Anybody that attempts to do this or even mention it in serious discussion will be labeled an anti-semite.

I really like Ron Paul's stance on it: we are broke, and there is evidence that our support prevents Israel from engaging in proper foreign policy (a viewpoint that even some in the Israeli political scene share).

Why not try pulling the funding?

This is one of the few things I agree with Ron Paul with, but like most of the things he says (even the ones I support him on), they simply will not work for many reasons. They just sound really good.

Whether people want to admit it or not, it would be political suicide to do so. The US' Jewish population is both rich and powerful. They are a big player both in government, as actual politicians, or as aides or counsel. As voters, they make up a large part of Florida voters. You lose Florida, and as a Presidential candidate, you lose a really big state. If an established politician voted for cutting funding, not only would he be labeled as an anti-semite, but he could also be labeled as weak on defense or even pro-Muslim or all manner of other labels.

You would NEED bi-partisan support to kill funding of Israel, but good luck getting any bi-partisan support for anything these days.

This is only true if you're ignorant enough to believe all Jews support the Zionist regime.

Yeah, not all Christians are insane wackos, and yet here we are.
Just because one view isn't help by everyone, it doesn't mean that a group still doesn't lean one way or another, and you better believe that Jews in the US hold extremely close ties to Israel.

Nope. Sorry, that's a stereotype. There are even Orthodox Jews IN Israel that disagree with the Zionist regime ON PRINCIPLE, stating that the Torah expressly forbids the chosen people to have a State in the sense that Israel exists now.

You can call it whatever you want, buddy, if it makes you sleep better at night.

Or YOU can do your research, instead of holding onto lazy paradigms about our world. I sleep just fine.

I guess ignorance is bliss then.

Yep, you seem happy.

90%+ of american jews are pro-israel.

The orthodox group you are talking about is a fringe group made up of a couple of dozen members. They are beyond insignificant.

And what of Israeli Jews? You would have us believe they all support Zionist foreign policy?

Just like all Americans support 100% the Obama Administration, yes?

Well, their current government is one of the most broad-based and popular in decades.

Most israelis are against ending the occupation for one reason. Ending the occupation of gaza and south lebanon led to a massive increase in violent attacks against israel. They see the same thing happening if they leave the west bank.

And it's up to them to deal with that. America can no longer afford to police the world.

You know who's coming to help us when we fold? NO ONE. And if we can't take care of ourselves, we're just done. Dead. And conquered, more than likely.

Americans lives are not worth less than Israeli lives. Period.

You're missing the point. The pentagon decided decades ago that, on the aggregate, it's cheaper to have two powerful allies at peace in the middle east. I happen to agree.

It has nothing to do with american lives being worth more than israeli lives. In fact, that's a silly statement being that we're speaking about military aid, not boots on the ground military assistance.

In fact, that's a silly statement being that we're speaking about military aid, not boots on the ground military assistance.

Who's missing the point now? A distinction hardly worth making, I assure you. If we were spending the equivalent to shore up own own infrastructure and social systems, you'd have a point. But we are not. Which indicates to those that are paying attention that this "mission of peace" is anything but. What you call allies are instead defensible beachheads for Corporate interests to launch their mineral rights campaigns from.

Israel is the most polarizing force in the ME, and is supported to aid in destabilizing the region to this end, making it easy for a corporate entity to swoop into these countries and buy up mineral rights for pennies on the petrodollar, then turn around and sell them for insane profits.

The fact that it would be political suicide to pull funding isn't a good excuse to not do it. It just shows how broke the system is. We are going to have to tear it down and rebuild a system governed by direct democracy, not representational. These "representatives" do not, and cannot adequately represent the will of the majority.

I agree with you.  This system is broke, but talk about "tearing it down" is foolish at best.

Its not their fault that the American people are short sighted and so easily swayed by 5 second sound bites. Our representatives, whether you want to admit it or not, do indeed mirror their constituents.  But too many people are foolish enough to think that just because you can voice your opinions, its the same thing as acting on those opinions and going out to vote.

There is a very good reason why the young people in this country always seem to get shafted by elected officials.  Its because the average spoiled American teen and twenty-something is more interested in their new iPod than to bother voting and getting involved in the system.  Conversely, seniors in this country are, for the most part, treated like royalty, because come hell or high water, they vote.  You want to see what other groups vote? Go see who gets the best treatment when it comes to politics.  

Is there too much money and corporate influence in politics? Oh, abso-freakin-lutely. But there are other ways that that could be fixed or curtailed that doesn't involve some silly idea of "tearing it down".

I'm always interested in other peoples opinions on how to fix everything. The whole issue of voting concerns me too, because we know that voting can easily be rigged. So it doesn't seem like voting can or will make a difference. It feels so helpless without a true revolution. What was that Thomas Jefferson quote regarding revolution every so often?

Stop the nonsense.

Its not gonna happen, and quite frankly the idea that you "need" a revolution to get things done is utter BS.

There was a political revolution in this country some ~30 years ago when the NeoCon movement swept the national stage and since then we've been living under their policies and we feel those repercussions all the time.

The notion that "the system is rigged" is both tiring and smells of defeat. Apathy is the establishment's biggest ally because it makes people think that "both parties are the same" or "its not gonna matter". I buy into that thinking, I'm sorry.

You stop with your delusional nonsense. How do you propose that things be fixed? Let me guess...through voting?

Isn't the fundamental support more from christian evangelicals than jews?

Bi-partisan is so easy because both of the parties want the same thing... Unfortunately they both wanna give more money to Israel. Lets get rid of these republicrats...

because then it will force israel to think for itself and act like civilised people

Watch out, they might sell even more of our military secrets to China to help make up for their lost revenue.

With "friends" like them, who needs enemies?

hardly... I highly doubt israel is capable of selling secrets it does not have nor is it willing to divulge information to a state that isn't supporting them

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/23/breaking-patriot-missiles-seized-sold-to-china-by-israel/

you mistook me for someone that cares about your conspiracy mind

Yeah, I don't see selling of US secrets as being a conspiracy... As an "ally" of ours, that just straight up treason.

you cant commit treason if you are not actually a part of the country

One of many definitions: "the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery."

that could mean LITERALLY anything illegal

Love people that get caught up in the minutia.

I agree with you, however, I don't think you'll get that out of most a-typical christian americans (which are a minority, so I don't know why their opinion matters so much on something that doesn't make sense).

Speaking for myself as a Christian, I think the US made a big mistake by trying to force most of the Jewish population back into Israel to try to fulfil a Biblical prophesy; the worst part is that they forced the Palestinians out of their own land to do it (which is why there is so much unrest in the area).

As much as I would want the funding pulled, since the leaders of the US made a precedent to give funding, I suspect it would be almost seen as an act of war to pull that money away from them.

For this, among other various reasons, Ron Paul will never be elected. He wants to do good things, but unfortunately those good things are very opposite of what the US government is slowly leaning towards.

EDIT: I should mention that when I'm talking about Israel, I'm talking about Israel State, not the nation.

[deleted]

The US and Britain did not allow Jews to emigrate after the war. The Zionists pushed (but not forced) Jews to immigrate to Israel.

I didn't mean that the US forced Jewish people into the State of Israel, BUT the US did push it as an agenda. Sorry, I should have worded myself a little better on that one.

No forcing happened.

super upboat for you.

[deleted]

Certainly not trying to downplay the atrocities committed in the holocaust, but Stalin and Mao might take offense to the largest genocide in human history comment.

Not quite.

Most of the Chinese who died under Mao (40 to 70 million) died from starvation due to incompetent applications of Communism. It wasn't an attempted genocide, as all the victims were Chinese. The intent wasn't to wipe out Chinese.

Stalin actually did attempt to commit genocide against the Ukranians, but even conservative estimates put it at about 10 million deaths, compared to the 12 million who died under the Holocaust. Most put the deaths closer to about 1-4 million. Those who died afterwards (some 1 - 30 million depends on how you count) in the Gulags and other offices of Stalins regime were not from genocide attempts, but from sheer ruthlessness at wiping out political "opponents" which including nearly everyone in Russia.

Neither of them even came close to what Hitler did per capita, on his attempted genocide of European Jews, he killed a full 2/3rds of the people he attempted to wipe out.

Wikipedia fwiw declares that Stalin murdered 7 million in Ukraine alone by deliberately creating famine. Sentiment in the Ukraine is that the event should be characterized as ethnic genocide.

it was 6 million European jews not 12. Victims

Jews 5.9 million

Soviet POWs 2–3 million

Ethnic Poles 1.8–2 million

Romani 220,000–1,500,000

Disabled 200,000–250,000

Freemasons 80,000

Slovenes 20,000–25,000

Homosexuals 5,000–15,000

Jehovah's Witnesses 2,500–5,000

where do you get this numbers.. 6 million jews.. a lot a scientist and historians say the numbers is way way less..

I mean have you really research it.. I know I read this same in school but is seems not be true.. so do you know if these numbers are true

Which comes out to about 12 million. That's what I meant.

"on his attempted genocide of European Jews" was what made me post.

