WHO : Rejecting Africa as a guinea pig!

[USAF]

"Shedding the mantle of corruption"??? - Corruption is embedded in the U.S. DNA.......They go after corruption and illegal "businesses" when it doesn't benefit the power brokers & government.

[Reggaedoc]

"Shedding the mantle of corruption"??? - Corruption is embedded in the U.S. DNA.......They go after corruption and illegal "businesses" when it doesn't benefit the power brokers & government.

Well thats right and right now the UN/WHO isnt benefiting them and the rest of the world except maybe China, so there is no better time to get rid of them.

[Reggaedoc]

"Shedding the mantle of corruption"??? - Corruption is embedded in the U.S. DNA.......They go after corruption and illegal "businesses" when it doesn't benefit the power brokers & government.

Well thats right and right now the UN/WHO isnt benefiting them and the rest of the world except maybe China, so there is no better time to get rid of them.
You cant keep saying the UN is good except when they soread cholera to poor black Haitians, you cant say the UN is good except when the let criminal Pakistani peacekeepers smuggle African gold and diamonds out of Africa while at the same time raping underaged African children and going unpunished, you keep saying they are good except when they stood by and allowed nearly 1M Rwandans to get slaughtered in short order, you cant keep saying they are good if they are mostly bad and corrupt simply because you want to oppose anything America does. They are bad because they are bad.

[Rockman]

Pretty sure there were parallel research being conducted across the board regarding herpes, Caucasians having the desease were given trial drugs, the difference is on the other end of the spectrum, Afro-Americand were given the desease...
Old people always tell youngsters seh dem fi know when people doan like dem, and that has everything to do with misplaced trust and wrong assumptions.

[Don1]

Well thats right and right now the UN/WHO isnt benefiting them and the rest of the world except maybe China, so there is no better time to get rid of them.
You cant keep saying the UN is good except when they soread cholera to poor black Haitians, you cant say the UN is good except when the let criminal Pakistani peacekeepers smuggle African gold and diamonds out of Africa while at the same time raping underaged African children and going unpunished, you keep saying they are good except when they stood by and allowed nearly 1M Rwandans to get slaughtered in short order, you cant keep saying they are good if they are mostly bad and corrupt simply because you want to oppose anything America does. They are bad because they are bad.

The problem re the UN Rdoc is that the processes there (below the Security Council level which has safeguards) are largely controlled by the West - led by the USA.

* The UN HQ is based in the USA as are all the ~200 diplomatic missions of member states

* The USA decides which foreign country reps may attend UN sessions and regularly blocks reps from countries it doesn't favor from entering the country. Or it goes as far as taking over their diplomatic missions e.g. Venezuela recently

* Beyond funding a big chunk of the UN budget - the USA controls the global financial shitstem which is based on the US$

* Controlling the global financial infrastructure results in the USA very effectively wielding economic sanctions as a weapon against small, weak states in the UN (over 100 including JA)

* When pressured most weak countries cave and vote as the US wishes. The US calls this process "consensus" of the global community

* Since the UN is USA-based and the US pays the most towards its budget plus controls access to sessions plus uses the threat of sanctions to coerce countries -- the USA de facto decides on the leadership of ALL important UN positions -- including the General Secretary and his team

* There will never be a Gen Sec not controlled by the USA and ultimately serving its interests

* In short the USA believes it owns the UN. The USA is largely correct in that self-fulfilling assessment


So the outcomes in the UN are controlled overwhelmingly by the USA...i.e. below the Security Council level. There any of the 5 Permanent Members have veto power over any decision.Otherwise there would be many more wars than have and will occur.

The Security Council is the most effective check on excesses by the USA...along with the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine enabled by other countries possessing nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them upon the USA

[Rockman]

S/b Disease

[Reggaedoc]

The problem re the UN Rdoc is that the processes there (below the Security Council level which has safeguards) are largely controlled by the West - led by the USA.

