It's not an issue over why not sell them a specific item. It's an issue over selling weaponry to a country that commits ethnic cleansing, not to mention giving money to a foreign country when the US currently suffers a recession and budget deficits and increasing foreign debt.
Yeah, but generally people either don't realize the ethnic cleansing issue or just don't care because it's happening to middle easterners.
I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar in the media regarding GIVING 200 million to them for any reason while we're broke.
Don't get me wrong, I agree this is an all around bad idea. We shouldn't be helping them one bit right now. Especially with the stuff they are pulling right now, their last operation was exceptionally cruel. But I would think if the government is going to ignore their blatant disregard for palastinian lives then we might as well make some money off of it.
I suppose it's all about image, as you said though. We gotta look like we're friendly. Even if we are helping the Israelites. Though this is going to piss off that region even more. lol
glass em
I'd like to point out that in military aid alone, we are giving Israel somewhere around $400, per Israeli citizen, per year.
Pretty sure he just means Israelis.
Spoiler: show
hmm...
http://jontaplin.com/the-cost-of-empire/
Found this last night while looking for the military numbers overseas, interesting read so far, anyone got any opinions on the leaning/bias of it/the writer so I can tell better which way he goes there?
Cut taxes, increase military spending, give more to Israel, expand offshore oil drilling, continue two wars, keep guantanamo open...
No, it's very genuinely liberal, which is probably why it's good. ":3
Besides what was said already...
I am not sure what the mechanical difference between a short-range and long-range anti-missile defense system is. But there was a debate in my class this past semester stating a long-range anti-missile defense system was very costly and not very realiable from the tests shown. These were controlled tests too. The other issue was it would cause the opposition to make more missiles and even throw in some decoys and various other measures to counteract the anti-missiles. It may have been my professor who said it but it was something on the lines of trying to get a hole-in-one as the hole is moving towards you at such a speed, not to mention decoy holes.
Again, this was more towards long-range anti-missile defense system and if it was good for the U.S to be spending so much money on them and risk provoking other nations to stock up on their weapons. Reminds me of those cartoons where one guy pulls out a bigger weapon than the other and it keeps going back and forth.