I believe the Chinese deaths were because of a failed group farming project which Mao thought would help to industrialize the nation quicker. I may be wrong though, it's been a while since history class!

I think he was referring to how many civilians died in each respective country during WW2

Then it's not a genocide and it certainly doesn't count.

I don't know much about Chinese history, but you are way, way, way overstating the Stalin and gulag numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims

You're right. I'll amend it now.

even with the edit it's still absurd. considering that the Germans killing thirty million people gutted the USSR for a generation, Stalin pushing that to sixty million would have made Russia look like Upper Volta (without missiles) a generation early.

the claims that the 1937 and 1938 famines were acts of deliberate genocide is just as ridiculous, unless you want to extend that to include Russians and other ethnicities too. over a third of the population of (largely Russian) northern Kazakhstan died of starvation during that same period, for example. the reasons there was armed resistance uniquely in the Ukraine are because they were the major breadbasket of the country (and wanted to feed themselves first) and because Trotsky did cause mass intentional famines ten years earlier as part of his strategy against the Makhnovists (not a few people actually thought that he was back and lamented "if only Comrade Stalin knew of this, he would stop this!").

both Stalin's and Mao's death tolls were almost entirely because nobody in either government had no idea how to run a country and put ideology ahead of pragmatism, not any deliberate malice on their part. the idea that any of Hitler's contemporaries were doing anything close to what he did is largely just a fanciful tu quoque argument made by weirdos who want to rehabilitate fascism as being anything other than an ideological excuse to go a-viking.

I was wondering when someone was going to correct that. Not the largest, just the most well known.

Largest, racially motivated genocide rather than just crazy mass murder spree.

I'd still give that one to Leopold II

As would the American Indian tribes.

Or what's left of them, anyway.

Native American genocide wasn't bad enough?

Might we say that the holocaust was the most concentrated genocide in human history?

[deleted]

the ideas have been there for millenniums, but the founders which succeeded in creating the state are much more recent figures (hertzl's followers). all im saying is suggesting that jews were "forcing" jews into israel is simply not true.

nah, the aaliyahs extended substantially into the 19th century.

[deleted]

And the nazis ignored them

Incorrect. The average israeli jew is a refugee from the million+ arab jews ethnically cleansed from arab lands between 1935-1970

That's like a homeless guy that you give change to every morning attacking you because you decided not to give him money one day. It's not exactly a good reason to keep doing it.

[deleted]

He'd never admit it. Although it might slip out on purpose. It would be easier if he just started a committee advising me what I should be doing....

Nobody gave Israel nukes. Mossad snuck nuclear materials into Israel from the States, from Jewish laboratory owners. The US was not happy at all about Israel having them.

'snuck'

That's up for debate, last I checked.

Can I know more?

It's in the book Gideon's Spies, by Gordon Thomas. I will find the chapter tonight when I get back from work.

More like giving a homeless guy change so he stops idiot kids from slashing your tires.

...The US did not force the Jewish population into Israel, and it definitely was not fulfilling a Christian prophesy.

Much of the Christian support of the Israeli state does in fact come from Prophesy. The second coming can not occur until the Jews retake Palestine, according to many Christian traditions.

It wasn't a reason for the establishment of Israel, but it is why so many US fundies support Israel.

You sure about that? Why else would they go in, uproot hundreds of thousands of people and shove a population that hasn't had a presence there in a long, LONG time.

Yes, I am sure it was not the US that forced Jews into Isreal.

The UN did and he did not say "Christian prophesy".

I think the US made a big mistake by trying to force most of the Jewish population back into Israel to try to fulfil a Biblical prophesy

Biblical prophesy is assumed to be Christian. Are you happy? Do you see the connection and how he is saying "Christian prophesy"?

Saying the US did that is pretty different from the UN.

Actually it's a semi-shared prophesy between the Jews and Christians, as most of it is within the confines of the Old Testament. The reason that it's only semi-shared is because popular Christian theology has certain twists based on the New Testament, which Jewish people generally do not believe is canonical.

I also did not say anything about christianity. You're just assuming I did.

/facepalm

The UN did and he did not say "Christian prophesy".

I was being a grammar nazi!!

I suspect it would be almost seen as an act of war to pull that money away from them.

Oh that would be rich. Israel to US: "Pull our funding? It's war!" US to Israel: "No problem, come on over. Our military is only about 5,000 times larger than yours, uses the best of our technologies combined, and - oh yeah - isn't propped up artificially by foreign donations."

No its pumped up using an artificial currency... EndtheFed

We give Israel a bunch of money and military equipment without which their military would be much less impressive than it is. That's all I meant.

The sad thing is, I hate most Republicans, but I would rather him than anyone else half the time.

The man is insane.

less so than most of the other republican candidates

I think you need to educate yourself on the details of the Events of 1948 in that part of the world. There are many sides to the story, and historians generally can not agree on what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus

I know there are more sides, but if I gave all of them, it would no longer be my opinion.

The historians who make an attempt to be objective (and criticize both sides) basically all agree that about 5% of the palestinians were kicked out by the jews, and the rest fled because they didn't enjoy living in a war zone and, unlike the jews, had some place to go.

The English pushed Jews into Israel, not the US. The English, however, foresaw the mess, and bailed decades ago. The US picked up where they left off.

The english tried to keep jews from immigrating, because the arabs didn't like it. They bear some responsibility for the holocaust for this reason.

No forcing went on, and the Zionists rightfully bought most of the land, and won the rest in a war. No one disputes the Louisiana Purchase or the fact that the United States conquered Texas and Florida from Spain.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the Israeli right to the land question. America was conquered in a much more disgusting and wrong manner than the establishment of the State of Israel, yet Israel gets a lot more hatred. The Palestinian people were never asked to crowd into the territories, it was the surrounding Arab countries that refused to accept their own "brothers".

EDIT: I didn't even notice your comment about the "Act of War". The discontinuation would NEVER be considered an act of war, and I don't know why you would say something like that. In addition, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to stop helping (and being helped by) their ONLY ALLY in a hostile region of the world.

Honestly, I think Israel State may be the US's only "second gun" because they are pumping so much money into them. It may not turn into some sort of act of war, but it certainly wouldn't have a response like, "I guess you need your money somewhere else, no problem."

I don't think there is an issue over the bought land (however, some may criticize the tactics used to purchase it), but I think the bigger issue was that land was lost over war, as an aggressive expansion to fully reclaim some land to make a few Zionists happy.

I think the reason a lot of people don't like Israel (at least in these post world war times) is because everyone sort of sees them as the weaker brother to the US when it's very clear that they can hold their own.

And what do they need these extra billion dollars? It's not like the state is particularly hurting financially (at least not any worse than the US).

but I think the bigger issue was that land was lost over war, as an aggressive expansion to fully reclaim some land to make a few Zionists happy.

WTF that's wrong in like 8 different ways.

Can you imagine the kind of financial help the U.S. would need if Canada and Mexico regularly shot rockets in the U.S. and threatened the security of the country? If Mexico decided to invade, and all of Central America smuggled it illegal weapons? Our defense budget would be astronomically HIGHER than the already INSANE sum that it is, so I think it's difficult to question Israel's need for economic assistance.

Beard, I appreciate your diplomatic and reasonable response to my comment, though, as I was afraid that most of the comments would be people just shouting random things and making shitty arguments.

The Palestinian extremists shoot rockets into OCCUPIED territories, which are a violation of international law. Is it wrong? Yes. But the palestinains are rightfully upset that their land is being occupied, just many iraqis and afghanis are upset that their land are being occupied by the US.

Israel currently has a blockade on palestine that blocks food and medical supplie. What point is there to this other than to make the palestinians suffer?

Also, you stated the Zionists bought the land. No they didn't. The Jewish Legion conquered Palestine and led to the 1920 palestinian uprising. The Palestinians never consented to their land being taken. And since Israels creation, Israel has taken more and more land

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

That purchase was done by wealthy members of the ottoman empire. It does not represent the Palestinians. The land bought by the zionists could never be resold back to palestinians. The leaders of the Zionist movement had no intention of coexisting with arabs

The Palestinian extremists shoot rockets into OCCUPIED territories

The Israeli army has unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, yet every day there are rockets being fired from Gaza into Ashkelon, Ashdod and Yavne, which you cannot deny are not "occupied territories", but rightfully part of Israel.

Israel currently has a blockade on palestine that blocks food and medical supplie. What point is there to this other than to make the palestinians suffer?

Israel allows ALL humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, so long as it is willing to pass inspection by Israeli military first. Israel does its best, however, to prevent Hamas and other extremist groups and individuals from procuring weapons.

The Jewish Legion conquered Palestine and led to the 1920 palestinian uprising

The uprising was a completely unprecedented attack of the Arabs living in Palestine at the time, who brutally attacked Jews for no reason. The Haganah (Pre-Independence Israeli Military) was only founded AS A RESULT of the 1920 Palestinian riots, in order to PROTECT the Jewish residents of the land.

And Israel didn't provoke those attacks with forced demolitions of homes and secretive/inhumane detention of palestiniations.

