Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 11
    I have no clue what the line Kafkaesque as the 2016 election was, the US did choose what appeared to be the lesser of two evils, and national presidents do get that priorities excuse is doing in an answer about the WHO. Commented May 31, 2020 at 20:37
  • 1
    Iff the US perceives problem in the WHO it could try to fix these problems. Commented May 31, 2020 at 22:18
  • 5
    Re: "nothing would have been different if WHO had not existed." Even if this dubious assertion was true in the present instance, it neglects to factor in WHO's obvious long term value to the US. It would be like saying that one's car insurance policy was useless because it didn't pay for one's most recent claim, or that car seatbelts are useless because in collisions seatbelts don't save everyone every time. Besides which WHO performs various other functions and deeds, (i.e. international data collection, global ambassadors, having helped eradicate smallpox, etc.). Commented Jun 1, 2020 at 7:35
  • 2
    @gerrit - You clearly have no appreciation for the evils that can be unleashed upon the world by someone using the wrong email server. Let's all pray we never have to find out. Commented Jun 2, 2020 at 17:51