I think we've moved on a bit from unmarried mothers in Britain living off government handouts, but that's the nature of these kinds of discussion.

Stealth, I liked what you said, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Let's look at the Third World. What does it have going for it? Grinding poverty, hunger and disease. Civil wars where unspeakable acts of cruelty are carried out under the approving eye of some warlord, dictator or guerrilla fighters. Repression by mullahs and shaman/witch doctors.

It also has great mineral wealth - gold, diamonds, oil and so on, but all of that is exploited by the Old and New Worlds (the "West" for convenience), and very little of that wealth finds its way back to the population. There is an elite tier of society, created by the colonial powers, or at least allowed by them to assert itself over the rest of the population - other tribes, cultures or religions and with or without the West's connivance (and I'm sure it's "with") it skims off most of the profits that do come back to the nation. Guess what happens to that bit of wealth? Frequently it buys dollars which are deposited in Swiss Bank accounts in the name of the rulers. Often it finances illegal activities such as arms smuggling or drugs. what it doesn;'t do is feed the masses.

But USA isn't responsible for that corruption, I hear you say. I think it is - along with Britain and the rest. It is responsible because it allows it to happen, and gains a little bit more wealth into the bargain. It watches genocide taking place in places like Darfur. It allows women and children to be raped mutilated and massacred in DR Congo ... DR, what a laugh! ... It stands by as impotent as a eunuch while that madman Mugabe allows those Zimbabwean citizens he doesn't beat-up, imprison or murder to die of AIDS and other diseases, or starvation. The Zimbabwean dollar won't buy a thing: his wealth, stolen from his fellow citizens, is in American dollars.

We allow bastards like him to strut around ostentatiously, cocking a snook at us and pissing on his citizens, and letting him blame US for it, because if we interfere, we would be committing an international crime: Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation and he can do what he likes within its borders. That smacks of the same kind of weak-minded indifference that allowed Hitler to take over in Germany. No it's worse, because Germany's inhabitants were visibly prosperous and thriving (the plight of the Jews and other "misfits" was well hidden) so it is more understandable that he was allowed to operate the way he did. In Zimbabwe, it's there for all to see.

No, we shouldn't stand back and withhold aid for years to see how many more people die, we should move right in and take over the responsibility for food distribution and medical aid, using force if necessary. Then we should endeavour to ensure that whoever was responsible for al that greed and corruption is subjected to due legal process.

Might not be a truly socialist answer, but I think it has a lot to commend itself with.