Israel is just as guilty of killing innocent civilians as the palestinians extremists

I never said Israel was 100% innocent. I agree that these are horrible things that should have, and should be, prevented, but at the same time, you cannot say that the displacement of Bedouin people is the direct cause of Hamas suicide bombings and rocket attacks. I don't want to start an argument here, let's end this amicably.

Fair enough, but then I suppose it would be reasonable to hear both sides of the story of why everyone is shooting rockets at, and attacking Israel. My knowledge of those politics is rather limited, and most is based on me trying to get over-excited Zionists to shutup and read their Bibles since often times their Zionist agenda seems to sort of contradict their sacred word.

Also, no problem with being kind. There are enough trolls in social media, and I figure I don't need to add to the population. I know I'm not the most informed when it comes to politics, but keeping the thread in a relatively sane direction is always good. :)

Ok, Jimmie Level: rustled

and won the rest in a war. No one disputes the Louisiana Purchase or the fact that the United States conquered Texas and Florida from Spain.

Won the rest in a war of aggression. Fought after a world war against aggressor regimes also looking to expand their territory. A war in which the same people now doing the expanding were horribly abused. The aftermath of WWII was an agreement by the world that (open) wars for the purposes of territorial expansion could no longer be tolerated. Yes, this idealism didn't extend everywhere or manage to hold up 100% of the time but one would have expected the people who as a group got their shit kicked in the hardest be the last ones rolling fucking tanks into their own Rhineland.

As for equating it to the conquering of Texas etc. anyone who's read that history knows the young United States acted pretty horrendously. There were glorious even honorable moments as there are with most wars but, on the whole? Fuck those guys. It's "ok" now because nationalistic whitewashing of history happened along a long enough time frame that the details have been "forgotten". Welcome to the 21st century, that kind of shit doesn't (shouldn't) fly anymore.

America was conquered in a much more disgusting and wrong manner than the establishment of the State of Israel, yet Israel gets a lot more hatred

It sure was. An entire indigenous population was almost exterminated. Some Mexicans died too (I kid). But you know what? Those events happened during colonial, post-colonial and imperial phases of western history. That's not an excuse for conduct, that's historical context. Context is important. Again, the young state of Israel didn't get a free pass to employ historically shameful expansionist practices because "you did it first". A new state is expected by the global community to come into the world cognizant of the era it finds itself in and conduct itself accordingly. I don't get to own slaves if I can subdue some just because my great-great-great grandfather owned slaves.

The Palestinian people were never asked to crowd into the territories, it was the surrounding Arab countries that refused to accept their own "brothers".

Are you fucking kidding me? Crowd into the territories? As if the land was already carved up just like that before Israel the new state existed? As if they weren't peacefully spread out before the state existed?

And why should the surrounding nations have accepted a nation of refugees created overnight by expansionist military aggression? Because they're Arabs? They should have just ignored the socio-political and economic situation within their own states? Just bankrupted themselves absorbing sudden unplanned immigration because their new neighbor decided to unilaterally expand its borders? Come the fuck on.

Reread what you just wrote because what you basically said was, "if they didn't like it they should have just left and other countries should have taken them in". If I were to say "if Jews in Nazi territory didn't like the segregation and discrimination they should have just left (during the period they were free to do so obviously) and other countries with Jews should have taken them in. I mean no one asked them to stay in the land they identified with home" people would lose their goddamn minds.

Or we could just do the same to pakistan and iran

I think the scenario's are very different, there is a real possibility that Pakistan could be taken by Muslim extremists. Iran isn't funded by the US afaik (if they do then wtf) but they do fund opposition groups, not that they have any chance because Iran is relatively wealthy and well run ('well run' depends upon how you feel about defending yourself against the US).

They WERE funded by us directly - a brutal dictatorship that they overthrew, and took the weapons from.

Now, of course, Iran is funded by the US insistence on massive-scale use of fossil fuels, as well as intense opposition from the very people wo see them as a threat. The opposition to taxing carbon, or at least paying for the wars we are fighting to keep prices stable, also is a factor.

We need to maintain good relations with Pakistan to complete our withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and it would be a strategic mistake to cut that funding in general.

Pakistan was actually formed after 1930 as a homeland for the Muslims http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Pakistan_created

...of north India.

And East back when Bangladesh was East Pakistan.

Where's the homeland for the Atheists?

Antartica; enjoy!

Agreed. We do it to other countries. Why is Zionist Israel an exception?

Besides the obvious, that they own the US and run our government, I mean.

Brilliant argument.

Key words "proper foreign policy." same goes to the other side.

Well it is just a little strange to single out funding to Israel and not say Egypt, or Pakistan, or really any of the other $3 trillion in annual spending.

The money to Egypt is also a kind of annual payoff for the Camp David Accords. So in a way it's indirect aid to Israel.

Egypt and Israel are both paid because of the Camp David Accords. How is it aid to Israel when it goes to Egypt?

Egypts knows that agression against Israel will be punished by a cutoff of aid. Imagine if Egypt had engaged in some of the military adventures Israel has engaged in since 1979, such as bombing Iraq. Do you think they would still get aid? Israel did.

Not that I think Israel and Egypt are equivalent, but aid to Egypt clearly helps Israel.

But the reverse is the same too: If Israel attacks Egypt they lose their funding. That's one of the main reasons you haven't heard anything from Netanyahu regarding Egypt like what he says about Iran.

That's absolutely true, but the issue is regional stability. Israel has a lot more leeway than Egypt. Imagine if Egypt had started supplying the Libyan government with arms, or Syria.

(Egypt had its own problems to deal with so that wouldn't happen anyway, but if Mubarak had maintained his grip on power it would be in a position to meddle in other states.)

It's also a reflection of internal stability. If Egypt had a stronger economy like Israel the relative importance of foreign aid would not be so high.

Or vice versa

Rand Paul already has a bill on the floor to remove financial aid to Pakistan.

Rand Paul doesn't have the balls to cut off aid to Israel though.

because they are Jews, duh.

Israel gets more of it by far.

Those $s go to very different things.

nope, the money given to Israel and the money given to Pakistan are both for weapons.

Military aid

Yeah, but they go to way different types of weapons.

still weapons and still used against the weakest people in both societies, or are you really going to defend the Pakistani government?

I'm not defending anyone you psycho. I don't give a shit about any of this. I simply noticed this:

Those $s go to very different things.

then this:

nope, the money given to Israel and the money given to Pakistan are both for weapons.

And pointed out that they are still different things, because they purchase vastly different weapons.

I have no clue what you are talking about as I made no political statement whatsoever. Perhaps you suffer from a mental disorder or a reading comprehension issue?

psycho? mental disorder or reading comprehension issue?

Yeah, I should probably get a safe-house somewhere and lay low for a little while

you should provably get professional help.

Yeah, but Israel can afford to defend itself. Pakistan is more like bribery; are you suggesting that Israel will start attacking the US if we don't keep paying them?

Or continue attacking, if you believe the Israelis intentionally fired upon the USS Liberty.

I'm not making any claims whatsoever. I don't give a shit about any of this. I simply noticed this

Those $s go to very different things.

then this:

nope, the money given to Israel and the money given to Pakistan are both for weapons.

And pointed out that they are still different things, because they purchase vastly different weapons.

I'm not sure what your insane rambling rant was even meant to address to be honest.

I read your comment as 'go to different purposes', as someone else posted.

And it's not a rambling rant, asshole.

Implying that someone would "single out Israel" is not an argument. That ad hominem at best, and just a more elegant way of saying "I disagree with you, you must be an anti semite".

"Egypt did it as well" is not an argument either, that's more on the level of a kindergarten-debate.

The point is, Israel's been constantly occupying its neighbours because 2000 year old fairy tales told them so. Or whatever reason the right-wingers claim nowadays...that's giving them kind of a bad reputation. Is it really so hard to understand why some people don't want to support the completely baseless expansion policies with their tax dollars any more?

Implying that someone would "single out Israel" is not an argument.

How is that not the argument. OP mentions only Israel spending cuts of $3 billion dollars without any word of any other foreign aid or $3+ trillion in annual spending. I really don't see how you can argue that.

"Egypt did it as well"

Why is this in quotes? I did not say that. You are making things up, which is actually the level of a kindergarten-debate. It is a valid point as OP is not against ALL foreign aid, which would make sense... just Israel (again singling out).

Israel's been constantly occupying its neighbours because 2000 year old fairy tales

Well no, that is not true. That land has been the home of Jews for several thousands of years. There is ample amounts of evidence. It was previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which ended and split up. The UN divided up some of the the land and gave a small sliver to Israel. This was agreed upon internationally. Israel has fought and won several wars defending themselves. It is theirs. This isn't "right-winger" claims or whatever idiotic stuff you want to spit out. These are the facts.

During the Ottoman Empire people of different beliefs coexisted better together in that area.

The UN created Israel. It did not exist as country before that time. Israel fights tooth and nail that Palestine gets recognised as its own country.

Please tell me what these wars were where Israel defended themselves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel

The Jews, as a separate people, have been recognized for thousands of years. The palestinians, like virtually all arab countries, was invented by the european powers for their own ends.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out why one deserves a state more than the other.

invented by the european powers for their own ends.

