• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mr. Trump Cuts Off Funding to the World Health Organization in the Middle of a Pandemic

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
When I see threads starting off with a flurry of epithets infusing
the entire post, I expect an echo chamber of nodding heads,
with a possibility of hostile conflict if one isn't fully on board.
Unless good judgement fails me, I steer clear. Too bad...there's
an issue here worth discussing.
Is it bias to say that Bill Clinton was an adulterer even when it's an objective, verifiable fact?
 
It seems to me that the WHO, imperfect as it is, is about all we have in terms of an international body to exchange information and coordinate responses to global epidemics across national boundaries. I can see it might make sense, when the crisis is over, to propose changes to this body, to make it more effective in future.

So far its role seems to have mostly been to give out bad advice which then causes greater harm because of the credibility it gets form coming from the WHO.

When you have a 'neutral', 'scientific' body that is under immense pressure to toe various political lines it may cause more harm than good.

Large politicised bureaucracies that act as centralised directors of policy can cause great harm when they are wrong as they make everybody wrong. While such an organisation may be normatively desirable, in reality you may be better off with a number of less centralised structures that diversify approaches, and are not subject to uniform political influences.

But how can it make any sense to try to bankrupt it in the middle of global epidemic, when there is nothing else to take its place?

How can it make sense to ban one of the most successful countries in fighting coronavirus from membership of your club?

Not that there is any chance of it becoming bankrupt, but if it didn't exist, people would replace it with something(s) else.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
World's most infamous liar accuses the WHO of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion.” Totally ignores how he himself failed to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion.

Mr. Trump's comments linked to a worldwide shortage of functioning irony meters since most existing meters were exploded by it. Price of still working meters soars.

Mr. Trump is said to be blaming the WHO in an effort to divert attention from his own failings, which are of a magnitude greater.

If so, Mr. Trump's vanity expected to cause "many, many more deaths".

Fortunately, America and the world are proud to sacrifice anything and everything to preserve Mr. Trump's ego.


Trump halts World Health Organization funding over coronavirus 'failure'

Cut funding and redirect it to agencies that actually do work.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
World's most infamous liar accuses the WHO of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion.” Totally ignores how he himself failed to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion.

Mr. Trump's comments linked to a worldwide shortage of functioning irony meters since most existing meters were exploded by it. Price of still working meters soars.

Mr. Trump is said to be blaming the WHO in an effort to divert attention from his own failings, which are of a magnitude greater.

If so, Mr. Trump's vanity expected to cause "many, many more deaths".

Fortunately, America and the world are proud to sacrifice anything and everything to preserve Mr. Trump's ego.


Trump halts World Health Organization funding over coronavirus 'failure'
Actually WHO is unpopular with his constituents. 1. liberal 2. Evil player in many of the eschatological books, such as Tim LaHayes books. 3. Its lumped in with New Age, The Illuminati and other secret government conspiracies.

Pres. Trump is helping himself with this action.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
At least a part of that issue, I think, must be that even the WHO is not perfect, and in the face of something entirely new, must rely on the same kind of rapid info-gathering and judgment that anybody else has. And I think we can't forget that it's also true that China did keep a lid on this for a time -- and I don't think that can be laid at WHO's feet.

Further, I think it's important to remember that WHO is involved in an enormous array of other world health issues, and cutting US funding can only hurt those efforts, which I doubt is in the best interests of anybody, including the U.S. There's not enough money being saved to be of any particular use against the virus.
Aye, tis complex.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
So you're a mind reader, and your interpretation is "fact"?
You really need to pay better attention to what you quote:

Mr. Trump is said to be blaming the WHO in an effort to divert attention from his own failings, which are of a magnitude greater.
Emphasis mine.​

This is in fact a fact.
Why, because it is being said by some people that the reason Trump cut funding to the WHO is because he is trying to divert attention away from himself.

So no mind reading required.
All I did was actually read what was presented....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cooky

Veteran Member
You really need to pay better attention to what you quote:


Emphasis mine.​

This is in fact a fact.
Why, because it is being said by some people that the reason Trump cut funding to the WHO is because he is trying to divert attention away from himself.

So no mind reading required.
All I did was actually read what was presented....

Whoever said it, it's not a "fact". :)

...Unless that secret someone is a mind reader.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
The Australian media are the experts when it comes to the CCP and their WHO puppet.


UN bodies have been corrupted by the CCP.

We should be thankful that we have one world leader prepared to call them out.

 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The Petulant Child in Chief needs a scapegoat, and an action to show how decisive and influential his power is... since he holds such limited actual power...
Yup. He wants to be a dictator, but cries over how hard it is to run a country with the limited power, let alone actually squeeze an iron fist. But, he can do this, no one can stop it, he did it, it was his doing at his will, ego fed.
 

Yazata

Active Member
It seems to me that the WHO, imperfect as it is, is about all we have in terms of an international body to exchange information and coordinate responses to global epidemics across national boundaries. I can see it might make sense, when the crisis is over, to propose changes to this body, to make it more effective in future.

I'll agree with that.

But how can it make any sense to try to bankrupt it in the middle of global epidemic, when there is nothing else to take its place?

That argument only has force if the WHO is doing something valuable right now to address the epidemic. Is it? That's not a rhetorical question, it might be in Africa or someplace. But its record worldwide, acting as little more than China's UN mouthpiece, doesn't inspire confidence. I think that in retrospect many countries see that if they had been more critical of what the WHO was saying, that they could have saved themselves a lot of grief.

Turning to the subject of this thread, the President only said that the US was going to study ending financial support. He's just signalling an opening negotiating position by stating what could happen unless opposite numbers come to the table with acceptable proposals of their own.

It isn't unlike when he floated the US withdrawing from NATO unless the other NATO countries started pulling their own weight instead of outsourcing their defense to the US at American expense. The Europeans started squealing, but ultimately insisted that they will increase their own arms budgets and the US backed off.

So what might President Trump accept regarding the WHO? Getting rid of Tedros probably. Along with a broader house-cleaning perhaps. And countries like China paying their fair share instead of leaving so much of the burden to the US.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
So far its role seems to have mostly been to give out bad advice which then causes greater harm because of the credibility it gets form coming from the WHO.

When you have a 'neutral', 'scientific' body that is under immense pressure to toe various political lines it may cause more harm than good.
What "bad advice" are you referring to, specifically?

Large politicised bureaucracies that act as centralised directors of policy can cause great harm when they are wrong as they make everybody wrong. While such an organisation may be normatively desirable, in reality you may be better off with a number of less centralised structures that diversify approaches, and are not subject to uniform political influences.

[...]
While I'm inclined to agree in theory, I'm not sure whether what you suggest is practically feasible.

Multiple competing authorities operating in the same territorial space, possibly at cross purposes, don't sound like a desirable approach to handling a global pandemic, but rather a recipe for disaster.
 
Top