How not to be seen - MARPAT or DPM

All though the equipped survival website is involved in survival and rescue signaling techniques, in certain circumstances it is sometimes appropriate to ask 'How not to be seen' in the wilderness as can be demostrated at YouTube.

Which camouflage would you recommend, US army MARPAT, British DPM or German Flecktarn etc? What is your favorite camouflage style and what would you not be seen dead in?

I would prefer to conceal in the water and wear something to blend into that environment. Maybe dress up like a SEAL to really be invisible

Hi RAS - A few years ago I was explaining to my mom that in Afghanistan, the US army had to rescue some SEALS from the top of a mountain. She asked what were SEALS were doing on top of a mountain in Afghanistan in the first place. I said the Navy had put them there. She replied 'That was very cruel of them !'.

I only wear camo when I hunt, and haven't been doing much of that lately. When I do, it is usually birds in a semi-desert area, and I have some USGI three color desert camo that I like. To me those who wear come fancy tiger stripe or something around town look silly, like they are GI Joe wannabes.

I do like big pockets tho, and have a couple pair of really aged OD jungle fatigue pants that I still sometimes wear when wandering the boonies...

X2 While playing paintball (in the forests of NW Oregon), I have found that knowing when to hold still, staying above or below someone's normal line of sight, and using the shadows are the most effective ways to hide. I normally play in a light tan windbreaker and khaki pants, and often times, I'm harder to find than the guys in camo.

Seems to me that there are nuances of "in the wilderness."

For all-out non-observability check into sniper gear and techniques such as ghillie suits.

For being inconspicuous to the authorities in varying circumstances military or even hunting camo might be too troublesome compared to generic greens and browns.
Consider how well your "why no, officer, I ALWAYS wear my LBE and camo my face when I commute to my shift at the 7-11. Why
do you ask?" will go down at the roadblock.

Even the seasonal foliage of that wilderness would matter a lot because background determines what you should be trying to match. (deep snow vs summertime green)

You can buy gray BDU pants and jacket which is a nice unobtrusive color and very functional.

As other posters have noted, practicing the art of staying in shadows, staying still, and being in unexpected elevations helps a lot. Just ask any Bigfoot fan :-)

unimogbert

Crye "multicam" has had some great reviews and is rumored to be a possible replacement for the US MARPAT/CADPAT; http://www.multicampattern.com/. From what I've read, its one of the best camo patterns for multiple environments.

I also like some of the Natural Gear camo patterns - http://www.naturalgear.com/

The digital MARPAT style camo has been scientifically proven to be great camo against human vision at long ranges, but I don't think its so great at very close range.

The Realtree (http://www.realtree.com/) and Advantage (http://www.advantagecamo.com/) camo companies produce a great range of very effective products which can be utilized in very specific environments/terrain.

I like to wear camo in nature because I feel like I blend in a little better - its a psychological thing. Wearing paramilitary style gear is a red flag to many people though, and it may be better to wear plain clothes in an SHTF situation, and camoflauge them with mud/dirt/grasses/branches if you ever felt you needed to camo up. Both people and animals have keen eyes for movement, so the best camo is good cover.

Camo won't help you avoid being tracked if you don't know how to move stealthily and without leaving sign, nor provide much respite from infrared instruments. Knowledge of scent control is the most important aspect of wilderness concealment when hunting.

I prefer #4 woodland for the Lousy-anna area but I will not wear cammies unless I'm in the woods. I agree with the comment made earlier about people wearing cammies on the street does, in my opinion, look like wannabe G.I. Joes.
If I have to leave work and make my way home, cross country, then I'm going through urban areas in combat boots, blue jeans, khaki shirt, and blue ball cap.
Nothing bright colored, nothing that stands out to cops. Using work clothes (merchant marine) just reinforces my "passing through" story at any roadblocks that I fail to skirt around.
I do like the new digital patterns and I am contemplating getting a set. I look at them and basically, I have to refocus my eyes. That impresses me.

