Concerning the amount of Third World analogies

[Pharlo]

which have been occurring with such frequency lately.

I think it is terribly unfair to third world countries to make this comparison.

Third world countries when hit by a disaster of this magnitude are usually lead by individuals with the mental capacity to realize they are unable to cope with the situation and accept the help offerred by other nations with the necessary capabilities.

In contrast, out current "leader" heads a nation with the ability to respond, the wealth, equipment, and organizational ability to respond. Unfortunately, this "leader" didn't have the mental capacity to initiate the sequence to contain the compound effects of the disaster.

In short, I think people are treating the Third World nations very unfairly. They generally respond more quickly to their people in need. If, in no other way than by accepting the assistance of others who are more capable than they. The situations are in no way similar.

The big difference is a Leader who cares about the people.

[NYC]

1. That's very true.

"Third world countries when hit by a disaster of this magnitude are usually lead by individuals with the mental capacity to realize they are unable to cope with the situation and accept the help offerred by other nations with the necessary capabilities."

I think it is because the richest country in the world handled the disaster as though we had third world resources.

[Pharlo]

2. Actually, the richest country in the world handled

the disaster as though we had third world resources and no outside help.

Third world countries don't even handle disasters that badly.

And, that's why I'm saying the third world countries are getting a bad rap in the comparison.