Jump to content

More UN corruption. *sigh* those globalists at it again

emprworm
 Share

Recommended Posts

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From the article:

"Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, (that would be a Bush-supporting right-winger for those who dont know) charged that "in its starkest terms, corruption has cost the lives of uncounted individuals contending with poverty and disease."

I like it when people on the right expose the corruption and greed of globalists.  Think of all those children that those corrupt UN bush-hating globalist killed by syphoning all those billions of dollars. 

The seven richest men can wipe out global poverty?  ROFL!

One single globalist world bank could do that....if only it wasn't so corrupt.  We need some right-winged bush supporters running that bank to get it back in line.

Sounds like the World Bank still operates in the Clinton Enron era where scandal and corruption go unchecked in a world of liberal globalists that  care nothing about the poor, and only about their wallets.

DukeLeto

DukeLeto

Posted
Posted

Indeed.  Bush has spent way more than $100 billion (and quite a few lives - try almost 10,000) bombing a country that DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE WHAT WE (supposedly) WENT IN FOR!

(Well, I mean, it does have the oil, but I was referring to the WMDs)

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted

Oh stuff it with the ad hominem irrelevancies Duke Leto.

Loaning unchecked money to undeveloped countries, many of which have corrupt governments, has and always will be a dumb and shortsighted idea.  The UN doesn't need a bank, it needs a welfare office that gives away food stamps.  In other words, don't give loans to a country that can be spent on whatever that country wishes, give them money, labour and resources for food, construction, developing infrastructure, etc. and make an agreement that the use of the money must be open to UN scrutiny and is cut off if used for any other purpose than as pre-defined.

And why does everything have to be so black and white emprworm?  You would think you worship Bush and Republicans the way you refer to them in any and every possible positive context, and the opposite for Clinton/Kerry and Democrats.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

The problem with that is that the goverment will kick out the inspectors and the U.N will do nothing, or they won't kick out the inspectors and will simply not spend the cash as they should and the U.N will still do nothing... even the League Of Nations were more willing to make sure that the nations do as they are supposed to

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

First of all, cut with the US centricism emprworm. I know Bush is your personal object of worship, but the rest of us don't think in terms of Bush and Clinton in every situation ::)

Secondly, you obviously don't even know what globalization is.

Thirdly,

"The lion's share of the theft of development funds occurs in the implementation of projects and the use of loan funds by client governments," he said.

So bringing in other personel wouldn't make a difference, since most of the corruption occurs in the receiving countries.

Fourthly, I would like to see some evidence that the US delegates are liberals, because it certainly looks like you've pulled that out of think air.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

So let me get this straight, Emprworm:

The UN is helping the poor. But because it isn't helping the poor as much as it should, you throw a tantrum about those "evil" UN "leftists".

Hmmm, this sounds stragely familiar... Oh yes, I remember! Do you recall our arguments about US interventions against oppressive dictators, and how you kept saying that I cannot accuse the US of not doing as much as it should, as long as it does something?

I asked you why doesn't the US liberate Saudi Arabia along with Iraq. You said that I have no right to condemn the US on the basis that it isn't doing as much good as it could, as long as it is doing some good.

Well, now, the tables have turned, haven't they? And guess what? You have no right to condemn the UN on the basis that it isn't doing as much good as it could, as long as it is doing some good.

Ah, isn't the irony just so sweet? :)

Oh, and as a side note, there are no "leftists" in the World Bank that I know of. The World Bank places extremely right-wing economic terms on the countries it gives loans to. Together with the IMF, the World Bank is seen by leftists as one of the great enforcers of the capitalist world order.

This statement is particularly ridiculous:

Run by globalists, socialists and the like...

You do of course realize that globalists and socialists are sworn enemies, right? (I'm talking about the globalists who support globalization in its present form)

I don't know what your US Democrats think about it, but I'd like to remind you that, by world standards, the US Democratic Party is center-right (while the Republicans are far right).

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

So, that means that, assuming the United States did some good through the Iraq War (its done some good, I've read positive stories as well as negative ones), that would mean that we would not be able to condemn the US on the basis that it isn't doing as much good as it could, but as long as it was doing some good?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Yes, it means you have no right to condemn the US for "not doing enough good". You can only condemn it for the actual harm it has done - and you can argue about whether it has done more good or more harm.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

So, a sort of cost-benefit-analysis, then? I understand that. And it makes sense. Praise them for what good they do, condemn them for what bad they do. Logical.

DukeLeto

DukeLeto

Posted
Posted

rofl!  100 BILLION dollars!!  BWAHAH! 

The UN is helping the poor by making kings and princes out of clan lords.  A drug lord goes from poor --> billionaire.

thanks to the UN.  yea, that really helps little johnny a lot.

now little jonny's mother gets shot by an ak-47 bought from Russia with UN money, while his brother gets hooked on opium while dealing it to the neighbhors children.

Ok...

1: You took Edric's quote way out of context.

2. If you can't win the arghument, at least don't resort to making stuff up.  Nothing in that post somes from the source you cited; if you insist that this garbage is true, how about a reputable source (EG, not FOX News) saying it?

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm not sure where the "100 Billion dollars" comment was made?

was made by Edric trying to imply that the UN, which is entrenched in a 100 BILLION DOLLAR scandal in the world bank, is helping the poor and needy.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Ahh, I see, I am unaware of this scandal, would it be too late to ask what happened, or is it a short story?

By the way, I've brought some color to my life! Wahoo!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.