Originally posted by lord xyz
Can you please provide an example?
Off the top of my head, both the conflicts in the DRC and Sudan are being criticized for a lack of first world involvement, much like Rwanda and Somalia.
Columbia has many problems that stem from demand for cocaine in America. Their cartel and paramilitary problems existed long before America initiated its war on Drugs.
Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.
The Communist revolution in Cuba...
again, just off the top of my head...
Originally posted by lord xyz
An even so, I don't know how that justifies poverty and debt, without any hope of coming out of the hole.
I'm not trying to justify anything, Hell, I even said you had a point in my reply.
The fact is, regardless of how negative first world policy is for Africa and the developing world, the attribution of "blame" for the political, social and economic conditions of a third world nation, or any nation for that matter, is far too complex to boil down to a single issue.
Hell, we could do an infinite regression and say it is that fault of naturally forming geographic and climatic conditions that predisposed cultures in certain locations to various difficulties in development.
Originally posted by inimalistI'm sorry, but people saying their should've been intervention doesn't prove anything.
Off the top of my head, both the conflicts in the DRC and Sudan are being criticized for a lack of first world involvement, much like Rwanda and Somalia.Columbia has many problems that stem from demand for cocaine in America. Their cartel and paramilitary problems existed long before America initiated its war on Drugs.
Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.
The Communist revolution in Cuba...
again, just off the top of my head...
More to the point, what America did to Stalinist Russia was little if anything.
Originally posted by inimalistYeah, but I'm not really seeing your argument.
I'm not trying to justify anything, Hell, I even said you had a point in my reply.
Originally posted by inimalistA lot of it ties to first world policy/interests.
The fact is, regardless of how negative first world policy is for Africa and the developing world, the attribution of "blame" for the political, social and economic conditions of a third world nation, or any nation for that matter, is far too complex to boil down to a single issue.
Originally posted by inimalistHmm, but that doesn't promote my agenda.
Hell, we could do an infinite regression and say it is that fault of naturally forming geographic and climatic conditions that predisposed cultures in certain locations to various difficulties in development.
Lol, I make a joke.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sorry, but people saying their should've been intervention doesn't prove anything.
you asked me for examples of domestic leaders who were causing human rights abuses in the third world, without the assistance of the first world.
America having no interest in Sudan, and thus not doing anything seems to be the exact definition of this
Originally posted by lord xyz
More to the point, what America did to Stalinist Russia was little if anything.
indeed, as you asked me to provide examples of exactly that
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, but I'm not really seeing your argument.
many problems in the third world are not actually the result of actions taken by first world nations.
Some things are, and some of the most crucial obstacles facing third world development are, but many are not.
Originally posted by lord xyz
A lot of it ties to first world policy/interests.
sure, but globalized world and all that, nothing is going to exist in isolation. However, the examples I provided are ones where the interests of powerful nations either were not involved, or even lost power (Cuban revolution).
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
China and Russia are not third world countries.
It is arguable that under Mao and Stalin respectively they were, though yes, Russia today is absolutely not, and China mostly isn't.
Originally posted by inimalist
you asked me for examples of domestic leaders who were causing human rights abuses in the third world, without the assistance of the first world.America having no interest in Sudan, and thus not doing anything seems to be the exact definition of this
indeed, as you asked me to provide examples of exactly that
many problems in the third world are not actually the result of actions taken by first world nations.
Some things are, and some of the most crucial obstacles facing third world development are, but many are not.
sure, but globalized world and all that, nothing is going to exist in isolation. However, the examples I provided are ones where the interests of powerful nations either were not involved, or even lost power (Cuban revolution).
It is arguable that under Mao and Stalin respectively they were, though yes, Russia today is absolutely not, and China mostly isn't.
Mostly? China is not a third world country at all.
And seeing how the term itself was coined in mid 1950s, calling Russia Third World Country is ridiculous.
Russia is so vast that areas of it are poor and not developed, but as a country Russia was never a Third World.
By that logic, Germany would have been a third world country as well.
Which is just ridiculous.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Mostly? China is not a third world country at all.And seeing how the term itself was coined in mid 1950s, calling Russia Third World Country is ridiculous.
Russia is so vast that areas of it are poor and not developed, but as a country Russia was never a Third World.By that logic, Germany would have been a third world country as well.
Which is just ridiculous.
ok
Originally posted by inimalistI asked for examples of American intervention promoting human rights, as that was your argument.
you asked me for examples of domestic leaders who were causing human rights abuses in the third world, without the assistance of the first world.America having no interest in Sudan, and thus not doing anything seems to be the exact definition of this
Originally posted by inimalistI didn't.
indeed, as you asked me to provide examples of exactly that
Originally posted by inimalistConsidering the third world has gotten worse since the IMF and world bank were established, they deserve the blame.
many problems in the third world are not actually the result of actions taken by first world nations.Some things are, and some of the most crucial obstacles facing third world development are, but many are not.
Originally posted by inimalistWhich wasn't what I wanted or requested.
sure, but globalized world and all that, nothing is going to exist in isolation. However, the examples I provided are ones where the interests of powerful nations either were not involved, or even lost power (Cuban revolution).