The older pattern camo works amazingly well where I live. But, like others said, movement gives everything away. And, bushes allow light to shine through. Humans do not

Thanks to all the responses so far, some very interesting comments.
I am actually quite surprised at some of the comments about the issue of roadblocks (police roadblocks I assume) and the wearing of camouflage materials in relation to the authorities. Being based in Northern Europe specifically Scotland, I personally have never been stopped at a roadblock as roadblocks are something that to my knowledge I have ever heard of one except for the G8 conference at Glen Eagles a few years back when President Bush was there (apparently landed his helicopter on the 18th - absolutely unforgivable) or there was a major incident such as a gas leak. Are roadblocks setup routinely in the US? Anyway even if I was to be stopped at a roadblock by the police why would they have any cause for suspicion even if you were wearing a camouflage smock or jacket? Some high street Camouflage clothing is actually considered quite fashionable over here. You can even get a DPM Kilt. Not exactly my idea of fashion but I think this demonstrates the point.
Thanks to all for the links to the suppliers of US camo. Much appreciated.

As Hazeywolf said, Multicam seems to be the top choice in cammo right now. It looks similar to the blotchy cammo both the SS and US Marines used in WW2.

IIRC it was beat out by the ACU/MARPAT patterns because it was too expensive to licence from Crye.

Military Morons did a comparison with good photos.

Crye Multicam

and

Army ACU

The Support-a-sniper program, which collects items to be donated to snipers oversees, states "ALL GEAR PREFERABLY IN COYOTE TAN, TAN OR KHAKI - OD will suffice, Woodland LAST but okay."

Roadblocks in the US are not at all common but in a SHTF scenario, they happen. Look at the roadblocks around the New Orleans area for instance. And shelters for the displaced.
All had authority figures who believed their job was not to ensure just treatment but simply to ensure peace and quiet. To pass their inspection you have to present no threat nor give them any reason to think you are anything but another refugee.
Someone who looks paramilitary will get special attention.

But then again, a DPM kilt might get you a bye on the the search for weapons. Or it'll just go a lot faster :-)

unimogbert

Being in Scotland how can you not have noticed two of the greatest cammie patterns around. Simple muted plaids and Harris tweeds are warmer and quieter than any dedicated cammie gear. I worked with an ethiopean refugee. Getachew was even taller than me and wore these grey/green workshirts and trousers. That guy could fade from view virtually in front of you. But then Getachew walked through minefields at night with his sister to freedom.

Roadblocks are not common in the USA except for the ones they occasionally set up to catch drunk drivers. And in 30+ years of driving I've only seen one of those. As far as wearing camo goes it probably depends on the location; around here camo is so common as to not even rate a second look, particularly from August though January.

Apologies for Bush messing up your golf game. I imagine they landed there for some specific reason--most likely security.

When you want to hide:

Dull colors
break up your outline
move slow
stay low to the ground

Where I live there is less and less natural areas and hunting grounds and more and more urbanization and sprawl. Camo during hunting season does not get a second look though, probably because we are a gun owning state and other parts of our state are very rural.

The one thing that gets me is that it is quite fashionable for youth to be in camo (just go to any mall and check out what the teenagers are wearing) and other urbanized military-style clothing, but it gets eyes and uneasy feelings from the public if you are an adult and wear this stuff.

Case in point:
I was leaving the hospital from a doctor appointment and I went to the wrong level looking for my truck (huger lot - that mistake won't happen again). I was walking around looking for my truck and there was this youger (read yuppie) attractive gal walking to her car and I saw great fear in her eyes and she froze up, apparently thinking I was going to do something bad to her. Made me frustrated because what I wear to work are simply green cargo pants and a khaki double pocketed shirt that apparently looks "paramilitary". Sacraficing utility in the name of fashion is something that Iimagine will be short lived. People in other countries keep things even if they get stained, faded, don't match, the like. We are so stuck up with clothes here that If you wear what yo like and works for you, you risk unwanted attention. When not at work I wear brown or kahki colored cargo pants and double pocketed shirts, and they don't draw as much attention as my work clothes, but I like to separate work from pleasure so I am willing to receive a few second glances here and there.

