How much is too much, if any?

[Noir]

Having done a bit of looking about I've been very surprised to see just how much the US sends to Israel is.

Given most on this site are pro-Israel but anti-big fed spending, I was wondering, how much is too much to support Israel 'in' the current economic times, or should they be supported as much as they need?


The source for US military aid to Israel during Fiscal Year 2009 is the Congressional Research Service’s “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” written by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, updated February 3, 2009. According to this report, by early February 2009, the US had already given Israel at least $2.55 billion ($2,500,000,000) in military aid for Fiscal Year 2009.

Sauce; http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

[Kathianne]

Having done a bit of looking about I've been very surprised to see just how much the US sends to Israel is.

Given most on this site are pro-Israel but anti-big fed spending, I was wondering, how much is too much to support Israel 'in' the current economic times, or should they be supported as much as they need?

[quote]The source for US military aid to Israel during Fiscal Year 2009 is the Congressional Research Service’s “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” written by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, updated February 3, 2009.

Sauce; http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

How much does the US give to others in region? How much does the rest of the Western World give to other regional interests?

[Noir]

How much does the US give to others in region? How much does the rest of the Western World give to other regional interests?

I have no idea, but do you have any thoughts on this spending? I mean, working 'in' education, do you think that spending is justified when it could be spent by the DoEd?

[BoogyMan]

Noir, you should educate yourself before trying to make a point that doesn't hold water. The US gives money to nations all over the world.

See the document below and how much more we give the middle east that Israel and then rethink the cheap shot about US support of Israel that you just tried to make.

Link to US Census PDF detailing US foreign grants and credits by country. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1261.pdf)

[Noir]

Noir, you should educate yourself before trying to make a point that doesn't hold water. The US gives money to nations all over the world.

See the document below and how much more we give the middle east that Israel and then rethink the cheap shot about US support of Israel that you just tried to make.

Link to US Census PDF detailing US foreign grants and credits by country. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1261.pdf)

The only reason I focused on Isreal is because it is militarily supported. Though I have no doubt that plenty is given to other countries.

But no matter, objectively, do you think it's a couple of billion a year well spent?

[Kathianne]

I have no idea, but do you have any thoughts on this spending? I mean, working 'in' education, do you think that spending is justified when it could be spent by the DoEd?

The DOEd should be abolished. I really wouldn't have a problem with cutting all foreign aid, to all. Then again, if you would check where Palestinians getting the money to buy their missiles, seems Europe too needs to rethink on aiding militaries.

[Gaffer]

Having done a bit of looking about I've been very surprised to see just how much the US sends to Israel is.

Given most on this site are pro-Israel but anti-big fed spending, I was wondering, how much is too much to support Israel 'in' the current economic times, or should they be supported as much as they need?



Sauce; http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

Compared to just the wasted money spent here for pork projects, that is a drop in the bucket. And it's not so much money that is given as equipment. Spare parts other hardware.

[Agnapostate]

A couple of billion? The Israeli government easily receives $3 billion a year from the U.S. government, with unconditional aid and unregulated expenditures being the norm. If there was more of a monetary disincentive for abandoning settlement freezes, then they would stop.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

The only reason I focused on Isreal is because it is militarily supported. Though I have no doubt that plenty is given to other countries.

But no matter, objectively, do you think it's a couple of billion a year well spent?
Without a doubt they are the only non Muslim county. all the others are terrorist states

[Noir]

The DOEd should be abolished. I really wouldn't have a problem with cutting all foreign aid, to all. Then again, if you would check where Palestinians getting the money to buy their missiles, seems Europe too needs to rethink on aiding militaries.

Okie dokes, fair play.

[Noir]

Without a doubt they are the only non Muslim county. all the others are terrorist states

Would you draw a limit, or because of it's *situation* is there no limit?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Would you draw a limit, or because of it's *situation* is there no limit?
in war there is no limit and America is at war with terrorist Muslims.we don't need to end up like some country's bowing down to Muslim Pigs

[Noir]

in war there is no limit and America is at war with terrorist Muslims.we don't need to end up like some country's bowing down to Muslim Pigs

Mkay, unlimited spending in an unwinable war.

[NightTrain]

Mkay, unlimited spending in an unwinable war.

Israel is an ally, the only friendly country in the region. It's important that we have them as an ally and continue to be so.

Much the same, Noir, as during WWII when we continued to support England against Hitler's Germany with blood and treasure - and a very large amount of military hardware, too.

I wouldn't say that the war is impossible to win; there is restraint and a reluctance to do what has to be done to win the war.

[Trigg]

Having done a bit of looking about I've been very surprised to see just how much the US sends to Israel is.

Given most on this site are pro-Israel but anti-big fed spending, I was wondering, how much is too much to support Israel 'in' the current economic times, or should they be supported as much as they need?



Sauce; http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

I tend to agree with Kathianne on this. The US is in a lot of trouble right now not only with the recession, but our roads and bridges are in desperate need of upgrades. We need to keep our money here.

I understand why we give money to Israel, since they're our only ally in that region. But 3 billion is outrageous.

[Noir]

Israel is an ally, the only friendly country in the region. It's important that we have them as an ally and continue to be so.

Much the same, Noir, as during WWII when we continued to support England against Hitler's Germany with blood and treasure - and a very large amount of military hardware, too.

