Flood-Weary Residents Lash Out In Bangkok

[Gweiloman]

I very much doubt that the gov't has decided to let certain areas be flooded for political reasons. They have little control over the floods, as we've seen, otherwise I doubt they would have let all those industrial estates flood.

I am up to my chest in water and I, too, am angry. I would like to blame the gov't, but I really don't think it's their fault. A lot of factors came together to make this disaster. Nastiness or getting even with any group isn't one of them.

Agree ... nothing political. In fact, I think the initial willingness to allow inner Bangkok to flood was political but then Lingluck was advised what a devastating affect this would have on all the people of Thailand. I think the the choice to sacrifice certain areas was done for the greater good as well as the logistics involved in terms of controlling the water flow. I have no idea (same as all the posters here) about the best way to deal with the water but it may now be time to consider allowing alternate routes to disperse the water. IF the water flow has diminished enough to allow water to flow into inner Bangkok causing only the streets to flood slightly to move the water out faster, then it may not be a bad idea. However, this still would be spreading the disaster and not containing as well as spreading all the water born disease in the water and causing resources to be thinned out in terms of helping people. Lots to consider and I and other here are only aware of a tiny portions of all the logistics involved.

Given all the political BS that has taken place and caused much uneeded distraction, I really don't believe this new government has handled the crisis all that bad, especially in terms of comparison to other governments and past similar wide spread disasters in the world. There is no way in the world there was not going to be great loss and suffering given the amount of water. Rarely ever (if ever) is a government not widely criticized during such disasters. But people who want to turn this into a political fight in the middle of a crisis are the ones who truly are causing the most problems and distractions. One would think they actually want things to go badly in order to achieve their political goals. Plenty of time for finger pointing later and during the next election.

I by no means am a Yingluck supporter and wished Abhisit would have won the election but he didn't and my ultimate concern is for Thailand and its people.

Well reasoned post.

Considering that life for the majority of people goes on as normal, this is testament that the actions being taken are generally right. When an unprecedented calamitous event such as this happens, the Government has a duty to think out of the box and try previously untried solutions. I give credit to the government for having the guts to attempt various methods (such as the boats) and also being willing to sacrifice some for the benefit of many.

[Gweiloman]

Thai flood cause revealed

http://asiapacific.a...-revealed-rain/

http://en.wikipedia....floods#Disputes

Dam management was to blame--the thread on the subject explains it all. as my post earlier said - the intense rainfall coinciding with high water tides was a factor--BUT most of this deluge could have been stored-IF this dam water was released August before high tides in the gulf. MAN MADE I'm afraid.

Blaming dam management is a pathetic excuse. No one knows how much rain there would be. In any SOP, there would be an allowance for a certain amount of variance - but surely not for such excesses.

[sparebox2]

"The villagers were not happy that there were not enough pumps to drain the floods,"

Go tell farmers in Nakorn Sawan. They have been under water for 3 months already. (Not 3 weeks).

[alexakap]

Could live 20 years in a flooded area and it wouldn't change my statement

How pathetic.

Would you dare just come to my house and prove your words? I had a free sofa... somewhere 1.5m down there. You don't afraid to dive and look for, do you?

How would that make my post (below) untrue? The words are proven in the quote from the article. The facts don't changed dependent on where I am located. The comment simply means things are running backwards. Authorities are supposed to be watching the dam_n to stop damage, not citizens watching the dam_n from preventing authorities from repairing it. Why are you wanting to argue over such a minor, yet indisputable, comment that obviously contained sarcasm since it is a sarcastic saying?

Are you coming, or not? Im not going to exercise my rhetoric skills now - I have to dry my t-shirts somehow. Also my ma-ma noodle +pla kapong waits for me....

[gregb]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Now that is just insulting. I am completely rational. I am being asked to sacrifice for the people and businesses in inner Bangkok. Exactly how is it I'm being irrational in demanding adequate compensation for this?

I think some people who are not affected are simply trying to rationalize the guilt they are feeling because some like myself have had their lives ruined while they are sitting dry and happy. The "let them eat cake" attitude of some people here is the real indicator of the loss of any sort of rationality and moral compass. The people who sacrifice deserve adequate compensation from the people they sacrificed for. There is nothing illogical about that.

Rental taxes and property taxes on unaffected and lightly affected areas of inner Bangkok should be implemented to pay for this mess.