As for the roadblocks, they are mainly state troopers launching some shortlived program like seatbelt checks, drunk driving, etc. I did however live in a farily crappy neighborhood in Apex for some time and a few times a week the police set up roadblocks looking for guns and drugs. I guess it works but criminals can easily readjust their tactics (send one car through the area to make certain there are none, etc)

I guess the best recommendation overall is to blend in. That means more urban and less jungle for those of us who live in cities. However, if more people dressed in what they truly want and were a little bit individualistic in their decisions, we would have more creativity and thus less attention drawend and we would have a more diversly dressed society.

In the meantime your best bet might be a pair of ripped and paint stained $60 jeans from the Gap or Abercrombie. At least no one will look at you twice if you go for a nice hot meal at a soup kitchen...

Can I ask a chicken little question? Why would you not want to be seen? What scenario would you be in where you would not want to be seen by someone else, besides hunting?

This may not be the subject of this thread, but I wanted to add my two cents.

I am confused because, as a Marine who could be part of a quick reaction force for domestic disaster/disturbance (read terrorist attack, homegrown insurgancy, etc) paramilitary type behavior (i.e. guys running around in cammies with guns) is an issue.

The military will be called in during a terrorist attack/natural disaster and if they see someone or a group of people running around a checkpoint/observation post in camo (military or not), carrying packs and weapons, then they could be considered hostiles. I hope you can see where I am going with this.

I would like to echo what has already been said, camo may not be your best bet in a bad situation, plain old, dull, civilian clothes would be a much better choice.

Also, most civilian clothes will actually stand up to more abuse than utility uniforms, just FYI.

I may be off the mark, but I get antsy about this subject, since I could be the one manning that checkpoint, having to make the decision on the spot.

Garrett

I have always shared your skepticism about the need to hide, particularly from the government. I always thought such a scenario was unlikely in the extreme. But:



I must confess these statements of yours concern me a little. I can absolutely guarantee you that, in a case of large scale natural disaster, a sizable chunk of the population in certain areas of the country are going to be carrying weapons. I can further guarantee you that a goodly percentage of them may be wearing camo. Surely you have had sufficient training and/or experience to help you to differentiate between lawfully armed citizens and a genuine threat?

IRT your question, local roadblocks/check points on the perimeters of towns is what I would be expecting. No, I don't wish to interact or be questioned by local folk that I don't know. I feel it is best to just go around guarded areas versus trying to take a shortcut and perhaps getting my equipment confiscated and myself injured or killed.
IRT the military, avoidance is still my preferred tactic, if possible. Otherwise, I'll sit out in the open in front of a patrol and wait for them to reach me and then we can palaver over who I am and what I am trying to do, and hopefully they will be satisfied with my answers (and documentation, including Military ID).
The main idea is to move safely from point A (work) to point B (home) while minimizing the number of people who see, hear, or smell me. This also minimizes possible bad outcomes from such meetings. I primarily plan on moving along east-west RR tracks but not necessarily marching down the tracks as much as paralleling their right-of-way. This keeps me in the brush (slower movement) and better able to see others before they see me. It maximizes options for safe transit, resupply along the route, and possibly being able to pick up some weapons along the way. If things appear to be cool, then I can jump onto the tracks and make better time, at least until I come up to a town, then I'll probably break away from the tracks and skirt around the town to come back onto the tracks.
That's my plan and my reasoning.

Please do not take alarm with what I am saying, but look at it from my standpoint. A lawfully armed citizen has nothing to hide. A person sneaking around my flank, in camo, with a gun is suspect. Personally, I can tell the difference. But, and this is a big BUT, that doesnt mean everyone can.

There are two types of scenarios I was referring to in my post, and I guess I did not make that clear. One is a natural disaster and you are absolutely correct about the number of people carrying weapons and wearing outdoors clothing.

