say what?

You shouldn't listen to so much socialist propaganda.

No, I'm just saying that the West isn't better then the Rest and that we should stop thinking that the way of the West is a normal path to take. The path the West took(Rise of the West, and the Great Divergence) wasn't normal. Why should other people be forced to follow something?

Just because the Pax America is very strict and focused on international organisations doesn't mean that there aren't any better systems out there. There's clearly a fundamental problem with the USA. If everyone followed the example of the USA then we'd need 5 extra planets... Participation in the world market doesn't solve the problems of the poor countries like many people say. In fact, it makes it even worse. Europa/USA only make up for 20% of the world population yet they own 70% of the wealth in the world.  

You can judge about Ahmadinejad all you want, but in the end, we aren't much better(we are however a lot better in treating our own people better then Ahmadinejad is doing in Iran, obviously). At least not for the south(Africa, south america, parts of Asia, etc.)

It's not socialist propaganda, it's the hard cold truth. I my self vote for N-VA(Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie), which is a right wing party. So, I'm not a socialist, far from it actually. I actually don't give a shit about the environment and couldn't care less if 9 million people died because of starvation each year. I just don't deny the fundamental problems of our globalist economical system. And do I want our system to change? Yes, but only because our economy would grow as well if the south wasn't so extremely poor. 

You should stop being a negationist if you think it's just socialist propaganda. Or perhaps you just don't have a clue about globalization and it's impact on the world.  

I wouldn't be surprised if figures were "cooked". Thats all I'm saying.

That's what the Holocaust negationists are saying as well about the number of death Jews, yet everyone hates them(for the obvious reasons). 

There's enough examples on how we're destroying the local communities in Africa and thus destroying their change of survival. Lake Victoria is a well known example. 

I am probably even more conservative and right wing than you but I don't believe in the myths from the globalization-critics (that come from some elements in the extreme right, not just from commies). 

Actually you could argue that it's the protectionism measures and subsidies to EU farmers, which is the opposite to globalization, that makes it hard for the Africans to export their crops at a fair price.

And I happen to care about people who die from starvation, but it simply isn't the West's fault that the South is poor.

Holocaust deniers have very few motives.

People claiming and exaggerating the serverity of people in Africa, have lots of reasons to "cook" the numbers.

Obviously, there are some extreamely poor regions of Africa, however most of the ones facing great hardship are those which have faced civil wars and have corrupt leaders. Even the very poorest regions of the world (Malawi) can continue to support their people and the continuous flow of Western aid is ensuring that process.

The only issue with Africa is that they don't get enough globalisation (which is what I assume you mean by "global economic system"). In 2000, only 0.6% of North America's imports came from the poorest countries (which will mainly be sub-Saharan Africa), 0.5% of Europe's, and 0.3% of Japan's. Indeed, of the total imports in 2000 of the richest countries (NA, Europe, and Japan), only a total of 0.5% came from the least developed countries. This is actually less than the 1980s, where the figure was 0.9%.

And it's obvious why, Africa simply doesn't make much worth importing. They should be, however, the continent in rich in land, labour, and a whole range of minerals and fuels - but there isn't the investment to tap into it. Many often blame the situation of the poorest countries on the fact that the wealthiest exploit them, this isn't true. Multi-national corporations often get the blame, and yet, they simply don't exist in any meaningful way in these countries - the latest data for foreign direct investment in Africa that I can find is 1998, where FDI into the entire continent was a mere $8.3bn (down on 1997, btw, by 12%). This is pitiful, foreign direct invesment into just the UK in 2005 was $165bn.

Simply put, it's not that the West exploits Africa, it's simply that the West doesn't interact with Africa. Aside from aid (which is wasted money), the West might aswell just not exist for modern Africa. But, can you blaim the multi-nationals? They want to invest in places where they can get high returns on their investments. Poor infrastructure, high crime rates, uneducated work forces, and corruption at every level prevents this. All of these are results of poor governance from the leaders of Africa itself, you can blame this on the colonial days of old Europe, but not on the modern global economic structure.

Just to aid your point, the UN estimates that if the USA and EU were to end their protectionism of agriculture it could lift up to between 200 and 300 million people out of poverty within a very short period of time. The cost to us? Pissing off a few French farmers. We'd also benefit from more efficient crop production, thus reducing prices and increasing quality, as well as having to pay less taxes to the EU to fund the CAP program.

But, those French farmers hold a lot of power, and, as such, half of the EU's budget goes towards protecting them. >.>