Well I read the article, and you are correct... N-O flooded because the levees broke... because its was built below a lake and a river and not JUST the ocean... SORRY. That doesn't excuse the city' existence... it only makes it all the more rediculous of a placement for a large amount of people. You're quibbling over small points. The point is New Orleans was doomed to disaster eventually.
I have an idea! Lets build a city at the bottom of the ocean, but make it watertight! When it eventually fails, lets just fix it all over again and act like it was the engineers and government that failed, and not the concept. Makes sense to me!
The arrogance of manklind never fails to amaze me.
The core of my argument still holds...
Does this make sense to you?