Sure buddy.

Everyone should be allowed to feel a part of a whole. Plus, the conflicts in the middle-east are as bad as they are because of other nations meddling.

That's the whole point. The european powers put borders down and said "you're a country now". That's why there is so much ethnic violence in the middle east; there was no logical reasons for these states to become states.

And the "palestinian people" are a product of this. They never were a people or had a single ethnicity ever.

If you withdraw the funding to Israel they wont be able to fund their defence program... If they dont do that, then Israel will be attacked by the mindless Iranians and the Muslim communityies in the middle east... the death of milions of jews is not something the US can do with. Remember the Iranians want to wipe the jews off the face of this planet.... Please think about what you say!!

Nice try Shimon Peres.

Are you kidding me? Please research your facts before you insinuate the US would cause the next holocaust by stoping our money to Israel. While it is true that the US gives the most money to the Jewish state, private individuals have been sending money to Israel for DECADES and it is in the millions if not billions of dollars. (It does not have to be public knowledge as it is thought of as a religious donation). Also Israel has the most nukes of any country in the region, a hawkish government who is not afraid to use its military and a militeristic element of the population who believes that land was actually promised a thousand years ago but some man in the sky that must be reclaimed.

Also The Iranians talk a big game they would never attack Israel because they know Israel alone could wipe them out.

Yea, we should assume that the same people who forced their own children to run over landmines in their last war wouldn't sacrifice their own citizens for their religious hysteria!

I think Israel will be fine, they do have the only nukes in the region after all, for now anyway.

Haha, Israel can afford its own defense. And perhaps paying for it themselves would make them think more before acting provocatively and belligerently. They do so knowing they have a big brother who will have to come save them.

Israelis are generally white, where as the rest of those countries have Arab people, which are "terrorists" according to popular US opinion.

The average israeli jew is actually descended from the arab jews who were ethnically cleansed from arab countries between 1935-1970.

I'm not familiar with this, would you link me some reading material so I can learn about this?

sure thing.

Here's a good starting point. http://jcpa.org/article/the-forgotten-narrative-jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries/

Antisemite: someone the jews don’t like.

Right, because you were not banned from several subreddits for saying, what was that again?, "Obama is just a kike puppet nigger monkey".

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/d1ulj/barack_obama_personally_warned_turkish_prime/c0wz2e6

http://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/bwpn1/obama_has_sent_a_letter_to_palestinian_president/c0oyet4

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ajjul/ben_stein_calls_ron_paul_antisemitic_for/c0hwdno

You are fantasizing. I only said that once on /r/zionist-occupied-Palestine, and it was in jest…

But again, you are a true blue jew who believe that all goys are out to get them.

Heh. We, goys, happen to have a life.

Someone a Jew doesn't like. There doesn't need to be agreement. It's been overused so much it is just a meaningless slur.

Antisemitism is actually not limited to Jews. Anyone who faces discrimination that comes from a Semitic language background can be a victim of Antisemitism; this includes several groups.

I'm anti-semitism.

A clarification on this, since I see it used a lot. It's wrong

• Semite: Someone from Semitic background.
• Antisemite: A term coined by a 19th century German league to describe their beliefs that Jews must be discriminated against.

That sounds like something that an anti-Semite would say!

Didn't you know that only Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

This would be argued against and have you labeled an anti-Semite. The modern usage of the word was used to mean anti-Jew and that's how it's commonly used. It's also good for branding purposes if your group has a specific word to denote people who are against your group. It's a lot more powerful than saying anti-Jew.

TIL: I am a Jew hater. Thanks /r/conspiracy!

Question - why Israel instead of Pakistan (which receives slightly more aid than Israel)? Or Egypt? Or Colombia or Jordan or Russia? Maybe the reason people call anti-semitism on threads like this is because it is awfully suspicious to single out only Israel when there are numerous other countries that receive substantial foreign aid packages despite not being seriously under-developed.

With that said, NASA probably is a better use of funds than some of these foreign aid programs. Frankly though, we waste significantly more money on domestic programs that have even less benefit which I would rather divert funding from.

Israel can afford to defend itself. Pakistan is more like bribery; are you suggesting that Israel will start attacking the US if we don't keep paying them?

Israel can't afford to defend itself without US aid. It's not a very rich country.

Wah wah wah. I do believe its GDP per capita is up there with most Western nations. If it has a problem with money it should probably stop subsidizing the inactivity and economic alienation of its sizable population of zealots.

Nobody's "wah wah wah", you said they can afford to defend themselves, and they can't without aid. Also, if you cut their defence funding, you lost a lot of the technological and biomedical technologies that they provide to the rest of the world.

Then you wouldn't have Kinect and wouldn't be able to dance as Han Solo :(

Israel can afford to defend themselves, full stop. If not, 3 billion is not going to do the trick. Besides, Israel was fully capable of starting wars with neighbors before we started giving them money; in fact I do believe the 3 billion had something to do with getting them to stop.

lost

So now we're funding the private industry of Israel with our three billion? If Israel invents something marketable, it doesn't need the US to pay it money to sell it.

Then you wouldn't have Kinect and wouldn't be able to dance as Han Solo :(

Oh, we wouldn't have the Kinect, a bit of consumer electronics? Well, 3 billion a year would have funded a Space Interferometry Mission telescope every year. I'd rather have that.

No, Israel needs the US to give it Iron Domes to protect itself from rocket attacks so its citizens can go to work to market technologies (what have Pakistan and Egypt given?) like:

(partial list) - Nobel Prizes: Medicine, Chemistry, Economics, Physics, Literature

• Medical Research: biological pacemaker; DNA nana-computer detects cancer cells – then releases combating drugs; stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; pill-camera, tiny, examines small intestine; first full computerized diagnostic instrument for breast cancer detection; development of heart pump synchronization device

• Pharmaceutical Research: treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease

• Microsoft and Cisco companies – only R&D facilities outside the US are in Israel

• Microsoft-Windows operating system - designed in Israel

• Pentium Microprocessor -designed and produced in Israel

• Voice mail – developed in Israel

• Aircraft Security System – developed in Israel

• University degrees, highest % of workers, per capita

• Museums, zoos, orchestras, home computers – highest %, per capita

• Only country in the world – more trees at start of 21st Century than at the 20th

Also, the Kinect/Han Solo/:( should've clued you in on the joke. Maybe NASA can build you a $3 000 000 000 sarcasm detector. I'd rather you have that.

I don't really care how many Nobelists Israel has. They'd find work and discoveries whether or not they were in Israel and whether or not the US paid Israel 3 billion.

Howsabout Israel gives back the lands it stole and stops building settlements illegally so it wouldn't NEED such extensive defense spending?

Your joke wasn't funny, and I didn't really see much indication of wit on your end. Sarcasm or not, I'd rather spend 3 billion on US science achievements instead of Israeli belligerence.

I also hate the illegal settlements, and think they should stop building them. Many Israelis feel the same way. I also don't believe Jews came in the night and "stole" the land from the Palestinians. I think it was given to them by England/UN.

I'm sorry I cannot indicate my wit (or lack thereof) to your liking. You're so cool and smart and have everything figured out. You should probably run for office. You're probably very handsome as well.

I know you don't like me, but I'm not actually arguing with you, except about a country's finances...I didn't make any moral argument in support of Israel. So...now you're in a one-sided argument about how much you hate those land-stealing Jews. Which there are plenty of places to vent your anger...

...so I guess you're not that cool and smart after all...maybe not so handsome either.

The exchange of technology and intelligence between the US and Israel is very beneficial to the US as well. Most foreign aid is bribes when it comes down to it.

The US does not need Israel. Do we have to pay all our first world allies to be friends with us? The Brits and other Commonwealth nations don't need to be paid to work closely with us. Israel- ever the special case. There's nothing Israel offers us that would be otherwise unavailable to us except for the things we need to help Israel's agenda in the Middle East.

And Egypt?

A much poorer country.

Egypt: 525 billion GDP

Israel: 238 billion GDP

Um, I believe the relevant metric there is per capita.

No one thinks that. Israel is constantly dealing with a cold war with its neighbors.

Israel is constantly starting shit with its neighbors and its own internally displaced refugees.

Quite frankly, I say cut all aid.

Maybe not to ZERO, because I do believe that some money spent on supporting out allies is cheaper than fighting our enemies, but still cut funding for all countries.

But here's the kicker.

Far as I know, Israel is the only country that time and again sells our military secrets to countries like China, and goes against our best wishes when it comes to dealing with international situations. If they want to go all rogue on us and start WW3 in the middle east, then that's on them, but unfortunately, every time that Israel does something, WE are automatically implicated as accomplices. And I for one am sick of it.

Oh, but lets be clear here. You mention Egypt, Columbia, Jordan and Russia.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/foreignad.png

Russia doesn't even make this list and I've never heard of us giving them money.
Egypt, Jordan and Columbia COMBINED don't get as much as Israel gets. Egypt gets a little more than HALF of what Israel gets.

[deleted]

to be fair he said us putting troops in Saudi Arabia too. Lets bring everyone home to defend our country and our freedoms.... not these desert wastes in the Middle East.