The other is a terrorist attack. When that happens, you are really putting yourself in a bad spot if you are sneaking around checkpoints and trying to avoid the military/Law enforcement.

There are alot of nuances that can be explored with this conversation. All I wanted to do was ask why you would want to move undetected and just throw a few points out there for everyone to think about.

Garrett

Fair enough. I for one have no intention of hiding from or avoiding any checkpoints. In the case of a terrorist attack I would fully expect the authorities to attempt to make damn sure no suspects were able to escape by mixing in with the refugees. In that case I might consider a rather rigorous search to be reasonable, after which I would expect to be allowed to continue on my way.

Of course I might change my mind if it appears that weapons, supplies, or anything else is being confiscated, a la Katrina.

And a very good set of points that you have made, judging by the feedback! To each his own.

As has been said above "not being seen" is more about technique and not what you wear.

British DPM is very good at what it was designed to do, hide soldiers in the north of europe from rampaging russian hordes streaming over the inner german border.

It however stands out like a sore thumb in an environment it wasn't designed for ie urban, desert or snow, and its much better to wear specifically designed camouflage or subdued colours. Greys, olives, tans and dark blue are best.

I dont know where you stay in Scotland, but as a test next time your out in a town see how quickly it takes you to scope out DPM. Marpat is so uncommon it would stand out more.

What Chris states above is spot on, hairy arsed highlanders used to disapear easily into the hills, thats where we get "hunting" pattern tartans from. The brighter colours were ceremonial.

My favorite camouflage has to still be Temperate DPM, i've been wearing it for 20 odd years.( I did go through a phase of wearing tropical DPM for a while but got out of it when combat 95 came out)

Worst is Belgian, its garish to say the least.

Re Chris Kavanaugh - The problem with the Harris Tweeds and the toned down tartans is that although these fabrics make excellent camouflage gear (digital camouflage developed in Scotland over 3000 years ago before the introduction of MARPAT?) and although these materials are reasonably warm they have some disadvantages. The Harris Tweeds and Tartan fabrics are at the end of the day just very high quality woolen wear. The fabrics once wet become extremely heavy and are not particularly windproof. The weather in Scotland can generally be described as wet and windy. Scotland has some of the best hypothermia weather in the world. Even on a summers day in the highlands you could experience 2 to 5 degrees C with sleet, rain , snow and bright sunshine in a 40-50 mph wind with winds gusting even higher. Apparently even the Swiss Army train here. I once once in Cuba back some years ago sitting through a hurricane called Irene when one of the locals asked me if a was scared. I replied 'Of course not, just like the weather back home, only the rain is warmer'. Never did get to meet Fidel, apparently he was rescuing some European tourists from the Hurricane that day! But I digress, back to the fabrics. I originally started of with modern fabrics such as Goretex and Windstopper Fleece, Polypro etc. These fabrics are excellent when used appropriately but have some serious downsides. They do not breath particularly well, catch fire beside open fires and begin to really stink after a few days out in the wilderness especially the Polypro undergarments(Those poor SF soldiers, constipated, caffeine induced anxiety AND smell as well). I have since changed to Merino Wool and Ventile cotton with a simple cheap Goretex S95 Liner worn under the Ventile cotton jacket if it gets really wet. The ventile cotton jacket is more robust, breaths better and is a lot quieter than the Goretex. Although the Ventile cotton is not 100% waterproof hence the Goretex I find that it gives the best balance between robustness, comfort and weather protection. Goretex is great if only it rained all the time and only a moderate ambling pace were kept.

