What might be called the "Innocent's View of the United Nations, the WHO etc" is that these organizations were set up in the aftermath of the terror and destruction of WWII to give reasonable venues where nations could MEET, TALK AND TALK SOME MORE and avoid the situations involving Hitler, Mussolini etc that brought on WWII. Playing Dev…
What might be called the "Innocent's View of the United Nations, the WHO etc" is that these organizations were set up in the aftermath of the terror and destruction of WWII to give reasonable venues where nations could MEET, TALK AND TALK SOME MORE and avoid the situations involving Hitler, Mussolini etc that brought on WWII. Playing Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Peter Sweden and Noor Bin Laden are just paranoid conspiracy theorists? Is it not possible that they and their like-minded felloz travelers are overlooking the GOOD motives of the UN founders? I remind people that my purpose here is to play Devil's Advocate. I don't necessarily believe that the UN is just a harmless "talking shop" with the WHO simply its good-intentioned accomplice. After all, UN orgs like UNICEF have done good things all over the world. Final word: I believe strongly in the ultimate authority of NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY of each country.
To me, what this all adds up to is NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD should acquiesce to being under the thumb of the WHO. The WHO should only be a CONSULTATIVE BODY AND NOTHING MORE.
What might be called the "Innocent's View of the United Nations, the WHO etc" is that these organizations were set up in the aftermath of the terror and destruction of WWII to give reasonable venues where nations could MEET, TALK AND TALK SOME MORE and avoid the situations involving Hitler, Mussolini etc that brought on WWII. Playing Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Peter Sweden and Noor Bin Laden are just paranoid conspiracy theorists? Is it not possible that they and their like-minded felloz travelers are overlooking the GOOD motives of the UN founders? I remind people that my purpose here is to play Devil's Advocate. I don't necessarily believe that the UN is just a harmless "talking shop" with the WHO simply its good-intentioned accomplice. After all, UN orgs like UNICEF have done good things all over the world. Final word: I believe strongly in the ultimate authority of NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY of each country.
To me, what this all adds up to is NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD should acquiesce to being under the thumb of the WHO. The WHO should only be a CONSULTATIVE BODY AND NOTHING MORE.