The sheep affinity thing is largely due to upbringing. We have tried exporting the live sheep to "needy" countries for similar, er, purposes to which we, er, like them for. The shock of the travel and new, unskilled owners with lots of pent up excitement is too much.
They just don't know how to treat a, er, sheep.
Sorry - I misread and quoted you. "Fair share" is a concept which can be defined a few ways, I agree. But, I still maintain the US isn't paying its fair share - the UN set the level (presumably the US agreed to it) at 0.7% of GNI - see 33.13 in this link:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter33.htm
or the stuff in italics in my first post. (notice how I'd be nothing without google).
(edit) OK, no BS now. I don't expect the US to pay 0.7%. I do think that the US paying the most is a mitigating factor. There are plenty of other issues with what is an appropriate amount, and we're not even scratching the surface. I purely and simply objected to Jorge's statement about "we are giving them so much aid for nothing", when that is a common theme for (generally speaking) all other countries providing substantial aid. It is just the way it works. You pay money over and get nothing for it, like some of your tax dollar.
It really is no different to objecting to the protestor on the street who is paid a benefit. If you actually believe he should get the benefit taken away, then to me that parallels with the giving and taking away of aid from a country which doesn't support the US. You then have a consistent viewpoint but one I can't agree with and struggle to understand.
On the subject of (mis)targeting of aid, I am guessing we would be 100% in agreement. Which is why noone really needs my damn sheep