Re Johno - I am based in Scotland not far (less than 30 miles) from my Forum Name Ben Tirran

Re Nighthiker and Garret. - I really don't understand the arguments put forward by both sides. I might be straying into politics (I apologise before hand as this is possibly against house rules) but isn't true that the United States is a democratic country, in which has its citizens freedoms are enshrined in a written constitution. Is not fair to say that no terrorist attack however heinous or any natural disaster can undermine the principles put forward in that constitution, because the constitution is in reality just a powerful set of democratic ideals and objectives. Only its citizens and its elected representatives of the United States of America can undermine its constitution through apathy, corruption and tyranny. Why would armed US marines or armed US army personnel be deployed under these circumstances? Isn't the Presidents elective position to serve and protect the constitution. Is it not the elective Presidents duty to serve all its citizens and that the armed services are there to serve the President as Commander in Chief thereby serving its citizens. Here I think lies the problem you face. Conflicts between individuals and nations arises because the citizens and leaders of these nations have disregarded a set of well understood and well known international laws. It makes me sad that the US government has even difficulty implementing the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War. This has happened in the UK also. Instead of being fearful about terrorism and natural disaster isn't it probably more wise to have a think about a Quotation from a former President Franklin D. Roosevelt 'There is nothing to fear but fear itself'. This quote also applies when you are cold tired and hungry in the wilderness also because fear is perhaps the most debilitating impediments to a successful outcome of personal survival.

Gents, My thoughts are as stated, Blend in with your environment. If its urban/suburban then durable non disrupt street clothes. In an evacuation, you do not want to draw the attention of the bad guys or the good guys, You want to be the "Gray Man" that nobody remembers seeing.

Why would I not want to be found? Depends on the scenario, but I can think of a few in which it would be advantageous to disappear in the forest, and remain there indefinitely. In the woods, I prefer basic OD/khaki's,browns, for the express purpose of not being confused with an official, or bad guy. Anyway, if you spend enough time there, the basic colors begin to blend with the environment ( kind of like a black aide bag in the Persian Gulf, soon its not black any more.

I always try to buy my clothing as my first layer of shelter. Bring a sewing kit and the skills to use it, take care of your clothes because replacements may be hard to come by. Regards, Jim

An additional note, I have found (non-scientifically) that attitude contributes greatly to "invisibility" If I believe that I am invisible, then I AM invisible, to about 75% of the people who are within eyesight of me.
Eye contact is a strange but true phenomenon, IMHO. If you are watching someone, they can generally feel it even though they can't see you. If someone is watching you, you can feel it even though you can't see them. If you are concealed and you lock eyes with someone else, they will see you then.
That's been my experience.

A quick note, NightHiker: The confiscation program was ordered and carried out by the City of New Orleans, not FEMA.

Stealth, I can roger scaring people. I'm average highest, a bit pudgier than average but also somewhat muscular, with a goatee and long hair. And glasses. But I scare a lot of people because I walk briskly, have my head up, and make eye contact, along with looking like I should be in Chris' mythical pagan biker gang. I've spent the past 15 years trying to learn how to not do it, and it doesn't seem to be changing.

Bentirran, I dont want this to get too political, and from what see I think we are talking past each other. I am bowing out of this discussion in this forum, but if you would like to take it up over private messages or email, please let me know.

I never did say welcome to the forum, and for that I am sorry, so let me correct my mistake and say "Welcome to our little piece of the web!!"

I hope to talk to you more, on another topic, sometime soon!

Garrett

"... in a case of large scale natural disaster, a sizable chunk of the population in certain areas of the country are going to be carrying weapons. I can further guarantee you that a goodly percentage of them may be wearing camo..."

From a law enforcement standpoint, in a large scale disaster of any kind, you can expect the bad guys to be out in force (that is why the good guys would be armed, right?), and to a peace officer, a man with a gun is a man with a gun. So both good and bad camo'd gun carriers can expect to be looking down the barrels of the badge carrying good guys guns until the good can be picked out from the bad.

"...Surely you have had sufficient training and/or experience to help you to differentiate between lawfully armed citizens and a genuine threat?..."

Exactly how does one tell a good guy in camo carrying a gun from a bad guy in camo carrying a gun? By first taking the gun away from him, making sure he is no longer a threat of any kind (that often means handcuffs), and spending valuable time trying to get thru on a badly overloaded radio system (assuming it still works), so the dispatcher, in between answering 911 calls and dispatching officers here and there, can run the gun carrying guy thru the computer system (assuming that still works). A lot of this will of course depend on the location. What scares the heck out of people in Los Angeles might be taken as the norm in rural Colorado...

