> (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money)

And how is America's reputation for decency doing these days, a mere year into cutting some of this funding?

Sounds like a job for the WHO - maybe the UN can do it's job.

> Sounds like a job for the WHO - maybe the UN can do it's job.

Ah, the WHO that has recently lost money from its largest contributor, a contributor that unexpectedly stopped its contributions without explanation.

There you go again -you want the US government to solve the world's problems. Also, you're passively calling the WHO an infective organization because it can't handle this outbreak on its own without US funding. That implies it's a useless organization and therefore the US was justified removing funding.

Maybe you should be advocating for the 194 member states of the WHO to contribute more so the world doesn't need to rely on the political winds of the US election cycle.

I replied to one of your sibling posts. You can re-interpret these facts as you wish, but the WHO was working in December and radically transformed in February.

I think that indicates inefficacy and poor insight, but not in the WHO.

> you want the US government to solve the world's problems

It's called leading. You've voluntarily thrown in the towel on US leadership. Good job.

Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it.

> Good thing it's called the World Health Organization and not the American Health Organization, that way the 95.9% of the world that is not America can contribute to it.

First, imagine that your boss/largest customer decided, on a whim, to reduce your remuneration by half on the first of January. Where are you making up that money if there's nowhere else in the world that you can immediately turn to?

Anyway, other nations are spending more.

The World Health Organization and UN are just politically convenient names. These organizations were created by a victorious America to project power, like the takeover of UK military bases and exportation of US culture in the Marshall Plan.

How reprehensible that we throw away such power without receiving anything in exchange.

[1] Helpful example - we initially blocked penicillin production in other countries, despite having joined WHO, in furtherance of American interests https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-cold-wars-lasting-effec...

> No but keeping Ebola from becoming a world wide problem is in the US interests and USAID was a very cheap way to advance that goal. We funded USAID out of decency (and to gain a reputation for decency, which is worth a lot of money) sure, but also to protect ourselves.

Foreign aid also sustains armed conflict in DRC, because international health groups have to bribe military groups for security... perpetuating the civil war, a fallout of the Tusti Genocide in Rwanda.

The situation is bad... 6 million people died since 1996... the majority from indirect consequences of the conflict... (thus disease, famine and co), and to access these victims and help them, international organisations have to pay off the very military groups that wage that civil war, thus sustaining them...