UN finally admits causing Haiti cholera outbreak - but 'diplomatic immunity tho lol' - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-37126747[/url] [quote]The UN has finally acknowledged it played a role in an outbreak of cholera in Haiti in 2010 that has since killed about 10,000 people in the country. Scientific studies have shown that Nepalese UN troops were the source of the disease - but the UN repeatedly denied responsibility until now. An internal report seen by the New York Times is said to have led to the shift. But the UN still says it is protected by diplomatic immunity from claims for compensation from victims' families.[/quote]

nvm

God bless the UN. "We usually don't do anything, but when we do, its a fucking atrocity."

Dismantle the UN

this year has been conspiracy fuel after conspiracy fuel holy shit

Can't diplomatic immunity be revoked in cases of extreme crimes?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50911746]Can't diplomatic immunity be revoked in cases of extreme crimes?[/QUOTE] usually by danny glover

i cant exactly blame the UN though for the 10,000 deaths, sure they didnt quarantine right but cholera is everywhere and they probably would have gotten it on their own if its been that big of an epedemic [editline]19th August 2016[/editline] theyre not responsible for the horrible conditions that breed the disease its like blaming all of sierra lione for the entire ebola outbreak

[QUOTE=milktree;50911633]Dismantle the UN[/QUOTE] Yeah who needs the WHO and the IMF and UNESCO and FAO and the World Bank and ICAO and the dozens of major organizations under the single largest international organization in the world, because two Nepalese guys had Cholera when they went on an aid mission.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50911911]Yeah who needs the WHO and the IMF and UNESCO and FAO and the World Bank and ICAO and the dozens of major organizations under the single largest international organization in the world, because two Nepalese guys had Cholera when they went on an aid mission.[/QUOTE] Well I mean the UN just killed 10,000 people, [I]somebody[/I] has to take responsibility.

Ban Kim Moon can go suck my dick

Jesus, I first thought this meant they had purposely caused the spread of cholera like some new world order conspiracy bullshit

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50912323]Well I mean the UN just killed 10,000 people, [I]somebody[/I] has to take responsibility.[/QUOTE] Somebody has to take responsibility, but that doesn't mean we should dismantle the fucking UN.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50912323]Well I mean the UN just killed 10,000 people, [I]somebody[/I] has to take responsibility.[/QUOTE] Cholera killed 10,000 people, not the UN. If a tourist visiting Haiti had cholera and passed it on to one person, who passed it on to forty more, and it became an epidemic, is that tourist personally responsible for each one of those 10,000 deaths as if they'd personally lined them up and executed them? No - scratch that, is that tourist's [i]employer[/i] personally responsible for spreading cholera by offering vacation days for this theoretical tourist? Because that's what you're saying. It's a disease, not a genocide. It's an incredibly unfortunate tragedy and I'd like to see the UN adapt and use way better health and safety standards among their aid workers, but to imply that the organization is personally responsible for [i]killing[/i] 10,000 people is way over the top. They didn't put 10,000 Haitians on a firing line. Diseases are unpredictable, and I'm not happy that the UN failed to screen their workers for diseases as serious as cholera, but there's no way, morally or legally, that the entire UN is personally responsible for killing 10,000 people. If the UN had never gone to Haiti to help out, [i]way more[/i] than 10,000 people would have died of various causes. The death toll of the earthquake was 316,000. Cholera, injury, and starvation would have killed way more than 10,000 if nobody sent aid.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50912436]Cholera killed 10,000 people, not the UN. If a tourist visiting Haiti had cholera and passed it on to one person, who passed it on to forty more, and it became an epidemic, is that tourist personally responsible for each one of those 10,000 deaths as if they'd personally lined them up and executed them? No - scratch that, is that tourist's [I]employer[/I] personally responsible for spreading cholera by offering vacation days for this theoretical tourist? Because that's what you're saying. It's a disease, not a genocide. It's an incredibly unfortunate tragedy and I'd like to see the UN adapt and use way better health and safety standards among their aid workers, but to imply that the organization is personally responsible for [I]killing[/I] 10,000 people is way over the top. They didn't put 10,000 Haitians on a firing line. Diseases are unpredictable, and I'm not happy that the UN failed to screen their workers for diseases as serious as cholera, but there's no way, morally or legally, that the entire UN is personally responsible for killing 10,000 people. If the UN had never gone to Haiti to help out, [I]way more[/I] than 10,000 people would have died of various causes. The death toll of the earthquake was 316,000. Cholera, injury, and starvation would have killed way more than 10,000 if nobody sent aid.[/QUOTE] The UN is an organisation that is supposed to be above that... If a road worker applies first aid to a random person in the street fainting and screws it up no one will blame him... he tried his best and there was no doctor. If a paramedic applies first aid and screws it up thats a different story. The UN bears responsibility for the contagions they bring into a country, this is why there is procedure for this... someone broke procedure and someone broke quarantine.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50912323]Well I mean the UN just killed 10,000 people, [I]somebody[/I] has to take responsibility.[/QUOTE] The UN didn't line up 10,000 people and shoot them all.

The UN does very clear and distinct immunity/disease protocols and has had them since the 1970s. They are in fact negligent, and culpable, both legally and morally, and being well meaning about it doesn't really bring people back to life last time I checked.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50912722]The UN is an organisation that is supposed to be above that... If a road worker applies first aid to a random person in the street fainting and screws it up no one will blame him... he tried his best and there was no doctor. If a paramedic applies first aid and screws it up thats a different story. The UN bears responsibility for the contagions they bring into a country, this is why there is procedure for this... someone broke procedure and someone broke quarantine.[/QUOTE] I don't think people understand how difficult it is to maintain a sterile environment in a [i]post-earthquake[/i] environment where over 300,000 people have died, water mains are broken, there isn't consistent electrical power, and there are thousands and thousands of injured people to help. Cholera isn't like Zika or Ebola. It's basically found wherever you have humans and poor sanitation. It's endemic to the Gulf of Mexico, and Americans have gotten cholera from eating undercooked shellfish. It's not like they brought a rare virus to the shores and spread it - even if the UN hadn't arrived, there's almost no question that a cholera outbreak would have occurred. It just so happens that they were able to trace it back to a specific point and say "yeah we fucked that." Diseases thrive after major natural disasters - cholera especially, since it's a waterborne pathogen and natural disasters commonly ruin safe water sources. Also, while the UN denied responsibility for a long time, they started a $2.2 billion initiative to fight cholera in Haiti. So it's not like they're saying "wasn't us good luck lol."

My grandfather was last of the WHO response in Haiti. It's a shame he's not alive or I'd ask his opinion on this [editline]19th August 2016[/editline] I remember that he got really sick and that he was complaining about the sanitation at the UN camps while he was there