[robblok]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Now that is just insulting. I am completely rational. I am being asked to sacrifice for the people and businesses in inner Bangkok. Exactly how is it I'm being irrational in demanding adequate compensation for this?

I think some people who are not affected are simply trying to rationalize the guilt they are feeling because some like myself have had their lives ruined while they are sitting dry and happy. The "let them eat cake" attitude of some people here is the real indicator of the loss of any sort of rationality and moral compass. The people who sacrifice deserve adequate compensation from the people they sacrificed for. There is nothing illogical about that.

Rental taxes and property taxes on unaffected and lightly affected areas of inner Bangkok should be implemented to pay for this mess.

Come on that would mean they would have to pay and that would be so bad for them.

[gregb]

Thai flood cause revealed

http://asiapacific.a...-revealed-rain/

http://en.wikipedia....floods#Disputes

Dam management was to blame--the thread on the subject explains it all. as my post earlier said - the intense rainfall coinciding with high water tides was a factor--BUT most of this deluge could have been stored-IF this dam water was released August before high tides in the gulf. MAN MADE I'm afraid.

Blaming dam management is a pathetic excuse. No one knows how much rain there would be. In any SOP, there would be an allowance for a certain amount of variance - but surely not for such excesses.

Unfortunately you are completely incorrect in this statement. The meterologists informed the Royal Irrigation Department substantially in advance of the September storms that several storm fronts were coming that would be dealing heavy rains. Despite this warning, officials still refused to release water from the dams for political reasons. Had water been released just 3-4 weeks earlier as it should have, some rice crops would have been flooded instead of harvested, but most areas would have had only typical, seasonal flooding issues. Were those rice crops really worth the likely trillions of baht in damage that has occurred as a result?

Dam management was to blame, and the people who created this mess need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Edit: OK..."typical" is probably a bit of a stretch. It would likely have been worse than typical, but no where near creating a 100km lake meters deep in the center of Thailand as it did. That was inexcusable.

Edited November 14, 2011 by gregb

[JohnDenver]

TAWP is just someone who is living in his "Ivory Tower" and couldn't care less if anyone else is flooded...

just as long as he STAYS HIGH-AND-DRY!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gotta love those compassionate sorts sympathising and empathising for his fellow-man. Or maybe not.

And if you say that you DO CARE, then your posts certainly don't reflect it because I have not said anything until now, and that is silence for far too long.

[whybother]

Now that is just insulting. I am completely rational. I am being asked to sacrifice for the people and businesses in inner Bangkok. Exactly how is it I'm being irrational in demanding adequate compensation for this?

I think some people who are not affected are simply trying to rationalize the guilt they are feeling because some like myself have had their lives ruined while they are sitting dry and happy. The "let them eat cake" attitude of some people here is the real indicator of the loss of any sort of rationality and moral compass. The people who sacrifice deserve adequate compensation from the people they sacrificed for. There is nothing illogical about that.

Rental taxes and property taxes on unaffected and lightly affected areas of inner Bangkok should be implemented to pay for this mess.

You weren't asked to do anything. You, and no one else, had any real choice in you being flooded.

Bangkok has flood barriers to protect the city and a lot of people from major floods. It has mainly done the job it was designed to do. The people who live outside these flood barriers would have been flooded if the barriers were there or not.

Why should those that choose to live in flood prone areas be compensated by those who do not live in flood prone areas? Should people who built their houses on stilts in a flood prone area also compensate those who didn't?

[gregb]

Now that is just insulting. I am completely rational. I am being asked to sacrifice for the people and businesses in inner Bangkok. Exactly how is it I'm being irrational in demanding adequate compensation for this?

I think some people who are not affected are simply trying to rationalize the guilt they are feeling because some like myself have had their lives ruined while they are sitting dry and happy. The "let them eat cake" attitude of some people here is the real indicator of the loss of any sort of rationality and moral compass. The people who sacrifice deserve adequate compensation from the people they sacrificed for. There is nothing illogical about that.

Rental taxes and property taxes on unaffected and lightly affected areas of inner Bangkok should be implemented to pay for this mess.

You weren't asked to do anything. You, and no one else, had any real choice in you being flooded.

Bangkok has flood barriers to protect the city and a lot of people from major floods. It has mainly done the job it was designed to do. The people who live outside these flood barriers would have been flooded if the barriers were there or not.

Why should those that choose to live in flood prone areas be compensated by those who do not live in flood prone areas? Should people who built their houses on stilts in a flood prone area also compensate those who didn't?