[deleted]

which was after 9/11 but we still have a Navy base there. Also this...

Your link doesn't work for me - I get an error about the site not allow hot linking. According to USAID here are the total receipts of foreign air/military assistance for each country in 2010 (in millions):

Pakistan: 2,853.5 Israel: 2,835.8 Egypt: 1,698.9 Colombia: 863.7 Jordan: 767.1 Russia: 505.9

So Egypt, Jordan and Colombia combined do get more than Israel, and Egypt gets more than half of what Israel does. Also interesting to note the West Bank/Gaza received 693.1 million, a full 10% of their GDP.

"is cheaper than fighting our enemies"

what enemies do you have.. or your country and why are they your enemies?

You're kidding right?

Obviously this is a loaded question, so why not just come forward and say that you really want to say?

It´s an honest question.. I do not understand your point of view.. Why are they your enemies.. and who are your enemies..

I have heard the point of view that Nato/israel is killing, robbing, enslave-ing people over there..

I do not see any sane logic in that.. this is really an honest question.. I hope you can give me insight into your logic.. I hope they are sane.

Do you not follow the news? Helll, do you not read history? I don't get how folks don't know what the deal is.

What Israel has done, and continues to do to the Palestinians is on the level of Apartheid in South Africa.  And the Palestinians being Muslims, all the nations in that region hate Israel, and because of our close ties to Israel, they hate us as well.  Any time Israel does something to instigate their neighbors, we are typically the ones that are indirectly blamed for their actions.

"I follow the news. I read history."

"Any time Israel does something to instigate their neighbors, we are typically the ones that are indirectly blamed for their actions."

USA is directly to blame for the wars they in.. they are not indirectly to blame for killing, robbing and terrorize the citizen of the world.

Is there a language barrier here?  Clearly I am not following your line of thinking. You seem to be trying to make a point and you're either being coy or something is getting lost in the translation.

Led Zeppelin called it communication breakdown..

I do not understand why you think they are your enemies.. the would love to like you if you would stop terrorize and kill them..

why do you see them as enemies.. you cant blame the 3 billion$ you give israel and not blame the 700 billlion $ (the real number is larger) the taxpayers pay for all these murders and domination over others.

Why do you call them enemies if they have never attacked your country or why do you not blame the USA.. Israel is just a tool for the elite.. the main millitary powers is in the hands of the taxpayers and voters of america

Holy crap, stop using pronouns!

You keep on saying "they" and "them" and you don't explain who THEY are. Are you talking about Israel? Are you talking about the rest of the world? Are you talking about the US itself?

Goddamn it. Its like trying to decipher some coded message when I KNOW you have an agenda you want to spread, but you're not willing to lay it all out on the table.

I have an agenda..? I am trying to ask you really simple question.. but you seem to be unable to answer them..

Who are your enemies? what the first question.. why are they your enemies.. why do you blame israel when USA is bombing and killing the hole middle east..?

Who are your enemies and why do you see them that way if they have never attack your country?

This is really simple questions.!

Who are Americas enemies?

That is a loaded question. If you want to follow the media and certain groups in this country, the "easy" answer is "all those Muslims", but that's bullshit because the only reason many Muslim nations don't like us is because we as a country have meddled into their affairs for decades now. And one of the reasons that is that we blindly support Israel even when they instigate their Muslim neighbors. So even though Israel is supposedly an "ally" of ours, they get us into trouble with the very nations that have the single most important resources to our prosperity. Also Israel, even though again, they are supposed an "ally" has been caught stealing our military secrets and selling them to the Chinese. For that alone, we should cut funding to Israel. Not only would cutting financial ties to them save us a tiny amount of money, but it would also improve the US' standing in much of the Arab world.

If makes most economic sense, to be friendly with the people that control a vitally important natural resource, than it does to see them as enemies.

this is a real sick world view but thinks for sharing..

I think we see the world in not the same way..

Do you think it was the osamabindladen and his crew that blow up the three towers?

What's "sick" about it? The fact that its true? You've been dragging this topic on now for way too many replies. Explain yourself.

And don't give me this shit that it was some conspiracy that knocked down the towers. I don't wanna hear that stupidity because that is all it is. Next you are going to say that its some green space aliens that did it. Or it was the big bad gob'ment that was to blame. Conspiracy theorists have something wrong with their brains. They want to explain away some tragic event by trying to say that a whole huge mess of people were involved or some other crazy explanation. Except that its totally wrong. Sometimes shit just happens.

If im wrong.. it is ok.. im only trying to see if your world view is based on logic.. do you belive the buildings were blown down by bombs.. WTC7 did not get hit by any plane like you know.. so is there any proof for your claims that binladen&crew did this..? I dont understand your conspiracy theory.. so honestly.. do you know of any proofs.. I want to be educated.

how did those muslims get the powers to put the bombs in the secure buildings?? This does not make sense.. so please help me..

on a side note.. but important one.. did you know it was the elite which blew the three towers.. not osamabinladen..

Great point. It's incredible how the OP is so uninformed about where the US wastes its money.

Dead Federal Employees Paid $120 Million Annually

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2011/09/27/dead-federal-employees-paid-120-annually-opm-reports.htm

[deleted]

Right, because Pakistan harboring Osama Bin Laden, permitting the Taliban to operate against US forces in their country, and selling nuclear technology to North Korea is no big deal. We send money to plenty of shitty countries and you are kidding yourself if you think Israel is the worst.

nah, i'm with him, i think Israel is the worst.

Israel used WP as a smoke agent, not in its weaponized form, in Gaza.

Whereas, American and coalition forces have used weaponized WP in afghanistan and iraq.

If you think Pakistan isn't occupying an indigenous people without their consent, then you've never heard of the Baluch people. Who, unlike the Palestinians, had a history before the creation of the state of pakistan.

While we're there, the accusation of "apartheid" is pretty sickening to those who actually saw apartheid, in its real form, in south africa. And again, if you think Russia and Pakistan aren't sending spies into other countries to kill diplomats and politicians (something israel hasn't done, unless you consider arms dealers to be politicians), then you're just not paying attention.

TL;DR: your comment is the epitome of the argument that criticism of israel is based upon double standards, inappropriate and emotionally manipulative use of provocative phrasing, and ignorance.

[deleted]

The term "Palestine" never referred to a state, people, ethnicity, language, culture, etc, etc, etc before the creation of Israel (and it wasn't in widespread use, even in the Middle East, until after the 1967 war).

In fact, many Arab sources referred to the Jews as Palestinians before the creation of Israel.

With the debatable exception of Egypt, Morrocco, and the UAE, all the Arab states were drawn up on an arbitrary basis by the European colonial powers for their own ends. There was no Palestinian people, just as there were no Iraqi, or Jordanian people.

[deleted]

Incorrect. The average Israeli Jew is descended from Arab Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab countries between 1925-1970. Before the Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union arrived in the 1970's, they numbered about 70% of the Jewish population of Israel. In addition, while the exact numbers are debated, it is certain that a significant percentage of the "Palestinian" population is descended from those who lived outside of what is now Israel and the occupied territories prior to 1948. Look at the leaders of the Palestinian movement. Arafat was born in Cairo. Edward Said spent most of his childhood in Egypt and was half Egyptian. The large Palestinian clans which dominated pre-zionist politics can mostly trace their histories back to outside of Palestine in the last few centuries. Non-palestinian nisbat (arabic name modifiers which imply a familial origin) are extremely common amongst palestinians. And the area has been conquered dozens of times in the past few hundred years. It has also been subject to waves of mass immigration/emigration, natural disasters, and massacres of the majority of the population. It's disingenuous to assume that the palestinians are "indigenous" and the jews are not.

Why all your pity for the Arabs uprooted by violence, but disdain and denial about the greater number of Jews uprooted from arab lands by violence?

I believe my original comment answers that question quite well.

And that's not to say that I don't think Israel deserves criticism for a many of its actions. But there's no difference between criticism and hatred when the criticism is based upon lies or double standards.

While I hail your command of the facts and recognize that you're responding to another post, I still think this exemplifies the main problem with "defense of Israel" posts, which is that you end up accusing your opponent of hate because he criticized based on information you disagree with. Frankly, I think if the term anti-semite (and the accusations of hate that come with it) were no longer used in the U.S., criticism of Israel would drop off a cliff. In other words, I would theorize that the double-standards you discuss exist because no one really cares to defend Russia or Pakistan on any but the most "pragmatic" (in the worst bastardization of the word) terms.

I never said they were an anti-semite. But I do think that much of the "criticism" towards Israel is based on blind hatred. Of Israel, not of Jews.

That being said, I think that accusations that "those who criticize israel get accused of being anti-semitic" mainly exists within the head of critics of israel. I pay close attention to this debate, and it's very rare that I see those who defend israel accuse their critics of anti-semitism.

Because you'll create a reason to dump on Israel regardless of facts presented.

/end of discussion.

so Mubark the former leader of Egypt didn't oppress he's people for 30 years right? and the support USA gives Saudi Arabia is because they are such good humanitarians.

those other countries have not been systematically oppressing an indigenous population for over 50 years

clearly you know so much about colombian politics, then.

