Quote:
|
However, it is not outside the realm of imagination to think that the citizens of a country might be able to: A) avoid putting themselves into a situation that might result in such catastrophic loss of life. And B) provide for their own aid, in the event of such a catastrophe.
|
His assumption would be valid IF we do the same to New Orleans and NYC (disasters due to hurricanes) and to the Memphis area (prone to devastation of equivalent proportions also due to little planning for earthquakes.
Quote:
|
In the case of mistakes and warnings as applied to Haiti, I don’t mean to indict those who ignored actual warnings against earthquakes, of which there were many before the recent one.
|
What warnings? No serious earthquake for 200 years. The only warnings were years previous and too late to do anything. Reality: most warnings were more about an earthquake on the Dominican Republic north shore - not in Haiti.
Meanwhile Haiti was busy still recovering from multiple devastating hurricanes. How were Haitians to be planning for an earthquake that few even suspected?
NYC had an earthquake five on the Richter scale in the 1700s. Is NYC today constructed to withstand a 5+ quake? Since he knows what Haiti should have prepared for, then does he know what NYC should be prepared for?
The problem with his conclusions: facts and assumptions on which it is based are flawed. One is expected to learn facts before throwing stones.
Since New Orleans was built in the wrong location, America should have done nothing to help its citizens? That is his reasoning.
It is the logic - not the morality - of his conclusions that are wrong. They deserve no help because they should have known this was coming? Who knew it? Martians? Certainly not Americans, Europeans, or Haitians.