I am being asked not to tear down the big bag barrier to protect inner Bangkok. Inner Bangkok should be flooded by your reasoning, but it is not because people like myself are being told to sacrifice. Fine...pay for it though.

It is as simple as that. You honestly think inner Bangkok isn't flood prone?

[erobando]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Also shows that people who are not affected are not objective either. Also they don't see how others are sacrificed and would not pay to stay dry.

I am already objective.. these bags wont affect me or make the water any less here. Still flooded here.

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

[gregb]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Also shows that people who are not affected are not objective either. Also they don't see how others are sacrificed and would not pay to stay dry.

I am already objective.. these bags wont affect me or make the water any less here. Still flooded here.

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

Unfortunately, your desire to justify your position by claiming everyone putting forth a rational argument for why those receiving the benefits of the sacrifice should be forced to pay for the privilege are just making "emotional arguments" is completely disingenuous. You can believe anything you would like, but it does not make you correct, and it smacks of you trying to relieve your guilty conscience.

[whybother]

You weren't asked to do anything. You, and no one else, had any real choice in you being flooded.

Bangkok has flood barriers to protect the city and a lot of people from major floods. It has mainly done the job it was designed to do. The people who live outside these flood barriers would have been flooded if the barriers were there or not.

Why should those that choose to live in flood prone areas be compensated by those who do not live in flood prone areas? Should people who built their houses on stilts in a flood prone area also compensate those who didn't?

I am being asked not to tear down the big bag barrier to protect inner Bangkok. Inner Bangkok should be flooded by your reasoning, but it is not because people like myself are being told to sacrifice. Fine...pay for it though.

It is as simple as that. You honestly think inner Bangkok isn't flood prone?

Bangkok is flood prone, but has flood protection walls. They are there to protect Bangkok's infrastructure and also to protect a lot of people. A lot of money has been spent on the infrastructure and it should be protected where possible. It serves no one's interest to damage that infrastructure. It serves no one's interest to have another 500 people dead in Bangkok. It serves no one's interests to have to provide relief efforts for another 5 - 10 million people.

I can understand you being frustrated, but having more people flooded won't help you. It might make the water level go down a few centimetres, but it will just mean that everything else will take much longer to recover.

edit: Everyone, whether flooded or not, will pay for the recovery and reconstruction. The government are spending hundreds of billions of baht on it. If more areas are flooded, that money won't go as far.

Edited November 14, 2011 by whybother

[gregb]

You weren't asked to do anything. You, and no one else, had any real choice in you being flooded.

Bangkok has flood barriers to protect the city and a lot of people from major floods. It has mainly done the job it was designed to do. The people who live outside these flood barriers would have been flooded if the barriers were there or not.

Why should those that choose to live in flood prone areas be compensated by those who do not live in flood prone areas? Should people who built their houses on stilts in a flood prone area also compensate those who didn't?

I am being asked not to tear down the big bag barrier to protect inner Bangkok. Inner Bangkok should be flooded by your reasoning, but it is not because people like myself are being told to sacrifice. Fine...pay for it though.

It is as simple as that. You honestly think inner Bangkok isn't flood prone?

Bangkok is flood prone, but has flood protection walls. They are there to protect Bangkok's infrastructure and also to protect a lot of people. A lot of money has been spent on the infrastructure and it should be protected where possible. It serves no one's interest to damage that infrastructure. It serves no one's interest to have another 500 people dead in Bangkok. It serves no one's interests to have to provide relief efforts for another 5 - 10 million people.

I can understand you being frustrated, but having more people flooded won't help you. It might make the water level go down a few centimetres, but it will just mean that everything else will take much longer to recover.

edit: Everyone, whether flooded or not, will pay for the recovery and reconstruction. The government are spending hundreds of billions of baht on it. If more areas are flooded, that money won't go as far.

The big bag barrier which is the source of the contention is not a natural feature. My house is 1 km to the West of the railroad tracks and is under 2 meters of water. A friend's house is 1 km to the east of the tracks and is only inundated to 50 cm. Your argument is based on false assumptions. A man chose this barrier after the flood was already established. You did not do anything genuinely intelligent by selecting a house in an area with good flood management. The government has tried to create it after the fact by asking me to sacrifice for you.

Again. Fine. I'll do that for the greater good, but you need to make me whole.

