World Bank

[Ted Striker]

****ing Wolfowitz

[Verto]

Yes, I don't imagine anyone is keen on THAT act, Ted.

[Ted Striker]

Here is a more appropriate US ambassador:

[Dinner]

I don't even know who she is but I'd hit it.

[Az]

and she's a babe, too.

[Ted Striker]

That's Angelina Jolie

[Az]

Oerdin living on an uninhabited island with no human contact and not knowing who Angelina Jolie is

[Ted Striker]

I was skeptical of her but she has proven to be extremley effective in her role.


Warmongerowitz on the other hand needs to get stuffed.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The US provides only a minority of the money to the world bank. It's the single largest donor but it is only a minority of the money so I don't see how you can justify your railroad mentality of my way or the highway.

It's tradition that the US picks on and the EU picks other. But I'm fine with them picking both.

[Dinner]

The US is the largest share holder in the World Bank, though still a minority holder, and that's why we traditionally nominate the head of the bank. It must still be approved by the other shareholders. I'm still not following why you believe a minority share holder should be able to dictate policy to the majority of the share holders. I believe that's what you meant when you wrote "And they better do as told if they want the money to keep coming. Personally I'm all for shutting these silly things down".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TCO
Personally I'm all for shutting these silly things down.

Seeing as how it's been an aid to US foreign policy in the past and will be in the future, I wouldn't agree with that.

[Dinner]

OMG! Was that a reasonable statement from DinoDoc? I am beside myself.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The US is the largest share holder in the World Bank, though still a minority holder, and that's why we traditionally nominate the head of the bank. It must still be approved by the other shareholders. I'm still not following why you believe a minority share holder should be able to dictate policy to the majority of the share holders. I believe that's what you meant when you wrote "And they better do as told if they want the money to keep coming. Personally I'm all for shutting these silly things down".

I don't have a problem with someone esle keeping it running. However, I think we lend more than just money, we lend prestige. Look at the howls that will come if we just go our own way.

BTW, I don't think these types of aid help people much. It goes into corrupt governments and even props them up. Also the types of projects done, can be very huge and stupid. I prefer lowering our trader barriers to help people.

have you read THE UGLY AMERICAN?

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seeing as how it's been an aid to US foreign policy in the past and will be in the future, I wouldn't agree with that.

Bla...we can come up with other crap. It may have done more harm than good.

[Ted Striker]

Another good one is "Confressions of a Corporate Hitman"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576753018/qid=1112484141/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9885415-0605747