* The UN HQ is based in the USA as are all the ~200 diplomatic missions of member states

* The USA decides which foreign country reps may attend UN sessions and regularly blocks reps from countries it doesn't favor from entering the country. Or it goes as far as taking over their diplomatic missions e.g. Venezuela recently

* Beyond funding a big chunk of the UN budget - the USA controls the global financial shitstem which is based on the US$

* Controlling the global financial infrastructure results in the USA very effectively wielding economic sanctions as a weapon against small, weak states in the UN (over 100 including JA)

* When pressured most weak countries cave and vote as the US wishes. The US calls this process "consensus" of the global community

* Since the UN is USA-based and the US pays the most towards its budget plus controls access to sessions plus uses the threat of sanctions to coerce countries -- the USA de facto decides on the leadership of ALL important UN positions -- including the General Secretary and his team

* There will never be a Gen Sec not controlled by the USA and ultimately serving its interests

* In short the USA believes it owns the UN. The USA is largely correct in that self-fulfilling assessment


So the outcomes in the UN are controlled overwhelmingly by the USA...i.e. below the Security Council level. There any of the 5 Permanent Members have veto power over any decision.Otherwise there would be many more wars than have and will occur.

The Security Council is the most effective check on excesses by the USA...along with the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine enabled by other countries possessing nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them upon the USA

Chinese pay 40.00 M to the WHO annually and the US pays more than 400.00 M yet the WHO acted as a salesman for China. Does that sound like a good deal for the American taxpayer many of whom are under the scourge of a virus.
Typical of the Chinese and the idiot liberals in the west.
Earthquake devastated Haiti and the Chinese contributed 50,000.00 while American taxpayers contributed billions but the Chinese want the contracts to rebuild. Give me a break.
The US is not always wrong and the Chinese and UN always right my friend. In fact they are mostly wrong and the US mostly right.

[Don1]

Chinese pay 40.00 M to the WHO annually and the US pays more than 400.00 M yet the WHO acted as a salesman for China. Does that sound like a good deal for the American taxpayer many of whom are under the scourge of a virus.
Typical of the Chinese and the idiot liberals in the west.
Earthquake devastated Haiti and the Chinese contributed 50,000.00 while American taxpayers contributed billions but the Chinese want the contracts to rebuild. Give me a break.
The US is not always wrong and the Chinese and UN always right my friend. In fact they are mostly wrong and the US mostly right.

I've not claimed who's wrong or right...merely how the power structure works. The "wrong" and "right" issue is determined by individual countries. In many cases countries are fed up with American chicanery, political interference and manipulation which they have endured for decades. Essentially political & economic power-grabbing. So China gets a try.

There is very extensive experience with America and folks come to their own conclusions on what their impact and commitment has been historically.

American "aid" comes with lots of strings which don't necessarily suit countries... for good or negative reasons. For example American "food aid" is viewed as an opportunity for the US govt to buy food from their farmers to boost their industries...often for political reasons. That "food" is often expired or low quality garbage dumped on countries. If countries accept the garbage it's to the detriment of their own agricultural industries... and health outcomes. The logical answer is for the US to spend money in the subject country to bolster their own food security. However that wouldn't win votes in farm states unfortunately. Clearly their #1 goal is NOT "helping the natives"

China's aid comes with strings as well. Countries are usually required to accept a % of Chinese workers on projects many of whom settle in-country, increase Chinese influence and reduce population pressures at home. With China's Belt & Road project there's usually a big political and security dimension tied to any investment or aid in any given country - since that initiative is a geo-political power play.

Which "aid" or investment works best for countries is not determined by contributions to the UN or its agencies. It's a decision matrix led 100% by a perceived self-interest - with good or bad intentions by the countries involved.

[Don1]

Ronald Reagan called African U.N. delegates 'MONKEYS' when he disapproved of their vote, and that's before he became president: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...chard-n1037171

Yep Reagan was a well-spoken racist and conman. Just the typical friendly neighborhood racist

[Reggaedoc]

Yep Reagan was a well-spoken racist and conman. Just the typical friendly neighborhood racist

Hey listen Don man the Chinese calling them the same thing despite them voting lock step with the Chinese. Wevjyst dont hear them. Marcus said we dont have any friends. The same black African who will announce to the world today "No testing in Africa", tomorrow if the racist French offered him some money, he will be the same one to recruit all the poverty stricken babies and mothers from his clan for testing. Dem kinda behavior dey worse dan monkey behavior and we see it time after time in Africa. So pay attention and stay rational. More Africans died under Kofi Anan than under any other UN Secretary General. That wasnt "Monkey" behavior?.

[Reggaedoc]

https://mol.im/a/8193121

Hey listen Don man the Chinese calling them the same thing despite them voting lock step with the Chinese. Wevjyst dont hear them. Marcus said we dont have any friends. The same black African who will announce to the world today "No testing in Africa", tomorrow if the racist French offered him some money, he will be the same one to recruit all the poverty stricken babies and mothers from his clan for testing. Dem kinda behavior dey worse dan monkey behavior and we see it time after time in Africa. So pay attention and stay rational. More Africans died under Kofi Anan than under any other UN Secretary General. That wasnt "Monkey" behavior?.