Edit: I agree it serves no purpose to flood an area that can be saved. But it also serves no purpose not to compensate those people who must endure months of flooding instead of weeks so that those areas can remain dry. We are all in this together. You aren't better than me. I'm taking the physical abuse. You can do your part by taking some financial abuse. It is that simple.

Edited November 14, 2011 by gregb

[robblok]

You weren't asked to do anything. You, and no one else, had any real choice in you being flooded.

Bangkok has flood barriers to protect the city and a lot of people from major floods. It has mainly done the job it was designed to do. The people who live outside these flood barriers would have been flooded if the barriers were there or not.

Why should those that choose to live in flood prone areas be compensated by those who do not live in flood prone areas? Should people who built their houses on stilts in a flood prone area also compensate those who didn't?

I am being asked not to tear down the big bag barrier to protect inner Bangkok. Inner Bangkok should be flooded by your reasoning, but it is not because people like myself are being told to sacrifice. Fine...pay for it though.

It is as simple as that. You honestly think inner Bangkok isn't flood prone?

Bangkok is flood prone, but has flood protection walls. They are there to protect Bangkok's infrastructure and also to protect a lot of people. A lot of money has been spent on the infrastructure and it should be protected where possible. It serves no one's interest to damage that infrastructure. It serves no one's interest to have another 500 people dead in Bangkok. It serves no one's interests to have to provide relief efforts for another 5 - 10 million people.

I can understand you being frustrated, but having more people flooded won't help you. It might make the water level go down a few centimetres, but it will just mean that everything else will take much longer to recover.

edit: Everyone, whether flooded or not, will pay for the recovery and reconstruction. The government are spending hundreds of billions of baht on it. If more areas are flooded, that money won't go as far.

The big bag barrier which is the source of the contention is not a natural feature. My house is 1 km to the West of the railroad tracks and is under 2 meters of water. A friend's house is 1 km to the east of the tracks and is only inundated to 50 cm. Your argument is based on false assumptions. A man chose this barrier after the flood was already established. You did not do anything genuinely intelligent by selecting a house in an area with good flood management. The government has tried to create it after the fact by asking me to sacrifice for you.

Again. Fine. I'll do that for the greater good, but you need to make me whole.

Edit: I agree it serves no purpose to flood an area that can be saved. But it also serves no purpose not to compensate those people who must endure months of flooding instead of weeks so that those areas can remain dry. We are all in this together. You aren't better than me. I'm taking the physical abuse. You can do your part by taking some financial abuse. It is that simple.

Wel spoken, BKK people try to rationalise not paying and not feeling guilty. This barrier was not there before. It was set up and it hurts people. Also protects people its only fair that the protected pay for the ones that are sacrificed .

[robblok]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Also shows that people who are not affected are not objective either. Also they don't see how others are sacrificed and would not pay to stay dry.

I am already objective.. these bags wont affect me or make the water any less here. Still flooded here.

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

You obviously never lived in a flooded house the dept of the water makes a big difference. Up to 30cm in the house its livable. Above that the damage is a lot more. We had 70cm in the street and 20cm in the house.

so tell me where you get your wisdom from.

I am saying the people behind the big bags should be compensated (not saying flood bkk). The greater good is not a one way road.

[erobando]

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

You obviously never lived in a flooded house the dept of the water makes a big difference. Up to 30cm in the house its livable. Above that the damage is a lot more. We had 70cm in the street and 20cm in the house.

so tell me where you get your wisdom from.

I am saying the people behind the big bags should be compensated (not saying flood bkk). The greater good is not a one way road.

The flood water drop will be minimal... that's the point. I thought that people with flood damage will receive compensation.

[erobando]

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

Unfortunately, your desire to justify your position by claiming everyone putting forth a rational argument for why those receiving the benefits of the sacrifice should be forced to pay for the privilege are just making "emotional arguments" is completely disingenuous. You can believe anything you would like, but it does not make you correct, and it smacks of you trying to relieve your guilty conscience.

People aren't being sacrificed. They're flooded because there's a whole bunch of water that's gradually drifting to the south. Blocking the flow of the flood to Inner Bangkok didn't create the flood.

I don't live in BKK. I'll be flooded soon enough.

I don't feel guilty nor do I believe in existence of a "conscience."

But allowing more floodwater into inner BKK won't undo anyone's flood.

[Nisa]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Now that is just insulting. I am completely rational. I am being asked to sacrifice for the people and businesses in inner Bangkok. Exactly how is it I'm being irrational in demanding adequate compensation for this?