I would suggest to you that in a large scale disaster the good guys who are refugees are going to vastly outnumber the bad guys--exactly like they do during normal times. And anyone who cannot tell the difference between, say, a 70 year old retired civil servant waiting patiently at a checkpoint and an Al Queda member attempting to evade said checkpoint is in the wrong line of work, and probably shouldn't be pointing guns at anybody. I'd be willing to bet that the Al Queda dirtbag would not be carrying visible weapons and would not be wearing camo, for a start.

Without checks and balances (independent judiciary, legislative body, armed populace, etc.), a Constitution is nothing more than a pretty piece of paper with beautiful words written in an elegant hand. If you don't believe that I suggest you check out the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. A true thing of beauty--and totally worthless.

The President of the USA does have the power to declare a temporary state of emergency which can include the temporary suspension of some civil liberties. The keys words here are temporary and some. Surely the leaders in Scotland have some of the same sorts of powers? (Just out of curiousity, has there ever been a natural disaster in Scotland on the scale of, say, Katrina?)

As far as "well understood and well known international laws" go, one thing that the Constitution of the USA does do is trump those laws. And the USA does recognize and abide by the Geneva Convention. We simply don't apply it to non-POW scumbags like those currently residing in Gitmo. As far as I'm concerned they can rot there.

"...difference between, say, a 70 year old retired civil servant waiting patiently at a checkpoint and an Al Queda member attempting to evade said checkpoint..."

This is true, but I thought we were talking about a natural disaster here, not an Al Queda attack. Natural disasters of a large scale often bring out looters, some armed, and other assorted bad guys, looking for a free deal. They come in all ages and sizes, just like the good guys trying to defend their families, homes, and property. Those bad guys are the reason you saw officers from all over the country being sent to New Orleans, and carrying AR-15's as they walked the streets, going door to door checking on people. And to them, a guy with a gun, in camo or anything else, unless he is setting on his front porch, or the rooftop of his business, is a suspect until proven otherwise.

The mental image of a retired 70 year old civil servant in camo does bring a smile to my face...

Unfortunately, even minding your own business wasn't enough to keep some of them from stealing your only means of self defense. And wearing camo had nothing to do with it. Thankfully more and more states are passing laws making such confiscations illegal.



Me too. While I'm not a civil servant and not yet retired, I do hope to spend a goodly portion of my retirement in a duck blind.

"...stealing your only means of self defense..."

I won't even go there, being a big fan of guns and gun ownership by all legal citizens...

Re Johno - I am based in Scotland not far (less than 30 miles) from my Forum Name

Cheers, I'm at the top of the Kingdom where the tornadoes are.

Again we maybe straying into a political discussion but I think it is relevant as it is getting into the territory of the legal and moral aspects of Government disaster preparedness and planning for a wide scale emergency. 'Not being seen' has certainly generated lots of avenues for discussion.



I absolutely agree with you one hundred percent about the checks and balances but other events and issues can have an effect in the break up of Union States. The USA and its European Allies did not defeat the Soviet Union, Soviet incompetence, Nationalism and corruption did. The former Soviet Union did indeed fall apart and its constitution failed to halt its collapse from within. The Soviet Union collapsed because of a number of reasons. Firstly it military spending became unsustainable, which almost bankrupted the country, then came an environmental nuclear power disaster called Chernobyl which had quickly followed on from the period of disastrous military adventure in Afghanistan. The central demand supply economy became a massive joke which was recognized by the its populous as a massive joke. Attempted reform and Coup d'état could not halt the fact the the USSR could not pay its way in the world. Its leadership decided that instead of repressive action which could have led to Civil War the USSR became no more. The rest is history. Now imagine if everyone in the USSR had a gun.



