3 ms·

Okay, so let's say that the UN didn't go in to help. What would be the response then? Outrage from Haitians that the UN didn't come to their aid? Why not the

by mjolk 13y ago

Okay, so let's say that the UN didn't go in to help. What would be the response then? Outrage from Haitians that the UN didn't come to their aid? Why not the outrage at their own government for not being able to handle a national disaster? "(Cholera) has now spread to Venezuela, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, and has now killed more than 8,500 people." If we're thinking about this pragmatically, the world attention paid to Haiti during the flood saved far more than that number of people, even those not directly hit by the earthquake and instead were living with diseases that are prevalent in the third world. We can split hairs over the effectiveness of the UN or international intervention, but before we start the ranting to the tone of hackernews isolationist/libertarian politics, keep in mind that Haiti is such a mess that we're still talking in terms of the broad good. Anyone that criticizes the role of the UN in this instance is a vulture looking to profit off of a natural disaster in a corrupt nation.

ars 13y ago
Did you read the article? They actively lied and tried to cover it up - that's a long way from just an accident. If nothing else, this can discourage lies in the future.
- mjolk 13y ago
  >Did you read the article? They actively lied and tried to cover it up - that's a long way from just an accident. This is what has been alleged in the lawsuit. This has not been proven, otherwise, the article would be very different. Also, this is an accident in the classic definition. Do you seriously think the UN workers went in to one of the poorest, most corrupt countries in the world after disease and sickness were rampant and deliberately introduced cholera?
  - ars 13y ago
    > This has not been proven, otherwise, the article would be very different. Even the UN's own subcommittee on Cholera agreed. > Do you seriously think the UN workers went in to one of the poorest, most corrupt countries in the world after disease and sickness were rampant and deliberately introduced cholera? I don't recall saying that. Let me check - nope never said that. So why are you asking me this? What I said was they covered it up - which is bad enough. No need for you go make things up about the UN.
- Ergomane 13y ago
  The suit alleges that "false statements and misleading information" increased the risk to the population. I'm not sure that is plausible. At the start of the epidemic investigation on Oct 19, dissemination into communities on the Artibonite delta had already happened.
earless1 13y ago
>If we're thinking about this pragmatically, the world attention paid to Haiti during the flood saved far more than that number of people, even those not directly hit by the earthquake and instead were living with diseases that are prevalent in the third world. So because they may have saved more than 8500 lives in the same time frame we should ignore this? The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not done good in Haiti. The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had been eradicated in this region hundreds of years ago due to their own negligence. They then lied about it and tried to impede the investigation.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mjolk 13y ago
  >The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not done good in Haiti. Actually, it kind of is. Haiti is a special case. It's so corrupt that the US stopped giving them money. We (the USA) were giving them 1.5 billion dollars and stopped because we knew that barely any of that money was getting to people that needed it. Which is to say that things are desperate and the world needs to act quickly when a bad thing happens there. > The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had been eradicated in this region hundreds of years ago due to their own negligence. They then lied about it and tried to impede the investigation. This is alleged from a lawsuit from a very corrupt country. Stop talking about this like it's a kid that knocked over a glass of milk and won't admit it.

by mjolk 13y ago

ars 13y ago

Did you read the article? They actively lied and tried to cover it up - that's a long way from just an accident. If nothing else, this can discourage lies in the future.

mjolk 13y ago
>Did you read the article? They actively lied and tried to cover it up - that's a long way from just an accident. This is what has been alleged in the lawsuit. This has not been proven, otherwise, the article would be very different. Also, this is an accident in the classic definition. Do you seriously think the UN workers went in to one of the poorest, most corrupt countries in the world after disease and sickness were rampant and deliberately introduced cholera?
- ars 13y ago
  > This has not been proven, otherwise, the article would be very different. Even the UN's own subcommittee on Cholera agreed. > Do you seriously think the UN workers went in to one of the poorest, most corrupt countries in the world after disease and sickness were rampant and deliberately introduced cholera? I don't recall saying that. Let me check - nope never said that. So why are you asking me this? What I said was they covered it up - which is bad enough. No need for you go make things up about the UN.
Ergomane 13y ago
The suit alleges that "false statements and misleading information" increased the risk to the population. I'm not sure that is plausible. At the start of the epidemic investigation on Oct 19, dissemination into communities on the Artibonite delta had already happened.

earless1 13y ago

>If we're thinking about this pragmatically, the world attention paid to Haiti during the flood saved far more than that number of people, even those not directly hit by the earthquake and instead were living with diseases that are prevalent in the third world. So because they may have saved more than 8500 lives in the same time frame we should ignore this? The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not done good in Haiti. The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had been eradicated in this region hundreds of years ago due to their own negligence. They then lied about it and tried to impede the investigation.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mjolk 13y ago
>The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not done good in Haiti. Actually, it kind of is. Haiti is a special case. It's so corrupt that the US stopped giving them money. We (the USA) were giving them 1.5 billion dollars and stopped because we knew that barely any of that money was getting to people that needed it. Which is to say that things are desperate and the world needs to act quickly when a bad thing happens there. > The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had been eradicated in this region hundreds of years ago due to their own negligence. They then lied about it and tried to impede the investigation. This is alleged from a lawsuit from a very corrupt country. Stop talking about this like it's a kid that knocked over a glass of milk and won't admit it.