Well, it ain't all high-falutin' and flow'ry, but it's true.
That's good writing to me.
Maybe instead of determining whether something is true or not by how it's said, you'd better judge how convincing a thing is by checking sources and verifying them for yourself.
That also works for me.
You don't work for me, though, so you can do whatever you want.
If you were seeking to convince, it would help if you wrote convincingly which means tying together the facts in a cogent argument.
It would only serve a purpose for those that could comprehend such.
You aren't interested.
That's why you make pretense that what I said wasn't cogent.
But I was interested. That's why I'm responding.
I'm sympathetic to criticism of the UN and Atlantic arrogance. I've read the biographies of all the previous Secretary Generals and harbor some wonky conspiratorial theories myself.
But what've written here is just silly, I'm sorry to say: you write only "for those that could comprehend such." That's a conspiracy, if I ever heard one. (Not to say your theories are all wrong.)
Good luck. Now I end our conversation.
The OP didn't bother to respond to your rebuke. My reference to those that could comprehend was predicated on it's suffix, that you had no interest in comprehension, and thus weren't such a party.
That's no conspiracy, rather recognition that the facts can only be related to one willing to learn them.
Your comments indicate no interest whatsoever. Naught but vituperation and ad hominae have issued from you.
Even so, I recommended that you research and ascertain for yourself the truth of the OP's statements, as that alone would prove them to your satisfaction, and nothing else could. I'd recommend you do, as you suddenly evince interest in the UN and it's agenda. If that interest is genuine, the current scandals involving blue helmets and child sex trafficking, or any of the topics mentioned by OP are all quite verifiable with minimal effort, which even a base primate incapable of polite speech could manage.
Koko the Gorilla could even lie, once blaming her pet kitten for ripping a steel sink from it's secure mount. I'd have loved to see what she searched online, were she granted internet access. She probably could have verified any number of the contentions in OP's post.
I'm sure you could do it, if your interest isn't feigned.
If you choose, you may now have the last word.