Check out this sweet website.

[foxer 0]

Factbook

It keeps stats on countries ,

USA:Internet users: 148 million (2000)

UK:Internet users: 19.47 million (2000)

Finland:Internet users: 2.27 million (2000)

france:Internet users: 9 million (2000)

anyways,I thought I would share the cool site.

[Pete 1]

finland..5 million people

2 persons per computer..means average of 2 computers per home

finland or sweden was the nation with highest internet usage per capita...read somewhere.

[foxer 0]

china with billion people has only --Internet users: 22 million (January 2001) ..

[Pete 1]

too bad it doesnt mention the amount of Saunas

finland: 5 million people, 2.5 million saunas.....

also bicycles and holland...25 million bikes, 15 million people (or so?)..if anyone lives in holland id like him to explain how the hell you can get your bike back when its leaning towards the wall at amsterdam trainstation and buried behind hundreds of other bikes parked on it......

[Placebo 29]

AFAIK North/South Korea are now the No 1 internet users because the government put broadband in every home.....

[Damage Inc 0]

I'm moving to Korea

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 23 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK North/South Korea are now the No 1 internet users because the government put broadband in every home.....<span id='postcolor'>

South only..North has less than 1000 lines.

SKor's large number is partly due to gov't subsidy, but mostly becuase demand for it was great. AFAIK gov't didn't make ppl buy it, but subsidized whoever bought it. but result is similar

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yeah, but this world-fact book is rubbish. Its information is old (cause the new is of course top top top top CIA top secret, war against terrorism and stuff) and mostly not put in corelation (e.g infant mortality rate is measure differently in several countries). I have even been asked not use it as a source for any 'paper' cause it is not considered as a trustworthy source of information. Strange, since the information given is not very deep anyway.

But did you know that: the US pay 0.1 % (this is the new figure) of their GDP to support underdeveloped countries. Wow, amazing.....

[rpc007 0]

if thats true, i still bet that that .1% is more then your country gives

[Thehamster 0]

It may be more but it still not a big as percentage as England give of it GDP as we give about .4 I think.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ Mar. 23 2002,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if thats true, i still bet that that .1% is more then your country gives<span id='postcolor'>

puts an end to the "we feed the world" discussions where you (not you, but some americans) claim to just give and give while WE do nothing...more money from my wallet goes to the poorer countries than of your wallet...

anyways.

that place had an error..it said "finland defended against russian AND german invasion"..finland was allied with germans

(atleast i think i read it there.so tired..bah)

other cool(?) facts...the dutch are the tallest people in europe by average

a typical swede has 2.3 children (dont ask how..)

[Stealt Eagle 1]

HAHA: Take that Finland: Danish flag description: red with a white cross that extends to the edges of the flag; the vertical part of the cross is shifted to the hoist side, and that design element of the Dannebrog (Danish flag) was subsequently adopted by the other Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden

[Wobble 1]

But did you know that: the US pay 0.1 % (this is the new figure) of their GDP to support underdeveloped countries. Wow, amazing

yea and it also foots the bill for 1/4th of ALL NATO expences.. which includes humanitarian and education funds.. guess they forgot to count that..

England give of it GDP as we give about .4 I think.

wonder how that factor would be effected if the US hadnt released GB from its entire lend/lease war dept to the US?.. over 300 billion dollars(in todays money).  plus interest

[Wobble 1]

The United States has led the international community's response to the poverty of the Afghan people, supplying more than 80 percent of total UN World Food Program (WFP) food aid. For FY 2001, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001, the United States provided nearly $184 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, including $99.8 million in food aid from USDA. On Oct. 4, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States is prepared to contribute an additional $320 million in humanitarian assistance to the region.

The United States is also playing a leading role in coordinating the international effort to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan and build a lasting partnership. On January 21, 2002, at the International Conference for Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan, the United States pledged $297 million as the initial U.S. contribution in this relief and recovery effort.

greedy americans..

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 24 2002,04:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States has led the international community's response to the poverty of the Afghan people, supplying more than 80 percent of total UN World Food Program (WFP) food aid.  For FY 2001, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001, the United States provided nearly $184 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, including $99.8 million in food aid from USDA.  On Oct. 4, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States is prepared to contribute an additional $320 million in humanitarian assistance to the region.

The United States is also playing a leading role in coordinating the international effort to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan and build a lasting partnership. On January 21, 2002, at the International Conference for Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan, the United States pledged $297 million as the initial U.S. contribution in this relief and recovery effort.

greedy americans..

<span id='postcolor'>

Are there oilfields in Afghanistan??

[Stealt Eagle 1]

No, but they probably just want an airbase or something like that. Like the one they have in Turkey

[Wobble 1]

The only real Oil/Afghanistan connection would be the chance of running a pipline from the caspeian(sp) sea across a part if it.. but thats more or loss just a convience thing.. not a necessity by any streatch.. would be nice to have, but is not a serious issue..

Airbase? why? who is nearby that we couldent attack with what we have now?

granted an airbase is an airbase and the more the merrier.. but the advantage gained from building and maintianing one in afghanistan isnt all that great..

[Stealt Eagle 1]

well, could be better to attack itty bitty Saddam, mr. wobble

[Wobble 1]

well, could be better to attack itty bitty Saddam, mr. wobble

look at a map.. see all that water near Iraq? ever hear of a supercarrier?  

we could park a carrier just off the coast and fly off of it.. seems like a great idea huh?.. yea thats what we did in the gulf war...

its a lot shorter flight from a carrier just off the coast then it is all the way from afghanistan.. plus even if we did want to use landbased AC.. we already have bases that we can use that are closer than afghanistan anyway (as seen during the gulf war aswell)

so oil is not an issue.. neither is bases..

gee.. there must be something else the evil empire is wanting in order to spend all this money on those people... perhaps we want their souls

[Stealt Eagle 1]

Well, dear Wobbly Bobbly, maybe they're just doing it to get an airbase, becoz they won't an airbase there, no discussion

[Wobble 1]

Well, dear Wobbly Bobbly, maybe they're just doing it to get an airbase, becoz they won't an airbase there, no discussion

posting drunk you are?