Cut ALL the foriegn aid!!!! Relevant.

BTW, 'single out Israel' because of its apartheid colonialist policies towards the natives of Palestine, using the USA's name and money in doing so.

BTW, 'single out Pakistan' because of its support for the Taliban and selling nuclear technology to North Korea.

TIL reddit doesn't know what apartheid means

[deleted]

It's never good to be the first at doing anything...think i'll wait till the first wave is killed off.

The first one doing something is not the bravest thing. Being the second one joining in with the first one is more brave.

Haha I like your style.

Why would Christians be calling people anti-semites in this situation? Or are you just trying to bring /r/atheism into this discussion?

It's a prophecy that the Jews will return to Israel before the second coming of Christ.

Actually, there is a whole group of Christians that zealously support Israel and everything they do. I don't completely get the strange connection there, but they make pilgrimages to Israel to build houses and everything.

Because it's a handy weapon to support their attacks.

How about we stop giving any to EVERYONE and give it to NASA? I like that even better. The world doesn't want us as their policeman so fuck it. Let's be the United States of Space

The money we send to Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Egypt etc. pays for a stable democracy in the Middle East, dozens of military base locations and diplomatic relations with unstable governments. To the US it is worth the money.

"stable democracy" is a euphemism for supporting US friendly military dictators. It has nothing to do with promoting democracy.

I agree. It's funny though because Israel (understandably) is one of the (or the) most pro-American countries in the entire world.

So we accept nuclear winter in exchange for a small, highly dependant colony on Mars? I am not saying sending money to Israel is a good strategy. But every sane nation must use every lever available to prevent all out nuclear or biological war. Insularity no longer exists, there are no islands or fortresses anymore.

Or without foreign meddling these countries realize that they have to learn to live together and after some trials and setbacks they finally do.

Throwing money at this problem doesn't solve anything. People bitch about the US being too involved in everyone else's business. We are vilified if we go into a war. We are vilified if we stay out of wars. We are vilified if we enter wars "late". I know my opinion isn't popular but I say we leave the rest of the world alone and don't do shit unless someone directly starts shit with us. Use our resources for space exploration.

The most insidious straw man argument in this whole conflict.

Right. So since when we should stop doing what we feel is right because someone else label us? There has to be a sea change on US foreign policy. Bribing countries to be our 'friends' is not a sound strategy, especially when their stance is likely to reverse when there is no more money to give them.

I'm Jewish, and I am not opposed to this idea. Israel is a booming country on its own and while I'm sure the money helps, they can probably manage without it. NASA is the god damn future of our race.

Upvote for most constructive comment yet.

Nah, I think it keeps with the Judeo-Christian scripture. According to Revelations, 144,000 Jews from the tribes of Israel are going to be taken up to meet Jesus in the sky and are the only ones who get to heaven. Simply take the most orthodox Christians and Jews, and send them on a one-way trip into space! Problem solved!

Any time an Israel-related thread comes up, this comment (or a similar one) is made long before any mention of antisemitism. You are trying to make it seem like if you hadn't said this, antisemitism accusations would be flying around, when this is not the case. I'm not sure what this logic is called, but it's something. Can anyone help me out on the term for what he's doing here?

It's called a straw man, and you're right. Anti-zionists love to insist that criticism of israel is silenced by accusations of anti-semitism...all while nobody calls them anti-semitic.

Thanks, I knew it was something!

[deleted]

I haven't seen much rampant anti-semitism.

Aid to israel (and egypt) is a condition of the peace treaty between those two countries. In my opinion, it's paid off in the long term.

and killed.

Some of the comments on this thread aren't helping matters.

The reason why America give Israel so much money is for help with intelligence. Israel Has discovered more terrorist cells in the U.S. and warned of constant attacks that were prevented due to Israel intelligence. We also give Israel money so we have an ally close enough to the Muslim arab states incase the plan to attack the U.S. as there leaders have proclaimed. I do not agree with many thing Israel has done but do not be so quick to judge.

Edit: I'm going to have to defend this so hard so I almost did not post it. Someone please post a .gif relating to r/politics

I'd like a source on the first part.

As for the second, yes, this is partly true. It also probably has to do with oil, some holdover Cold War mentality, and the fact that it is also the Christian holy land. Who really knows. Regardless, we do or have done the same thing in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

truly a thought process fit for this sub reddit

Its fucking true and you know it.

its not because I live in reality, there are a great many anti semites in the world who cover their actions and beliefs by saying zionist or Israeli instead of Jew

What a handy argument to have.

Touche'.

it does not apply to all the instances but if you can't see that there is a portion of the population that does this then you just don't want to see it

That's funny. I have never met a single anti-semite in my entire life... but apparently they are EVERYWHERE.

It's just a bullshit argument to throw out against anyone who opposes the evil of the Israeli Zionists. And they are evil.

Having said that, I have nothing against the Jewish people. Not a single thing, unless they are... wait for it... Militaristic Zionists.

do you really know what zionist means? and if you have never met an anti-semite I must know where you are from so I can visit

I'm from California and I've never met an anti-semite who didn't also hate pretty much every race and were just generally very hateful people, and the Jews seemed to be pretty far down their list too.

Also, can you guys stop auto-downvoting anything this guy says? It just makes you seem petty, childish, and knee-jerky to any view that goes against your own.

thank you truestoryrealtalk, I live in the South and that may be why I see anti-semtism to such an extent, but I also encountered it when I studied in Europe and the Middle East. It seems to be very wide spread especially in Arab countries although most will adamantly deny this. I am caught in a catch 22: people will and do use hate for Israel and Zionism as a shield for their antisemitism but if I call them out they say that everyone says your antisemitic for disagreeing with Israel but on the other hand those people make people like me suspicious of most anti Israel people because so many are really just anti jew which makes it harder to accept their opinions (does this make sense)

This is the same reason why there should be self-policing amongst all groups and cultures. If someone has done something evil regardless of their affiliation they should be handed over for justice or ostracized. We saw an example of this in the US with Jerry Sandusky. This man was evil and the fact that he was hidden and his deeds covered up by people trying to protect their own was something that cultures around the world do regularly. Police brutality in the US falls in the same category IMO. I agree people use anti-Israel as a shield of anti-semitism but quickly jumping the gun on both sides of the argument prevent intellectual conversation.

but now its chicken or egg, how can I know i'm not listening to a stormfront poster while he tells me about the Jewish media conspiracy, when do I get to finally call racist?

When you research and dispute the facts for yourself. There is a point when theories based on untruths becomes obvious. When convenient explanations become more complex and start to repeat things that didn't happen. However open dismissal invites wearing blinders similar to those in Pennsylvania when the first Sandusky victim came forward they actually had to put him in protective custody because of the community backlash. And he was the victim!!!

but so many of these claims are nonsensical, If Israel does something its bad, if something happens to Israel its good, these people want all the negative to be placed on Israels shoulders and they don't require any research to start foaming at the mouth and screaming false flag

I hate to be cliche but there is a reason it is called the road less traveled.

point taken

I gather there are various interpretations of Zionist. I mean the part of Zionism that purports superiority and exceptionalism of Israel. Texas. I have never met anyone that made it apparent they are anti-Semitic. They might have been, I just was never shown it. I'm all for Jews but not when they act the way Israel has. I honestly don't see the two as the same thing. From what I gather, some Jewish fundamentalists feel the same way.

You are as stubbornly close minded as those you point fingers at.

This posting has nothing to to do with anti semitism but about transferring funding from a system that is doing reasonably well in its own, to a other system that could use the help. Not only for America's well being, but NASA does benifit people around the world.

Why don't you cool it with your anti goyum tint?

I have never heard a jew actually refer to a non jew as goyum, only redditors seem to do that. Have I said anything that is anti anyone? no. I simply hate it when people say non factual statements. I don't disagree that we should take some funds from foreign aid and move it towards NASA but I responding to this stupid sentiment that people can't criticize Israel for fear of being called an antisemite. Which was exactly what the original post I commented on said and is incorrect. Just a shed some light on my "closed mindedness" all I have said here is that people who are antisemitic tend to cover it by saying zionist or Israel, explain how this is anti goyum as you say

The people who are pro-dropping bombs on arabs are anti Semites too , they speak a semitic language

The people who are pro-dropping bombs on arabs are anti Semites too...

They're called 'Jews' -- Zionist Jews if you want to split hairs.

You dont have to be jewish to be zionist! Look at bush and all the so called Christians

And international banker, that's my personal favorite.

I'm for cutting monetary aid to ALL the countries we're currently supporting, not just Israel.

Also, as Foul bastard said, "It's fucking true, and you know it".

How about we end the wars and use all that money to fund NASA?

Somebody is in a hurry to declare war on the Martians.

which would make a lot more fucking sense than declaring war on your fellow earthlings.

We shall then henceforth label Reddit user "aletoledo" as an intergalactic terrorist.

Mwuahaha. See you in Guantanamo!

