Don't be obtuse. If we're so concerned with doing the right thing, as so many have claimed, then why are we ignoring the situation in Darfur? Does the "right thing" only entail helping countries that are hit by earthquakes?
Don't be acute.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "ignoring the situation in Darfur", are you honestly suggesting that there is no one helping Darfur?
You are picking to very different instances and you are trying to imply that in the name of our lack of action in Darfur, we should not send help to Haiti?
I agree we should increase help to Darfur, but the very issue of how is a problem. The Haitian issue is quite simple, as we probably won't be caught in any sort of cross-fire between the belligerents (the Earthquake and Haitians). If we provide suitable aide to the Haitians, then I don't expect that the Earthquake is going to try and raid the supplies and use it for it's own means.
Darfur, dans La main de l'autre, cannot be solved by flying helicopters over and throwing supplies down to the refugees, as one side is going to kill the refugees for the supplies. It cannot be solved through N.G.Os like Samaritans Purse that constructions stable compounds for those in Southern Sudan, as one side is going to use these as barracks in the war. It cannot be solved by constantly building and repairing wells, as it creates a reliance on the builder.
These, with the exception of the last one, can and will work in Haiti.
The issue in Sudan is political, and we already know that political charity or political reparations are oxymoron, especially when the issue is so embedded in the culture.
Sure, you are going to re-post and tell me that the "right thing" is what we consider the "easiest right thing". Absolutely true, sadly enough.
I don't know how to stop sectarian violence, but I do know how to move rubble.
Some problems are beyond the reaches of charity.
