oldmadbadger wrote:
> "Nexie" wrote in message and badger while agreeing, nevertheless
yielded to
> the pedant inside and was forced to add
>
>
> <various trollings snipped since some correspondances are now ended>
>
>
>>I believe most call the UN (although some prefer the Ghostbusters).
>>America usually only gets involved when it's caused the problems in the
>>first place. Granted Britain has thrown in it's lot with America rather
>>than Europe, and also granted that America is a member of the UN and
>>contributes accordingly, but that doesn't make you saviours of the
planet.
>
>
> (all these figures have been taken from published UN do***ents and are
> easily verifiable if anyone wants to check them)
>
> "U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion."
>
> "USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been
lower
> than any other industrialized nation in the world ...(Only in 2004 did
they
> move up from last place by one.) "
>
> "Overseas development aid as GNP Percentage 2004
>
> norway 0.85 %
>
> france 0.42 %
>
> united kingdom 0.36 % (not exactly saints ourselves are we ?)
>
> united states 0.16 %"
>
> Source: OECD Web site
>
> (the target set by the UN in 1970, yes 1970 ... was 0.7 % by 1975 !!!
only
> norway, sweden, denmark and holland have yet reached this figure)
>
> "The US recently (2003-2005) increased its military budget by some $100
> billion dollars alone"
>
>
> badger XXX
> (now officially given up trying to be funny)
>
> p.s. the lowest net contributor is italy with only 0.15 % of GNP being
given
> in ODA in 2004
>
> which makes the US (as Lister once said) "somewhere on the evolutionary
> scale between rats and italians"
Aren't facts brilliant?! I can't usually be bothered with them, myself,
but they do look nice on the sideboard, don't they?
|