[Don1]

Hey listen Don man the Chinese calling them the same thing despite them voting lock step with the Chinese. Wevjyst dont hear them. Marcus said we dont have any friends. The same black African who will announce to the world today "No testing in Africa", tomorrow if the racist French offered him some money, he will be the same one to recruit all the poverty stricken babies and mothers from his clan for testing. Dem kinda behavior dey worse dan monkey behavior and we see it time after time in Africa. So pay attention and stay rational. More Africans died under Kofi Anan than under any other UN Secretary General. That wasnt "Monkey" behavior?.

Kofi Anan??? LOL!! What INDEPENDENT power did he or any UN Secretary General have??? I've explained how the system works. Don't make the mistake in analysis by PERSONALIZING actions which are SYSTEMIC in nature

The UN is a creature of the West. It was formed by America, headquartered, largely funded and controlled by America. All UN leaders are under American influence if not control. They're required to ACT as if they're independent to have a fig leaf of legitimacy. That's all it is underneath the media nonsense.

Looks like you're sipping on the Koolaid bro. Just know that the USA, representing Western interests....still runs the global show, a rising China notwithstanding. This or that head of this or that agency are all mere tools of their Western masters. Mere puppets. Focus on the Puppet Masters.. not their puppets.

It's not rocket science once one knows the global power structure. That's the global shistem ALL countries are subject to - some less or more than others.

Once a country has nuclear weapons they're generally left alone..except for lots of rhetoric from the West

When weak countries cross the line established by Babylon...they're HAMMERED - from economic sanctions through to bombing, political assassinations and ultimately "regime change" through local servants of the USA. We saw the latter in JA 1975-1980....bombings included. This was under Carter who was a supposed pacifist of some sort.

What really runs the show in the US is not presidents - It's the Military Industrial Complex which Eisenhower warned about in his farewell. Of course these truths are buried by Babylon media while the problem is much worse decades after Eisenhower.

Koolaid has lots of chemicals bro. Not healthy stuff as you know

[Reggaedoc]

I've not claimed who's wrong or right...merely how the power structure works. The "wrong" and "right" issue is determined by individual countries. In many cases countries are fed up with American chicanery, political interference and manipulation which they have endured for decades. Essentially political & economic power-grabbing. So China gets a try.

There is very extensive experience with America and folks come to their own conclusions on what their impact and commitment has been historically.

American "aid" comes with lots of strings which don't necessarily suit countries... for good or negative reasons. For example American "food aid" is viewed as an opportunity for the US govt to buy food from their farmers to boost their industries...often for political reasons. That "food" is often expired or low quality garbage dumped on countries. If countries accept the garbage it's to the detriment of their own agricultural industries... and health outcomes. The logical answer is for the US to spend money in the subject country to bolster their own food security. However that wouldn't win votes in farm states unfortunately. Clearly their #1 goal is NOT "helping the natives"

China's aid comes with strings as well. Countries are usually required to accept a % of Chinese workers on projects many of whom settle in-country, increase Chinese influence and reduce population pressures at home. With China's Belt & Road project there's usually a big political and security dimension tied to any investment or aid in any given country - since that initiative is a geo-political power play.

Which "aid" or investment works best for countries is not determined by contributions to the UN or its agencies. It's a decision matrix led 100% by a perceived self-interest - with good or bad intentions by the countries involved.

So what you call having arable land, 12 months sunshine and much water but still need food aid?. I call it monkey business. That is how Africans mostly do it.
Look at even the great Jamaica. Build lots of massive hotels, reduce the food producing land mass, get tourism dollars, use tourism dollars to import food that you can produce, increase your dependence on imported food that you can produce, increase peoples preference for inferior foreign food, tourism goes in a slump, foriegn exchange dries up, cant pay your food import bill, increase potential for social unrest. What you call that?. I call it monkey business. Maybe Reagan was on to something.

[USAF]

If you're not caucasian, know that Reagan and many others like him, see you as a monkey as well. If you're not caucasian, there's no level of education attained or success achieved that will make people like Reagan see you as an equal.......Be very careful of who you lambast & diminish, and who you extol & endorse.

[Don1]

Ok boss