I think some people who are not affected are simply trying to rationalize the guilt they are feeling because some like myself have had their lives ruined while they are sitting dry and happy. The "let them eat cake" attitude of some people here is the real indicator of the loss of any sort of rationality and moral compass. The people who sacrifice deserve adequate compensation from the people they sacrificed for. There is nothing illogical about that.

Rental taxes and property taxes on unaffected and lightly affected areas of inner Bangkok should be implemented to pay for this mess.

[Nisa]

Thai flood cause revealed

http://asiapacific.a...-revealed-rain/

http://en.wikipedia....floods#Disputes

Dam management was to blame--the thread on the subject explains it all. as my post earlier said - the intense rainfall coinciding with high water tides was a factor--BUT most of this deluge could have been stored-IF this dam water was released August before high tides in the gulf. MAN MADE I'm afraid.

Blaming dam management is a pathetic excuse. No one knows how much rain there would be. In any SOP, there would be an allowance for a certain amount of variance - but surely not for such excesses.

Unfortunately you are completely incorrect in this statement. The meterologists informed the Royal Irrigation Department substantially in advance of the September storms that several storm fronts were coming that would be dealing heavy rains. Despite this warning, officials still refused to release water from the dams for political reasons. Had water been released just 3-4 weeks earlier as it should have, some rice crops would have been flooded instead of harvested, but most areas would have had only typical, seasonal flooding issues. Were those rice crops really worth the likely trillions of baht in damage that has occurred as a result?

Dam management was to blame, and the people who created this mess need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Edit: OK..."typical" is probably a bit of a stretch. It would likely have been worse than typical, but no where near creating a 100km lake meters deep in the center of Thailand as it did. That was inexcusable.

First of all, flooding was taking place before September. At the start of August there was already flooding in 21 provinces and about 2 dozen people dead already. Secondly, nobody can predict weather accurately 3 to 4 weeks out. Since Yingluck took office at this time (early August), I assume you want to see Abhisit prosecuted.

[TAWP]

This topic clearly shows how people that are affected are no-where near objective or even rational at most times.

Also shows that people who are not affected are not objective either. Also they don't see how others are sacrificed and would not pay to stay dry.

I am already objective.. these bags wont affect me or make the water any less here. Still flooded here.

So people that are not affected are not objective but you, not being affected, is objective?

Somehow you tangled yourself up in that one.

[Gweiloman]

Thai flood cause revealed

http://asiapacific.a...-revealed-rain/

http://en.wikipedia....floods#Disputes

Dam management was to blame--the thread on the subject explains it all. as my post earlier said - the intense rainfall coinciding with high water tides was a factor--BUT most of this deluge could have been stored-IF this dam water was released August before high tides in the gulf. MAN MADE I'm afraid.

Blaming dam management is a pathetic excuse. No one knows how much rain there would be. In any SOP, there would be an allowance for a certain amount of variance - but surely not for such excesses.

Unfortunately you are completely incorrect in this statement. The meterologists informed the Royal Irrigation Department substantially in advance of the September storms that several storm fronts were coming that would be dealing heavy rains. Despite this warning, officials still refused to release water from the dams for political reasons. Had water been released just 3-4 weeks earlier as it should have, some rice crops would have been flooded instead of harvested, but most areas would have had only typical, seasonal flooding issues. Were those rice crops really worth the likely trillions of baht in damage that has occurred as a result?

Dam management was to blame, and the people who created this mess need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Edit: OK..."typical" is probably a bit of a stretch. It would likely have been worse than typical, but no where near creating a 100km lake meters deep in the center of Thailand as it did. That was inexcusable.

Read the two articles linked by Nisa. If those articles are correct, the dam managers (no pun intended) are caught between a rock and a hard place. To release more water in anticipation of a huge deluge will flood more of Thailand and if the typhoons swings away from it's projected courses as they are known to do, the managers would be hung out to dry. They chose to hang on a bit longer but luck (and yes, dealing with nature requires luck and lots of it) was not on their side and they typhoons dumped their load which found it's way into the dams. Water had to be released to prevent the dams from failing (which would be a REAL CATASTROPHE compared to what we are witnessing).

I spent a lot of time up in the NE during the months of May/June/July and believe me, paddy fields were flooded as far as the eye could see. No more was made of this in the papers because the Thai people just got on with their lives. It helps that they have little possessions which means they were much more mobile, able to live in each other's houses if their own were affected.

