John D. Giorgis said:
> At 07:06 PM 1/26/01 +1300, Autarch wrote:
It was I, not Autarch.
> >Should it be exploiting world, nations in transition, and exploited
world?
> Except that woudl suggest that the exploiting world is exploiting the
> expoited world - when in fact, generally it is the petty thieves running
> countrie solely for their own benefit (cf Mobutu Sese Soko, Robert Mugabe,
> Taylor of Liberia, etc.) that is responsible for the exploitation.
You forgot to mention CIA installed puppets such as Marcos, Suharto,
Noriega, Pinochet, etc. Such accomplished big time thieves send their
military to the School Of Americas for training in terrorism and torture,
buy arms from the first world and welcome first world "investment". The
ruling family dynasties in the exploited country benefit as do the first
world ruling family dynasties ("investors").
> >Your politically correct distinctions convey the message that one day all
> >worlds will be developed implying some sort of equality or progress
whereas
> >the concept of first world, third world relates simply to wealth.
> Well, it is the developing world countries that insist upon it - not me.
> By
> >re-describing the first world as developed and the third as developing
> >simply on the basis of material possessions conveniently ignores such
> >anomalies as Cuba having a higher literacy rate and more doctors per head
of
> >popln than us and that the US is one of only six countries to have
executed
> >juvenile offenders. [The five other countries are Iran, Nigeria,
Pakistan,
> >Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Of the 19 juvenile offender executions since
1990,
> >the U.S. is responsible for 13.] What does your politically correct
> >definition mean by "developed"?
> Assuming you believe such things....
The literacy is too close to call.
>From the CIA World Factbook 2000.
Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
Cuba - male: 96.2% (My comment - Under Batista 22%)
US - male 97%
(female: excluded because estimated)
If the other examples are incorrect, please direct me to some proof. I
should have mentioned that Cuba provides free health care for all its
people. How is it that a socialist dictatorship in the third world can
achieve that when the richest country in the world can not?
My point is that there are other measurements of development rather than
wealth of the economy which is concentrated in the hands of few. Why does
the US imprison a higher percentage of its people than any other country in
the world? Why does the US execute its own citizens when there is no
correlation between murder rates and the policy of execution and when it
costs more to execute prisoners rather than incarcerate them for life?
Sounds like lack of social development to me.
> Assuming you believe such things, you are more than welcome to move to
Cuba.
Please address the issues raised rather than suggest what I should do. My
brainwashing throughout my life has been similar to yours so I would easily
identify Cuban propaganda and be most uncomfortable in a country where my
freedom of thought and expression would be even more restrictive on my
lifestyle than it is at present. My opinion of your attitudes leads me to
suspect that you would praise a Cuban who spoke out against the repressive
propaganda of Castro's regime. Your suggestion that I should move to Cuba
implies that you are uncomfortable with any fact or opinion that questions
manipulative western and especially US propaganda. Somehow an American
revolution that overthrows British control is noble but a Cuban revolution
that overthrows Mafia control is evil and requires 40 years of sanctions,
isolation, terrorist attacks and assassination attempts. Somehow an Iraqi
invasion of Iran is legal and good and results in the west supplying
conventional and biological weapons to Iraq but an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
is evil and bad and results in the death of at least half a million children
so far most of whom were not born at the time of the invasion. Somehow the
American invasion of Panama is legal and good.
If I relied on mainstream media and White House PR for an understanding of
political matters then my knowledge and understanding would be as accurate
as an obedient Cuban's or a fervent communists' in Russia during the time of
the cold war.
History teaches us that the strong have always exploited, conned and
slaughtered the weak to satisfy the greed of the strong. The strong have
always been able to rationalise and justify such behaviour. The strong
attempt to control recent history through propaganda. Has anything changed?
> >It also implies a progression from third to first hiding the possibility
> >that nations in transition such as Iraq might be sliding down the scale
with
> >our help, nay, insistence.
> Yup...... its all our fault. Some guy named Saddam Hussein has nothing
to
> do with it.
That is as accurate as saying he has everything to do with it.
> He just shuts off the oil taps and stops buying food and
> medicine whenever he needs to make a point.
Surprise me by telling me that Columbus discovered America(:>)
Bob.
