A developed county would be considered able to provide for its own people in a time of national crisis
Poll: If the Haiti quake had happened in your home country would it be considered worse?
- Thread starter Wilbot666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If they weren't an underdeveloped nation they probably would've been less reliant on outside help in the first place.
Ha! its a 50/50
Yes. yes yes yes yes yes.
If the country hit was considered valuable by the powers that be, then more people in the earthquake zone would drown from banknotes being parachuted in trucks made out of diamonds and goodwill than from falling rubble and disease.
But seeing as the only thing Haiti has to offer the world is unique cuisine and culture, the rescue campaign is merely what the powers that be are obliged to do in the face of global morality.
They don't need money, they need aid.
Yes. yes yes yes yes yes.
If the country hit was considered valuable by the powers that be, then more people in the earthquake zone would drown from banknotes being parachuted in trucks made out of diamonds and goodwill than from falling rubble and disease.
But seeing as the only thing Haiti has to offer the world is unique cuisine and culture, the rescue campaign is merely what the powers that be are obliged to do in the face of global morality.
They don't need money, they need aid.
Canada has earthquakes?! I thought we only got tornadoes... and when was the last time a tornado struck my city... 30 or 40 years? Meh it is bad anywhere disaster hits.
If it happened in my country most if not all of the buildings would still be standing-- there wouldn't be nearly the magnitude of destruction seen in Haiti.
So, no, it wouldn't be considered worse.
So, no, it wouldn't be considered worse.
shit happens. and wherever it happens, and it's not your fault, that infrastructure, government, and the people, "reacts" the way they did in Haiti.
but let's say in Europe, Northern America, or Australia, etc; if it would have happened out there there wouldn't have been so much hype on it, firstly, because most of these countries are ready for this kind of Catastrophe, second, they have the means to arrange things,
and third (funniest part), i think what happened on Haiti was due to HAARP (climatic weapon), it's logical that after this earthquake, in a country eaten by corruption, where all buildings were badly constructed, also Haiti was known as a nation that was against "imperialism" (i'm neither rightwinged or leftwinged). Now with the "Aid" given to upgrade the country, all kinds of multinational companies will profit from it.
muhahaha
thank you Tesla...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPusHeDlBxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkLTzesBxGE
but let's say in Europe, Northern America, or Australia, etc; if it would have happened out there there wouldn't have been so much hype on it, firstly, because most of these countries are ready for this kind of Catastrophe, second, they have the means to arrange things,
and third (funniest part), i think what happened on Haiti was due to HAARP (climatic weapon), it's logical that after this earthquake, in a country eaten by corruption, where all buildings were badly constructed, also Haiti was known as a nation that was against "imperialism" (i'm neither rightwinged or leftwinged). Now with the "Aid" given to upgrade the country, all kinds of multinational companies will profit from it.
muhahaha
thank you Tesla...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPusHeDlBxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkLTzesBxGE
In Mexico it happened, the quake was much stronguer and we needed aid fast, but the gov didnt wanted it, untill they realized we were in need of help, it was weird that we got help the very next day and the president told them to go away
so yeah, if it was more developed help would had come faster
so yeah, if it was more developed help would had come faster
I think Haiti got more aid because it has so little money. They got WAY more than New Orleans did. When India was hit they didn't get any money because they said they would take care of it themselves.
If Canada was hit, it would probably be Ottawa or Vancouver. However, Ottawa is well prepared for the once-in-a-millenium "Big One," and Vancouver is well prepared for sporadic earthquakes. If Canada was hit, I doubt aid would be required. Haitian building lacked rebar, which is metal that reinforces concrete buildings to make it tougher. All concrete buildings in Canada have rebar, but most are made of bricks. The emergency crews would be more than able to handle a 7.0 earthquake.
That's what's important here: Haitian building were very weak in the first place, in the developed world it would not have been nearly as devastating because buildings are stronger and there are well-funded emergency crews trained for this sort of thing.
Find a better reason to rabble against the developed world. Might I suggest greenhouse gas emissions, far more deadly.
If Canada was hit, it would probably be Ottawa or Vancouver. However, Ottawa is well prepared for the once-in-a-millenium "Big One," and Vancouver is well prepared for sporadic earthquakes. If Canada was hit, I doubt aid would be required. Haitian building lacked rebar, which is metal that reinforces concrete buildings to make it tougher. All concrete buildings in Canada have rebar, but most are made of bricks. The emergency crews would be more than able to handle a 7.0 earthquake.
That's what's important here: Haitian building were very weak in the first place, in the developed world it would not have been nearly as devastating because buildings are stronger and there are well-funded emergency crews trained for this sort of thing.
Find a better reason to rabble against the developed world. Might I suggest greenhouse gas emissions, far more deadly.
If it happened the US, then proably not. It definitly wouldn't have been good for the already bad economy, but I think the US would be able to take care of it with less aid then the Haitians. Although the death rate may be a lot worse if it were to hit a heavily populated city like LA or New York.
