43 ms·

>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 direct

>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.