What do those statements have to do with anything?
No I do not think that Third World (TW) is exploited by the First World (FW) within the normal meaning of the word 'exploitation' (i.e. taking someone's resources without paying their fair value) because very few resources actually flow from most of TW countries. Those TW countries that do have considerable exports, are doing quite well (cf. China or South Korea). That does not mean that the FW countries do not contribute to the TW poverty (e.g. by support of bloody dictators) - but that is NOT exploitation.
That view has nothing to do with what I said about Mr. Hussein. My argument was not that Mr. Hussein is innocent (which is preposterous on its face), but that his deeds are not what is moving the US public to condemn him, for if they were, Mr. Hussein would be public enemy #1 since the 1980s. I said that the US public hates Mr. Hussein because it follows clues from the administration, which orchestrated this Orwellian "minute of hate", and in that respect the public reaction is nor much different from that of a lynching mob. What it has to do with trade imbalance is beyond me.
Finally, I said that many blacks are victimized at higher rates than whites, primarily by other blacks, and that some blacks deserve to be punished for their criminal activity. I said that blaming this criminal activity on slavery that ended 140 years ago does not stand to reason. I also said that there are many racist stereotypes in this country, but the behavior of some blacks feeds into these stereotypes, while the behavior of others defies them. That seems like a reasonable position to anyone but the most brainwashed. Any attempt to equate that position with bigotry and prejudice found among many white "Bubbas" is at best disingenuous, if not an idiotic smear campaign.
Wojtek