As you well know and that's the very reason you used the term, consciously or not, and capitalized it rather than say aid from the military -- it's negative connotations). Your usual derisive sarcasm or your not so subtle backpedal notwithstanding ("or Aid from the MIlitary" all of a sudden) , using my definition of Military Aid would not sem to indicate one is not their right mind (I know you're not averse to citing Wiki):

Military aid is aid which is used to assist an ally in its defense efforts, or to assist a poor country in maintaining control over its own territory.

And your strawman about Katrina is just lame (as strawman tactics always are): I never claimed nor implied there was no aid from the military, did I?

2) I'm aware the USSGW didn't arrive alone. (And would have been even it if it hadn't been explicitly mentioned in every report I recall seeing -- because carriers NEVER do.)

3) To my knowledge it has not been proven that there was NO OFFER OF HELP DECLINED. I don't know that what you say transpired is what actually happened -- and you don't either.

OMG, grow up. Why are you going on and on about this? Would it make you feel better if I said you won and that every one who uses the term is wrong and England and elsewhere they along with other world leaders need to remove from the lexicon such terms as "Humanitarian Military Aid" need be remove from their lexicon? So be it, whatever it takes to end this ridiculous and meaningless conversation. You win, just please stop.

As for what transpired, we do know ... right from the horses mouth...

[Nisa]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

While it's not ideal, ships can make potable water from seawater while in port. A ship's distiller does just that, it makes distilled water. Distillation kills most bacteria. On top of that, super chlorination would be done to any drinking water made while still in port. The dual process is going to produce safe drinking water.

All the necessary information is contained in here:

Again, it's not the ideal water way to make it potable water, but it is do-able.

I was part of a crew that did it in port and in turn provided that to a foreign country that was hosting us and was in need of water.

btw, the reference also details the daily water requirement you mentioned. It has been updated to 50 gallons per man per day... but there is a caveat that under adverse situations, it can be lowered to 2 gallons per man per day. It's all situational.

Fair winds to you.

.

I believe many things can be done but am wondering if it "not being ideal" is a great understatement. Don't get me wrong, I believe you are adding valuable info in terms of what can be done but I am just a bit bothered now because I thought I now understood why the USS Carl Vinson was stationed 5-miles off the coast of Haiti producing water when being that far out was making problems with getting the water to the people who were in dire need of fresh water. See: http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/01/16/aircraft-carrier-purifies-water-challenge-is-delivery/

I'm assuming there might be limitations/impossibilities to docking a Nuclear Carrier in Haiti but they certainly could have got closer than 5-miles (8 Kilometers). Anyway, just curious if you know why they wouldn't have been closer to shore given these people were truly in dire need of fresh water and being close to shore ... people were actually dying of thirst there.

[SteeleJoe]

Grow up? Nice. You will never fail to be insulting when refuted, will you...

Going on and on? Count your posts on this and then mine. I haven't done so but have I posted about it a lot more than you? The same? Less? You of all people protesting someone being "argumentative", that's rich...but I suppose I respond to your posts (note that's what I am doing -- responding to posts you made -- not forcing you to discuss this) because you are aren't simply wrong and (as always) totally unwilling to admit it, you are being dishonest about it (as you will do when caught out).

Why would I want you to say everyone was wrong? (cough...strawman...)"Everyone" isn't wrong about this -- in fact I've seen no one use the term as you have and have only seen it used the way I do -- maybe you forgot to show me an example of everyone using it as you do? And as for "Humanitarian Military Aid" -- I wasn't aware that that was in the lexicon of "England and elsewhere they along with other world leaders" (bit awkward that one). I've never seen that anyone does feature that phrase in their regular use of language. Have you? (Other than someone simply applying the adjective to the common phrase Military Aid).

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was -- doesn't matter how many video clips you link (Id be quite surprised if you would claim that US government officials would never tell anything but the truth and we should just accept what they say at face value regardless of any means and motive to lie).

You can consider the conversation over any time you like, can't you? If you honestly don't want to talk about it (ie defend your position) why would you care if I post about it? Seems wired for you to ask me to "Please stop". Anyway, I already said "Bye" once.

edit for typo

Edited November 12, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Buchholz]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

While it's not ideal, ships can make potable water from seawater while in port. A ship's distiller does just that, it makes distilled water. Distillation kills most bacteria. On top of that, super chlorination would be done to any drinking water made while still in port. The dual process is going to produce safe drinking water.