Giving a few billion to Israel and Egypt to maintain some semblance peace in the region is a lot cheaper than getting dragged into a regional war. However, if the US really wanted to use its aide dollars more effectively, it would tie its payments to achieving milestones and peace initiatives. This includes providing aide to the Palestinians as well.

Actually 0 aid goes to palestinians from the military aid that is sent to Israel. And on top of that, israel is not forced to declare what it spends americas money on, so money can go towards building settlements inside Palestinian territories -- in violation of international law.

Given the fungible nature of money, it would seem more apt to say, "All taxpaying Americans fund the Israeli settlement actions that are in violation of international law."

Which international law?

Anti-zionists always have trouble with the details.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law

The UN general assembly (a body heavily biased against Israel, as the muslim nations easily outvote israel) and related organizations say it's illegal. Several eminent, non-jewish legal scholars disagree.

Actually no, 75% of the aid has to be spent on american equipment, and the rest must go towards munitions and weapons. None goes towards building settlements.

Not that it matters, because there haven't been any new settlements constructed in years. You are speaking about construction within existing settlements.

Why do we have to get dragged in? Not trying to be a smartass, just curious if there's a reason we act like the world police.

I can explain to you why the US acts as the policeman. It is to provide cover for British and European Royalty and (largely Jewish) Bankers. If the US goes into country X and blows up shit and kills thousands of people, the country's people will quite rightly hate us, but they do not see the real shotcallers who are behind the invasion. Of course, there are US people who are in on the game too (the 1%), but the vast majority of the controlers are Old World types.

achieving milestones and peace initiatives

What on earth makes you believe they ever wanted that?

the palestinian leadership currently has a financial incentive to not make peace. Their hands are directly in the aid money given to their people.

if we stop giving aid who is going to come to America to engage us in a war? No one. They can engage us because we keep troops all over the middle east... Israel and Egypt wanna fight, fine... Who cares?!?!?!?! Why does it merit American intervention?!?!?! Im sick of seeing young men and women sent to stupid countries to die for stupid reasons so stupid people can spend all our tax money! Its insane. No country in the middle east could come to America and hurt us one bit... but when we go there they can use $4 worth of trash and HME to make an IED to take out $1,000,000 vehicles and people. Wake UP!

I'm behind this.

Still won't fix the deficit. You need at this point to cut 40% of the budget.

Even if you cut 700 billion, which means ALL of the "defense" budget and lets say you find the "black ops" operations that get funded in hidden bills and stuff, you would get another 250-300 billion dollars, that would mean you still have 400 billion deficits. Yeah it won't be 1.3 trillion every year, but you would still need to cut.

The US government spends 4 trillion US dollars each year, that is 500 billion more than the whole German GDP and only 1 trillion less than the SECOND biggest economy in the world ~ China, which has a 5 trillion GDP.

Still won't fix the deficit

I have a problem with that article:

Posit (fallacious): These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal: Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.

The problem is that anti-drug commercials and programs as they are currently implemented fail spectacularly, and if they do reduce drug use/misuse, it's not significant enough to matter.

[deleted]

MADD is also heavily against drugs as well as alcohol.

[deleted]

Please Google it and see for yourself.

Suprise; mothers who think that intoxication while driving kills people also think that driving while stoned, or otherwise not in possession of your faculties, also kills people.

Oh, and they are right. But MADD isn't against drinking (or drugs.) They are against, get this, drinking (or drugs) AND DRIVING.

You can't cut your way to prosperity.

Yes, cuts are needed - especially big cuts in defense - but at some point, you need to increase tax revenue whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

Short term, you need to spend to get out of a hole. Long term, you need to reduce future spending - but more importantly, you need to deal with the fact that we'll all be dying in a dozen decades if we don't deal with global warming.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but first of all, the term is NOT Global Warming. People need to start using the proper term which is Climate Change.

Second of all, in this particular topic, that is not really pertinent.

"Climate Change" is a great neologism, and is less apt to be misunderstood, but it's hardly canonical. I agree that it's the better term to use, and I shall endeavor to remember that for the future.

And, really? Questions about our fiscal priorities aren't relevant to a discussion of short versus long term investments in the future?

Listen, I can't stop you from mentioning Kim Kardashian or anything else, but muddying up discussions about admittedly small cuts in foreign aid with discussions about Climate Change do neither of those topics justice.  Turns into one big mess of incoherent yelling.

We as a nation would be so much farther along if people had some focus.  No offense of course, but I personally think people need to pick their fights carefully.  

Carry on if you must.

please explain how spending more money that we dont have helps us get out of the hole from spending the money we dont have...

The economics is a bit counter intuitive, but can be illustrated simply.

If nobody thinks the economy is doing well, they do not shop, or invest in the future, because they believe that saving the money, instead of investing or spending, is their best option. This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the economy really does slow. This is a recession.

If the government starts investing, people see the results, and it can jump-start a recovery. This requires borrowing, in lean times such as today. It's not "Money we don't have," it's a loan. When is borrowing a good idea? This is actually the same as any corporation - if the government thinks that the things it borrows to buy or create are cheaper now, or will cause benefits that exceed the costs. If the government can spend $100 on something that saves $20 / year from now on, that is a good investment.

So if the government can spend $1t to help the economy recover, the only question is whether the total economic benefit from doing so exceeds the cost. If the benefit of that spending is, say, $500b/year, then (without really discussing tax policy and the effects on spending,) the idea is that spending the money now will be worth the investment, which can be recovered by taxing half of that added benefit for a bit more than four years.

or, people arent saving because the govt is printing money out of control to pay for wars and finance debt and if i but $1 in the bank today in a year the $1.03 i will have from interest will only but $.94 of what i could have bought that first year. And its not the govts job to run the economy. Its not in the Constitution to take from the people to spend on companies who lobby so that we can get a "jump start". Every time the govt gets in the economy it changes for the worse. How bout we let the free market work, stop bailing out companies and let them fail so the ones who live will be stronger and learn about malinvestment. This "no consequences" society needs to stop.

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is that the government is needed to make the economy work. In complex systems, reductionist solutions are tempting, but rarely optimal.

Without government backing, the dollar you have today is worth nothing. Literally nothing. So who decides on the rules for currency, fractional reserving, and interest? We could go back to having nobody in charge, but modern economies would not work if that were the case. (There would be significantly too much uncertainty to invest in anything.) The US government certainly has some corrupt practices, some bungling, and some very significant drawbacks, but the response can't be "we'll just let companies do whatever they want." Unlimited corporate power isn't capitalism as envisioned by Smith or other theorists, and it does not work.

A central issue is that governments tend towards maximizing their power, which means they interfere when they should not, and they are less efficient at running programs than the free market. In a democracy, the only check on this is the will of the people; if the government upsets too many of them, they will be forced out of office.

But corporations are not the answer; corporations also tend towards maximizing their power, and they have no responsibilities to anyone but their owners. If the most profitable course of action is to let people die, they will. If the most profitable course of action is to kill people, bribe governments, or destroy the environment, they will do that also. The only check on increasing corporate power is government, in the form of regulation and pressure from people, in the form of boycotts - and that only works when government forces corporations to be transparent enough for the public to know what companies are doing.

So we have a system that has two forces that interact, and collusion between them is the "no consequences" society you dislike. It's a problem, but upsetting the balance of power in the favor of corporations isn't a solution.

PS. As a final point, capitalism works best when corporations are small, and non has the power to materially disrupt the market. Government is notoriously bad at encouraging small companies at the expense of large ones.

TL; dont have time but if the feds werent controlling the dollar it would be a competitive currency market and the ones backed by gold would survive. Our dollar is worth nothing, BECAUSE of the government. Therefor i will not dignify you by reading the rest of it.

I did explain the point a bit, but not sufficiently. I'm not saying it's impossible for it to work, it's a complex topic. The problem with your approach to the argument, however, is that you are trying to win instead of discuss the topic and understand it. Because of that fact, confirmation bias will ensure that you never change your mind, right or wrong.

Your theories about competitive currency are not well thought of by economists for a variety of reasons. That doesn't imply that you are wrong, just that people who know a lot about the subject disagree. If you are convinced of your argument, you should read what the other side has to say, with an open mind. That won't force you to change your opinion, but it will make you evaluate your opinions outside of an echo chamber that only reinforces your prior beliefs.

I have been living with the other side and seen the dollar lose 96% of its value since the Fed got involved. Scotland had competing gold backed currency and no legal tender laws for years and it worked just fine. The people who disagree with the policies i suggest benefit from the policies we have. When has a government ever surrendered a power peacefully?

So, tax + cuts+ = prosperity?

int taxpluscuts = tax + cuts;

taxpluscuts = prosperity + taxpluscuts;

unless you are creating an event handler, then your way is fine.

• extra +

Tax on those who can afford it + cuts on things that don't need money = prosperity.

Step 1. Cut expenditures that do not efficiently support U.S. economic growth (either immediate or down the road) Step 2. Increase taxes on the rich. Step 3. ??? Step 4. Profit.

Step 5. Have sex while riding on a tiger because while you're dreaming, why not?

If the US government ended the war(s) I'd happily pay double or tipple what I currently pay in taxes.

Well technically one of them is over, and it has been over for almost a year now.