Again I agree with you one hundred percent. Are the powers to declare a State of Emergency a constitutional amendment or a Presidential Order? I do know that there is the The Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the US Army and US Air Force from enforcing civil criminal law within the United States. As Scotland is in a Union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the leaders in the devolved parliament in Scotland have no powers to declare a State of Emergency only the UK Government has this power and then only after consulting the European Union because the UK government is subject to the European Human Rights Act to which it is a signatory. Scotland has its own civil and criminal law within the UK which can cause some problems for the Prime Minister of the UK. When it comes to Scottish affairs the Prime Minister has to tread extremely carefully as most within Scotland would quickly call for Independence if any form of civil governance was replaced by a military one. There is no written constitution within the UK as the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the head of state and theoretically would have the same powers as a US President. The UK parliamentary system effectively does not allow the head of state to have any direct power in any political decision making but the Prime Minister does under the head of states name. There are serious concerns about corruption and that cabinet governance and parliamentary accountability is under threat. This is why Tony Blair is being forced to quit.
In Scotland there has not been any disaster comparable to the Katrina disaster in regard to the loss of life suffered because of a storm. What I found shocking about the Katrina disaster were the days preceding and following the Hurricane. As Hurricanes are not unusual in the Gulf Coast where were the preparedness plans and disaster relieve plans. As I have access to the imagery at Dundee Satellite Receiving Station I remember that it was quite obvious 2-3 days prior to Hurricane Katrina reaching land that New Orleans area was going to suffer a major weather event and that New Orleans could be potentially flooded out because of the environmental damage and inappropriate land use of the Mississippi delta wetlands when the tidal storm surge hit. I think the US authorities knew this also as it was being reported around the world that this was potentially going to happen. The mandatory evacuation was a shambles, it was too late and it was too ineffective. Even the Cubans and Mexicans it would appear are much more on the ball when it comes to disaster planning for exactly the same type of incident. It was literally every man woman and child for themselves with the poor and immobile being left to fend for themselves. Once Katrina passed then the real tragedy began to unfold. The poor and immobile left behind then began to fend for themselves as would any sane person who was left without fresh water and food - this was interpreted as looting by the US media, punishable by summary execution if only they had the men willing together with the rifles and bullets. When the full scale of the disaster was recognized as such by the International community even from countries like Cuba and Venezuela who offered help from the limited resources, the offers of direct aid and help were only to be turned down simply because of the political embarrassment felt by the US government. Even the aid sent by the UK was destroyed rather than be distributed. This aid would have saved many lives. Only the European oil reserves it seems were warmly received. On the State level even the incarcerated were left to fend for themselves left to drown in the rising waters. The Katrina disaster was on the most part a human and environmental planning and relieve disaster which was fully predicted and badly managed. The hurricane was the bad weather which exposed the lack of public services, the incompetence and the corruption.



The lack of Habeas Corpus even for the 'non-POW scumbags' is the thin edge of the wedge.

Then the collapse would have happened sooner, thus sparing the world--particularly the Soviet people--a lot of death and misery.



20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?



I think it helps that Cuba and Mexico are not built largely on low-lying areas like New Orleans is. All the planning in the world isn't going to hold back the ocean if it wants to come in.



I don't recall the "poor and immobile" being subject to "summary execution". In fact, it turned out that reports of killings, whether looting related or not, were vastly exaggerated by the media.



The offers of aid from Castro and Chavez were rightly rejected for what they were: symbolic, useless anti-US propaganda. And if you are referring to the UK MRE's I'm not sure they were destroyed. I remember some ultra left wing UK newspaper (was it the Guardian?) claimed that's what was happening but, given the state of the British press, I have my doubts. I didn't hear about European oil. If true, then thanks. I guess maybe Europe owes the USA a few favors in return for what we have done for them over the years.



I suggest that if you are taken in arms against the US and its allies then you damn well better be fighting on behalf of a foreign government willing to take responsibility for you. That's what is meant by a POW. Otherwise enjoy your stay in Cuba. You may call that a "wedge". I call it a line.