All the necessary information is contained in here:

Again, it's not the ideal water way to make it potable water, but it is do-able.

I was part of a crew that did it in port and in turn provided that to a foreign country that was hosting us and was in need of water.

btw, the reference also details the daily water requirement you mentioned. It has been updated to 50 gallons per man per day... but there is a caveat that under adverse situations, it can be lowered to 2 gallons per man per day. It's all situational.

Fair winds to you.

.

I believe many things can be done but am wondering if it "not being ideal" is a great understatement. Don't get me wrong, I believe you are adding valuable info in terms of what can be done but I am just a bit bothered now because I thought I now understood why the USS Carl Vinson was stationed 5-miles off the coast of Haiti producing water when being that far out was making problems with getting the water to the people who were in dire need of fresh water. See: http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/01/16/aircraft-carrier-purifies-water-challenge-is-delivery/

I'm assuming there might be limitations/impossibilities to docking a Nuclear Carrier in Haiti but they certainly could have got closer than 5-miles (8 Kilometers). Anyway, just curious if you know why they wouldn't have been closer to shore given these people were truly in dire need of fresh water and being close to shore ... people were actually dying of thirst there.

Not being fully versed in that particular operation, it would be only speculation on my part. Having read up a bit on the earthquake, it's devastation seemed massive to the point there was a lot of civil disorder. If the carrier can't be assured it is safe to remain, I could see them anchoring further offshore, and 5 km out to prevent most small boats from approaching it.

In the situation I was involved in, the turmoil wasn't nearly so great and we were able to tie up in port and make water.

As said, however, every situation is different and without knowing all the details, it's difficult to know why decisions were made.

.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

-snip-

I missed the debunking.

Did the Thai government ask for help and the US refused to help. Or did the air craft carrier just come here look around and leave with out offering to help or did it in fact not come here at all?

The Thai govt asked for help. The US military came. Thai, US military and civilian experts determined what was needed at the time. That did not happen to include an aircraft carrier.

one video.

And another - post #28 on the thread

My link

BTW, as you'll see, RogerDee123's reply is incorrect. The Thai govt clearly never refused US assistance.

Now now tlansford ... naughty naughty boy! ..... don't go putting words in my mouth again. I did not say "refused".

Hi Rogerdee123 - alright, technically, that is true, so let me admit that I paraphrased a "refuse" from this

When the US Navy was ready to help the Thai Govt didn't accept

surprise !

Anyway - it's pretty clear that, according to the ambassador (adding that since SteeleJoe isn't convinced yet), the Thai govt actually asked for, received, and accepted US assistance. That was all that I was trying to communicate.

Hope you are high and dry... Tom

[tlansford]

-cut-

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was -- doesn't matter how many video clips you link (Id be quite surprised if you would claim that US government officials would never tell anything but the truth and we should just accept what they say at face value regardless of any means and motive to lie).

-cut-

It is fine to not believe the ambassador regarding her trustworthiness as a source.

But why would she lie about the events which she said took place? On one hand, to be caught in a lie would destroy her credibility and career as well. On the other hand, everything that she recounted in the different interviews involves other organizations and people and can be verified, so a lie would be easily uncovered. IMO, she doesn't have "the means" to lie.

Naturally her statements were very diplomatic and kind towards the Thai government, but as for the events and activities which took place regarding the Thai request for assistance and the USA reaction - I believe her simply because lying would be career suicide.

[BuckarooBanzai]

-cut-

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was -- doesn't matter how many video clips you link (Id be quite surprised if you would claim that US government officials would never tell anything but the truth and we should just accept what they say at face value regardless of any means and motive to lie).

-cut-

It is fine to not believe the ambassador regarding her trustworthiness as a source.

But why would she lie about the events which she said took place? On one hand, to be caught in a lie would destroy her credibility and career as well. On the other hand, everything that she recounted in the different interviews involves other organizations and people and can be verified, so a lie would be easily uncovered. IMO, she doesn't have "the means" to lie.

Naturally her statements were very diplomatic and kind towards the Thai government, but as for the events and activities which took place regarding the Thai request for assistance and the USA reaction - I believe her simply because lying would be career suicide.

One only needs to read your slippery slope of BS to understand you have an objective that is less than honorable. Fess up. Who are you working for.