I dont really care when it comes down to it.. even oif the US is there for 100% US benifit.. so? countries act on their own interest, look out for whats best for them, and if the side efect is Afghanistan getting billions of US dollars in aid.. well good for them.

its funny.. any other country gives food or money to another country and its called "humanitarian aid"

but if the US gives foor or money to any other country.. its called "propaganda" or "flag waving"...  "they want something"

I figure.. fuck em.. dont do anything for anyone unless its for your benifit.. why bother helping anyone of they are just gonna act like your up to some sisnster master plan or something..  the US gets shithammered for everything it does.. and if it does nothing it gets shithammered for that.. so I say.. fuck it.. we're gonna get bitched at no matter what we do anyway.. so we might aswell just do stuff that benifits us, the rest of the world seems to see it that way anyway.. so well if yer always gonna be treated like your selfish and crude.. you might aswell reap the benifits that such a "lifestyle" produces..

the US gives money.. and its not enough, the US gives food and its propaganda..   fine.. fuck you..  how about we just take care of out shit and let everyone else handle theirs..  let the US drop out of NATO.. .. it would be interesting to see how NATO would do suddenly losing 1/4 of all its funding and 70+% of all the active combat men and vehicles it can call upon in an action..

people sure are quick to accuse the US of only acting on self intrest..  ya.. almost as quick as they are to ask it for favors or money..

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 24 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, could be better to attack itty bitty Saddam, mr. wobble

look at a map.. see all that water near Iraq? ever hear of a supercarrier?  

we could park a carrier just off the coast and fly off of it.. seems like a great idea huh?.. yea thats what we did in the gulf war...

its a lot shorter flight from a carrier just off the coast then it is all the way from afghanistan.. plus even if we did want to use landbased AC.. we already have bases that we can use that are closer than afghanistan anyway (as seen during the gulf war aswell)

so oil is not an issue.. neither is bases..

gee.. there must be something else the evil empire is wanting in order to spend all this money on those people...  perhaps we want their souls

<span id='postcolor'>

didnt take long to turn this into politics...

japan is/was the biggest giver of aid to foreign countries...not usa, doesnt matter tho.

last time it was what..world vs iraq?, you used airfields in saudi arabia, turkey..more, you cant take of with a b52 from a carrier.

in this coming war (it will come, for sure) usa will act alone, since usa is the agressor and will not be supported by un or nato...usa will for sure have what it takes to beat iraq..but carriers only wont do..a airfield in afganistan would come handy.

i doubt saudis will support a new war on iraq, i doubt turkey will either, but im not so sure about it..forget about iran, they wont even let you fly over there nation..they "axis of evil" you know

israel could support..sure, but would you fly over neutral countries to attack iraq?..its a act of war also...they have the right to shoot down your planes would they want so.

afganistan + airfield there..perhaps, perhaps...

dont forget that its a mess with politics and relations with the countries at the place...

btw..afganistan has oil far as i know, they just didnt have the money/will to exploit the recourses.

souls?..if you could make money of souls, i would not doubt it as a reason wobble...

[Wobble 1]

since usa is the agressor

what is this then? 4th of July?

[Wobble 1]

btw..afganistan has oil far as i know, they just didnt have the money/will to exploit the recourses

all the surveys done concluded that there is not sufficent amounts to warrant the cost of drilling operations there..

souls?..if you could make money of souls, i would not doubt it as a reason wobble...

well the taleban and al-queda can make weapons out of them.. but they are not the evil US so thats different.. somehow..

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 24 2002,11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">since usa is the agressor

what is this then? 4th of July?<span id='postcolor'>

of course..now you realise old Osama DIDNT do it!!!..it was SADDAM all the time!!!

darn..and after saddam..who did it?...its easy to run around and fuck the planet using the same excuses...easy for usa anyways...

but if you want to play that game...sure wobble, sure.

9-11 was not a act of agression (if we assume iraq did it), 10 years of santions with hundreds of thousands to millions of dead, mostly children..what is 9-11??..nothing, selfdefense?

i can tell you a story that fits well into this wobble..

do you know the word "vendetta"?

its used when you take out a bloody revenge...but it has a story behind it.

in italy (i think, not sure) there was a town with that name, some 400 citizens...

one day a woman got accused for stealing a egg, she denied doing so but was not believed, the one who has the eggs stolen took a chicken from the womans family...

the womans family (family A) went to the chicken thiefs family (family B) to get the chicken back, but they didnt get it and instead they beated up a member of family B.

fmaily B was upset and beated up members of family A..and after a while someone died..

more killings started, in revenge...in the end nobody was spared, women, children, men...other families got into the fight, in less than 2 months the towns habitants decreased from 400 to some 20, the rest fled the town or died.

you already had your share of killing for 9-11...somebody will revenge that, you know it...and you revenge back...you know that also.

does the dead from 9-11 come back when more die, more innocent get killed...and more, and more...for what?

what do you think you can win wobble?...you wont give up, neither will your enemies...you just decimate eachother and never find peace..

iraq IS at peace now, not at war, not agressors...they are struggling to survive under the heavy sanctions...usa WILL be the agressors when they attack, you are a fool if you cant see it..or a blind patriot, dont know which would be worse.