4 ms·
Ahh, yes, this is exactly how one goes about making it a cooperative effort, which is something this administration is clearly an expert at doing.
by freen 1y ago
Ahh, yes, this is exactly how one goes about making it a cooperative effort, which is something this administration is clearly an expert at doing.
- _heimdall 1y agoYour snark misses the fact that the program has been funded by the US for 25 years and the decision to not make it a UN project has nothing to do with the current administration.
- viraptor 1y agoTrying to cut it immediately instead of saying "ok, it needs to become a joint international effort starting on (a date months ahead)" is the issue with the current administration. Running it is fine, handing it over is fine, suddenly making a huge mess is not. That's the missing cooperation.
- watwut 1y agoI am confused about what UN has to do with America shutting down services whose primary goal was to protect American infrastructure, government and companies. Some UN nations are quite happy about this, because it will make it easier to access what they want in US.
- _heimdall 1y agoOnly that the earlier comments raised that if the program was important it should be run by the UN rather than the US.
- exceptione 1y agoMaybe it was the US that wanted it under their own control, and could enforce that via the soft-power it had. :) Anyways, I have to agree with the others: this is not the real issue. If you wanted to change the governance on that point, you can transition these things orderly. Like Doge, the messaging is to hide the real intentions. It doesn't take much effort to see that the actions do not really match with the messages, but if the media would not even do that bit of analysis and would not bring the disconnect front and center, then yeah, it is a winning strategy.