world hunger, pollution, and war....b/c of developed countires?

They were going to give him the Nobel Peace Prize and Most Favored Nation trading status.....until they realized that he wasn't giving blacks' farm land to whites, but in fact exactly the opposite!

 

Well, some would argue that the reality of world politics is "jungle law": the strong feeds off the weak (which I think is essentially true). Basically, this is what some would argue: in order for 'hegemons' to stay on top, they must either dominate other countries or make them too dependent on them for their own survival (a tactic employed by every major power in the world throughout history, even today).

It's irrelevant which countries are doing it, for it's been done by every major power that's existed in the world.

 

basically the idiot made a horrible move to satisfy people's emotions in his country and in doing so he crippled his nation's food production and now he is blaming it on us. what a great leader mugabe is.

 

Chavez shot himself in the foot by praising Mugabe, who is worthy of Saddam status. Why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

i personally blame mankind for screwing each other over for quite some time now.

 

Ridiculous. Makes no sense.

 

Developed natiosn are primarily responsible for pollution. Supporting Mugabe is idiotic, and blaming developed nations for world hunger only tells on thousandth of the hole story there, so it is ludicrous to point the finger on that one.

 

Pollution - ok I can see that
War - well . . . hey do some instigating .. but dumbasses don't have to fight if they don't want too
Poverty? , , POVERTY? don't we grow WAY MORE than we can eat?
Don't we export ALOT of it?

Maybe. . i could be crazy but . . MAYBE
If you spent Gov Money on FOOD instead of GUNS
then your poverty would go away

Rocket River

 

They are just blaming others for their own problems. Of course, it is very hard to fix these problems, but blaming the big bad US will only make it harder.

 

We have screwed over many countries. Here is how it works. A third world nation get in debt. The World Bank and IMF give them relief if they introduce economic reforms. The reforms include things like free trade for agricultural. We subsidise agriculture, so they can't produce it cheaper than we can.
Their agriculture sector goes into the tank.

Thats not what happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is just an idiot and took away land from farmers and gave it to non-farmer.

 

That's exactly the problem. Via heavy government subsidies American agrobusinesses flood third world markets with cotton, corn, and other crops. Since third world governments can't susidize at the rate the US government can, they undercut domestic farmers. This leaves thousands upon thousands of families with no source of income and exacerbates problems that were already pretty bad in those countries.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp30_cotton.htm

Oxfam lays out one good example of the horros globilazation can cause. And before the conservatives start bashing me for being a treehugger, they should realize that farm subsidies are one of the most indefensible forms of croporate welfare out there. We continue to prop up an industry via government funding which does not allow "the market" to dictate the direction of growers. If farmers weren't so important for winning midwestern elections, this bull crap would have ended a long time ago.

 

Well I think to be accurate Chavez praised the land reforms in Zimbabwe, not Mugabe's actions in general. Do you really know enough to say that there is no equity in seizing some of these farms from the Apartheid era when it was known as Rhodesia and redistrbuting them to landless, starving peasants is "worthy of Sadam status"?

As a practical matter this redistrbution might not be the way to go in terms of feeding folks. Because Mugabe has done evil in other areas does not mean that the land reform is not just and perhaps the best thing to do.

 

As a committed Marxist strongman, Mugabe has a warm place in glynch's heart.

 

Well, I see at least one person here read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

 

Hayes,isn't it about time for you to claim again that you never mischaracterize me, while you yourself are an innocent victim of such continuing tactics by me?

However, I must congratulate you on writing a post with a coherent idea that did not parse phrase by phrase till any continuity of thought vanishes.

 

Did I mischaracterize your view? Is it not Mugabe's marxist confiscation of property that you support? I did assume that was the consistent factor between Mugabe and Chavez - both of which you've voiced support for. If I'm not correct then please elaborate - I'll gladly recant if I've mischaracterized you.

 

Chavez & Mugabe are two of the biggest crack-pot leaders in the world today. This doesn't even warrant discussion.

 

If Oxfam thinks that closing free trade will help these countries, they are dead wrong. They need to open up their economies, welcome industry and products and jobs. They would be much better served by welcoming Western companies.

Now, I do agree that we should stop subsidizing our farmers. I believe W has been pushing for that. That is indeed very hurtful to the third world and to our own economies.

 

W is pushing for it for deficit reduction reasons, not because they're so concerned about third world farmers. Also, guess what he stopped pushing for it. Apparently, farmers have a little too much clout in Congress.