I wouldn't say that the war is impossible to win; there is restraint and a reluctance to do what has to be done to win the war.

And would there be a limit to support for this ally?

I also think that there was a difference back in WW2 given it was an old fashioned war, unlike what is Halle ing 'in' the middle east.

[Agnapostate]

When an attack comes, it won't be directed against a small-town hillbilly like HogWash. It will be directed at metropolitan urban dwellers like me, even though I adamantly oppose the government's support of the Israeli government. Is the foundation of "alliance" really helpfully drawing violent insurgent attacks from extremists who sympathize with the Palestinian community?

[NightTrain]

And would there be a limit to support for this ally?

Nope.


I also think that there was a difference back in WW2 given it was an old fashioned war, unlike what is Halle ing 'in' the middle east.

I don't see the difference. They need our support and they are our ally and they are under constant attack.

[Noir]

Nope.

I don't see the difference. They need our support and they are our ally and they are under constant attack.

Fairplay, it's your tax dollars afterall.

And there's a big difference, take take were I live, we only have relative peace because the terrorist have stopped attacking, or atleast attack less.
The same is true of the middle east, only the terrorists can end it, no one else. Unlike say WW2, where the war could be brought to an end with the defeat of a nation state.

[NightTrain]

Fairplay, it's your tax dollars afterall.

And there's a big difference, take take were I live, we only have relative peace because the terrorist have stopped attacking, or atleast attack less.
The same is true of the middle east, only the terrorists can end it, no one else. Unlike say WW2, where the war could be brought to an end with the defeat of a nation state.

I guess here is where we disagree. We had no qualms with bombing the enemy so completely and without mercy with both conventional and nukes that it forced the entire populace to lay down arms. Firebombing helped in that regard, as well... back in WWII there was no half-stepping, we were out to crush them completely and utterly.

Unrestrained warfare is not practiced these days, which is why the terrorist attacks continue.

I know you'll say that the terrorists have no nation, I personally don't buy this - it's just plausible denability on the part of the host country. If a country is actively looking for these cells, they'll find them much more often than not.

However, let's just say that we tracked the latest bombing of a British subway to a group in Iran that was allowed to plot, train and scheme.

Iran gets 10% of the country paved, and told the next time any terrorists are tracked or even suspected of having any ties to Iran, they'll lose another 10%.

I guarantee Iran would suddenly root out and eliminate any groups with such notions, and the rules are suddenly crystal clear to all of those ME countries that to this day publicly profess ignorance as to how those terrorist camps went unnoticed while supporting them behind closed doors.

Harsh? Brutal? Yep. But the war is won. We're just unwilling to do what it takes.

[Noir]

I guess here is where we disagree. We had no qualms with bombing the enemy so completely and without mercy with both conventional and nukes that it forced the entire populace to lay down arms. Firebombing helped in that regard, as well... back in WWII there was no half-stepping, we were out to crush them completely and utterly.

Unrestrained warfare is not practiced these days, which is why the terrorist attacks continue.

I know you'll say that the terrorists have no nation, I personally don't buy this - it's just plausible denability on the part of the host country. If a country is actively looking for these cells, they'll find them much more often than not.

However, let's just say that we tracked the latest bombing of a British subway to a group in Iran that was allowed to plot, train and scheme.

Iran gets 10% of the country paved, and told the next time any terrorists are tracked or even suspected of having any ties to Iran, they'll lose another 10%.

I guarantee Iran would suddenly root out and eliminate any groups with such notions, and the rules are suddenly crystal clear to all of those ME countries that to this day publicly profess ignorance as to how those terrorist camps went unnoticed while supporting them behind closed doors.

Harsh? Brutal? Yep. But the war is won. We're just unwilling to do what it takes.

Is that what you'd of done in Northern Ireland? 'Paved' some % of the country everytime a terrorist link was found?

[NightTrain]

Hmmm... I don't think I've ever considered that conflict.

I'm not very knowledgeable about that, was the government tacitly allowing the IRA to continue operations?

[Noir]

Hmmm... I don't think I've ever considered that conflict.

I'm not very knowledgeable about that, was the government tacitly allowing the IRA to continue operations?

No, the attacks were against the "occupying" government and the people who accepted it. Not a million miles away from the Pali/Israel conflict.
However, there where areas of the country that harboured republican terrorists, would you of accepted 'paving' those areas?

[NightTrain]

That would be more of a Civil War type conflict, don't you think? I don't think those are apples and apples.

[Noir]

That would be more of a Civil War type conflict, don't you think? I don't think those are apples and apples.

Republicans wanted the Brits off their land to be part of their own state.
Palis want Israel off their land to be part if their own state.
0,o

[NightTrain]

Republicans wanted the Brits off their land to be part of their own state.
Palis want Israel off their land to be part if their own state.
0,o

I see. But the Government didn't sit by and allow them to freely plot, plan and execute their attacks on civilian targets, yes?

Did the IRA send women and children on suicide missions in crowded public transports or places?

I've never seen an Irish guy argue that the IRA are on an equal footing with islamic terrorists.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Republicans wanted the Brits off their land to be part of their own state.
Palis want Israel off their land to be part if their own state.
0,o
HUH? ISRAEL is not on the palis land it's the other way around

[SassyLady]

Republicans wanted the Brits off their land to be part of their own state.
Palis want Israel off their land to be part if their own state.
0,o

Why do you think the land belongs to the Palis?