yes... it does. also, you said "THIS is why 3rd world countries..." that gives the idea of "not ANY 3rd world"...
and the term "3rd world" is... by itself, racist.

(and yes... YOU BET IM P.O.'d)

Bull!! Thats not even PC racist. What do you call a third world country? Underprivileged?

If anyone is interested in watching here's a great documentary about a girl that joins FARC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40458143002895

Quite true IN MY OPINION. It is my opinion that there is not a single 3rd World country that is sufficiently advanced socially and economically to handle the responsibility of owning nuclear weapons.

Ok, kenijaru, to satisfy your apparent indignation, let me re-phrase my comment:

"Chavez is a nutcase... THIS is why underprivileged countries shouldn't have nukes IMO."

BTW, Brazil has, as of 2007, two nucler power facilities...;)

Now I think it is you, kenijaru that is overreacting. :-? Are you offended by terms such as "Global South" or "developing countries"?

not by the term itself, but by the use its given to it (usualy derogatory)
we (south americans) are always subject for such comments of pejorative nature, and its only natural that we are sick of it!

There are three things wrong here:
1. You evidently consider yourself the citizen of a 3rd world country because you're a "south american"?
2. You invoke "we" when only you are responsible for your reaction.
3. It's not "natural". I know people who are subject to derogatory statements constantly (they happen to be Hispanic and are friends of mine, BTW) and they take the "high ground" and ignore it.

Venezuela ain't no Third World.

I find the Wikipedia's definition sufficient: "Third World is a name given to nations that are generally considered to be underdeveloped economically." In which case, the PC version: "developing or emerging nation" is probably more acceptable...

Nothing PC about it. Venezuela doesn't qualify as economically underdeveloped.

The term third world doesn't even refer to economic development.

The first, second and third world idea is a concept which dates back to the Cold War. The first world was represented by the US and its Allies (NATO) while the second world was the USSR and its Allies (Warsaw Pact). Third world was the term used to describe non-aligned nations. There was no reference to economics or the economies of these countries when the terms were created.

Third world has since been coopted to mean economic less developed because there was a noted trend that most of these nations had less developed economies than those of the First and Second world nations. The term is not meant to be derogatory, and it certainly is not racist.

Just sounds like Hugo thumping his tub again to me. :yep:

Damn it! You beat me to it! :p :D

-S

If you ask the average person on the street they'll say underdeveloped nation. It doesn't matter that you found third world in an encyclopedia or whatever.

Chavez has been greatly exagerated as a bogeyman. The White House has always had a primitive tendency for a shallow diplomacy based on personalities.