The people who created this mess are the gods themselves. Their day of reckoning won't come; but maybe it's a foretaste of OUR day of reckoning.

[Ijustwannateach]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

[PaddyBKK]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

[whybother]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

[ExpatOilWorker]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Instead of looking at pure GDP ($) numbers a lot of countries have adapted to a "happiness index", giving a better indication of the general well being of humanity. So apart for the absolute critical business and great shopping in the center of Bangkok I can personally assure that there is a lot of happiness going on at Sukhumvit. This highly concentrated happiness far outweigh a wet sofa in some obscure suburb of Bangkok.

BBB stay where it is, end of story!

On the bright side, in a couple of months when we enter the dry season, the flooded areas should have great fertilized ground from all the sewage water. Ideal for gardening and lush green front lawn.

[Logarhythm]

The many flood related threads on this forum remind me of Thai business meetings , and Thai cabinet meetings. They go around and around in circles with nothing decided and nothing achieved.

[BinDhumm]

The many flood related threads on this forum remind me of Thai business meetings , and Thai cabinet meetings. They go around and around in circles with nothing decided and nothing achieved.

+1

Mainly the SUV drivers with cash.

[gregb]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Which is exactly why everyone is recognizing that saving an area that can be saved is a laudable goal and should be attempted. On the other hand, not compensating those people who are sacrificing to allow it is not. Everyone needs to share in the pain. Those who can be saved should share through higher taxes to compensate those who the government elected not to defend. By your own reasoning, this would be cheaper for you than letting inner Bangkok flood, and therefore represents an optimal solution for all.

But of course, those in inner Bangkok want to believe they are superior to everyone else and owe nothing to those who are sacrificing for them. That is the crux of the argument. And anyone who can say the inner Bangkokians are behaving without emotion in this is clearly limiting his vision to only the things he wants to see.

As for proving whether flooding inner Bangkok will help, I can show you very easily how building a big wall creates a water gradient that causes one side to experience significantly more damage than the other. Come see my house. You pay the 2000 baht it will cost to rent a boat to get there. How anyone can claim to be rational and not recognize that flooding one area to the point of evacuation while leaving another section of the city high and dry is not hurting those who are forced to evacuate is beyond me. Yes. If the water level at my estate was allowed to drop down to 50 cm or so in order that power could be restored life would be substantially better.

I would say that if anyone needs to prove something, it is the other way around. Prove to me that removing all barriers and sharing the city pumps equally won't reduce the flooding at my house. I bet you can't. You just want to punish people to conceal your own guilt.

Leaving me under 2 meters of water so that you can enjoy your morning jaunt to Starbucks without getting your feet wet is not something you inherently deserve because of your bloodline. I am sacrificing for you. I ask that you recognize my sacrifice, thank me, and pay me for the damages I incur. That is all. That is hardly an emotional request.

The claims of being emotional as opposed to logical are simply absurd, and I truly would expect more from some of the long time members on this board.

[robblok]

TAWP's and Nisa's posts are rational... the people complaining that the flood should be "shared equally" are expressing with emotion only.

The goal of the government is too protect what it can and minimize damage as much as possible.

Once an area is flooded, it's flooded. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference if the flood stays 40 days or 30 days; and it makes little difference if the flood height is 80 cm or 60 cm..

I don't see how anyone can argue with "inmates running the asylum" comment... people in some areas are interfering with the flood management process by removing flood barriers, FROC needs to negotiate with locals rather than implement their plan, law enforcement is unable/unwilling to protect the flood management process.

That's the very definition of "inmates running the asylum."

You obviously never lived in a flooded house the dept of the water makes a big difference. Up to 30cm in the house its livable. Above that the damage is a lot more. We had 70cm in the street and 20cm in the house.

so tell me where you get your wisdom from.

I am saying the people behind the big bags should be compensated (not saying flood bkk). The greater good is not a one way road.

The flood water drop will be minimal... that's the point. I thought that people with flood damage will receive compensation.

If the water drops 10-20cm its a lot it can mean the difference between having electricity and stuff and loosing it all.

Yes people who are flooded get a 5k (please im still laughing) compensation. I feel that those that are really sacrificed like those behind the big bag wall should be compensated a lot more maybe by a one time property tax in BKK.

I believe in the greater good, but i also believe that those you sacrifice for it should get good compensation. If BKK is so important they can surely pay.