The US government spends 4 trillion US dollars each year, that is 500 billion more than the whole German GDP

To be fair, Germany has ~80 million people, vs. ~300 million in the US. If you scaled the German GDP (assuming the 3.5 billion are correct) to the size of the people it would be roughly 30% of the GDP.

If American rich people actually paid their taxes, it wouldn't be that awful.

The rich actually pay a significant amount of taxes.

They do, but not significant enough for what they earn.

What is significant enough? The top 1% pay something along the lines of 25% of the tax burden, and the top 20% pay over 90%. Cutting spending is the key- not increasing taxes.

The top 1% make much more than 25% of the nations income, so they should at least pay accordingly. You can't get rich without profiting from government spending on education you and your workers received, the infrastructure that is built, the protection that is provided by police and the fire department.

Your first fact is wrong.

I vote for abolishing the federal reserve and wiping out all the debt they've invented. Eliminating the deficit is an impossibility.

That should work well, enjoy the decades of massive unemployment as the global banks take their money supply and run.

Uhhhhh... they did it in Iceland, and it's working out just fine. Actually, better than fine. They're flourishing. Read a bit before you wax poetic.

Edit: After a bit of research, I retract this statement and leave this for you instead: http://the2012scenario.com/2012/05/whats-the-real-story-with-icelands-mortgage-forgiveness/

Iceland didn't just wipe out the debt, they threw out some banks and ended up having their economy contract heavily.

That said, Iceland, a resource rich country and very small is not comparable to the US in any way.

Actually, Iceland didn't erase their debt, they allowed some banks to default and devalued the krona, allowing their economy to expand massively.

Expand Massively after wiping out 90% of their stock market value (and with is many people's retirements) and 5.5% of GDP drop in 6 months.

I like that they're recovering now, but that first bump was hard on a lot of people, and it would be a huge blow to the US economy, one which I don't think the 'united' states would be so united after.

we should be shooting for a 100% unemployment rate. we SHOULD have robots do everything practical for us so we can pursue more important things like philosophy and sex. everything is backward. we should be shrinking the economy until there's like 100 of us and we can have the entire world's population live like planetary kings.

Robots will be smarter than humans in 2030. Then they will make us work for them instead. A hah!

...um...

How the hell do you think they're going to keep us from noticing the gaps in wealth and opportunity if we're not exhausted from working extra hours (for no overtime mind you) and being constantly threatened by external threats that we have no input into?

How are they going to get us to buy useless crap we don't need if we're out learning philosophy and realizing we don't need that new thing?

They're called "happy drugs."

Umm... aren't you forgetting that resources are limited on this planet? If we simply have robots do everything, we still haven't invented our way out of mass extinction due to global warming, and the exhaustion of planetary resources.

United 4 life

The only way to get rid of debt is liquidate it... the sooner the better. Yes it will be tough, it will hurt. But it'll hurt more if we keep going and the dollar collapses....

I think you need to look at the chronology of those events. The 90% of stock market loss and GDP drop was due to the impending bankruptcy of the country, not due to bank recapitalization and currency devaluation. The negative impacts PREdated the ameliatory measures and are what precipitated them.

I don't disagree that the market and GDP drop started before hand, but it was continued because of the devaluation. Again, as I stated earlier it's a great concept anyway, but it would not be possible in the US. We're talking about 1/10000th of the population in the US. The comparison will not work.

[deleted]

That's easy, I have 100,000 barrels of oil produced in a day. Say you make profits of $1 a barrel. Spread those profits out over 32,000 people and they get about $3. Spread out over 350 million and everyone gets less than a penny.

These numbers of course are arbitrary and there are areas of the US that would do very well if this was to happen, but it's a lot easier to take care of 30 thousand people when times are tough than 350 million with very diverse attitudes about things.

[deleted]

If would if every country had an equal number of barrels to people, but they don't. Some places have more resources per capita (Iceland, Canada for instance) and others have a lot less per capita (Chad, Haiti, etc)é

[deleted]

No problem!

No, the recovery happened because of the devaluation.
I suppose you would also argue that Obama is responsible for the job losses of the recession because the recession deepened just after he took office. Of course it would be possible in the US. We already do do this, it's called quantitative easing. However, it's probably not sufficient or desirable to do the job only through inflation and so we also need economic stimulus investment from the US govt.

I never disagreed that the recovery happened because of the devaluation, but the decline continued through the bank changes and devaluation. The only reason the recovery happened was because the resources could now be sold off at a far lower price of extraction due to the devaluation, helping to create low cost jobs in the resource industry.

Again, this can NOT happen in the US. If you devalue the currency more all you will do is create even larger trade imbalances and end up costing everyone MORE for the resources that the economy requires to continue at the rate it does. While the US is resource rich, you still import a massive amount from the rest of the world, and dropping the dollar will only make that harder.

It will make exports and US labor more competitive. Pretty sure devaluation does work since it has before in the US and around the world the past few years.

BTW, explain to me Iceland's resources other than hydro and geothermal power. It's not a petrostate.

No it's not, but that Hydro and Geothermal power is all that's needed to keep 32,000 people doing ok. If you moved another million people into Iceland they would be an extremely resource poor country, but we're working on per capita basis here.

This is not true my friend..

Iceland did not threw out any banks.. they did not wipe any debt.. just some for the rich but manly the citizen of the country ends up with the bill.. they transfer the debt from the rich to the poor...

what you have heard is a lie.. may I ask a "related" question?

Do you know that the towers were blown up by the elite.. not osamabinladen?

They relieved the mortage debt for over 10% of the population and threw out those banks. We have opened more drilling sites in the States in the last four years than the rest of the world combined. We are also resource-rich, I don't get how the two cannot correlate.

I don't get how the two cannot correlate.

Iceland has the same population as the city of St. Louis (which isn't very big).

Over 10% of 320,000 people is about the amount of people you would have to bail out in Tonawanda NY, let alone the other 150 Million people you need to deal with. And you are no where near as resource rich per person as Iceland is, not even close. You've tapped most of the easy oil wells, dug up a lot of resources, are on the brink of massive water reserve issues, and an integrated global economy that DISAPPEARS if you decide to 'throw the banks out'.

I get your intention, I don't like the system the way it is either, but you are way further down an integrated global market path than iceland was, pulling out would be catastrophic.

I would've like to see a bailout for home owners instead of a bailout for the banks. If the 3 trillion dollars given to banks would've been divided through out the American population and they paid their mortgage debts, wouldn't that have bailed out the banks too and put a end to the housing bubble and the economic down turn in the US and the world?

Sure, but the justification given was that you'd be bailing out irresponsible home owners, and that's just not acceptable to the big bankers. If they don't control the money people might make their own lives better.

Well I meant to say all Americans, divide the money to everyone. You have your mortgage situation under control, you'd have the consumer spending situation under control since people without homes would just buy stuff, and you could put the student debt problem within control for college students. But instead of doing all that and working from the bottom up we bailed out the billionaire bankers and not the backbone of this country; the American people.

The people who made the decision about it do not care though, they only wanted to make sure they were going to get reelected by their masters. Bailing out college students and 'irresponsible' home owners sounds like socialism. Apparently bailing out bankers is capitalism.

Yup, those old dividing lines are fading fast into tyranny.

The core issue at stake in a financial crisis is liquidity. To have a functioning economy, money has to move back and forth between parties. Debt is a major source of liquidity, as it allows people to both hold money and spend it at the same time.

The purpose of stimulus spending during a recession is not only to "kick-start" the economy, but also to add a huge influx of cash into the market. After Japan's crash in 1991 they refused to provide a sufficient influx of liquidity into the economy. They have never recovered.

A strong central bank manages not only interest rates, but also liquidity. Have you ever heard of the crash of 1987? Probably not, because the Fed immediately added liquidity and the economy was able to recover.

Clinging to the gold standard extended the length of the Great Depression, because in a Gold Standard economy you can't add liquidity.

My main point is that people need money to do business, and if everybody is hoarding theirs, you need a central bank to start handing it out. Without a central bank, we'd be screwed in situations like these.

If you're curious about financial crises and their impacts:

This Time is Different: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html and Liquidated: http://www.amazon.com/Liquidated-Ethnography-Street-Franklin-Center/dp/0822345994

are both fantastic and revelatory.

Not everyone believes that hoarding is a problem, or something to be afraid of:

http://mises.org/daily/3707

You mean like the Federal Reserve during the Great Depression?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Prolongation_of_the_Great_Depression

Money is imaginary remember that.

Money may be just paper, but its Legal Tender gives it the ability to pay off debts. Inflation in turn represents how much 'debt' money is worth.

Really nice read for the logic behind currency: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4yfkhg

How many countries use the Krona as a reserve currency? What is the GDP of Iceland in comparison to the US GDP? They're simply not comparable to the scale of the US dollar and economy as well as the interconnectedness with the global economy.

Edit: I a word.

who told them to use dollars as reserve currency? our problem? i think not...

Iceland has 175,000 people. your argument is invalid. there are 5 million people in my county.

Iceland has 320,000 people.

sorry i think i was focusing more on the number of reykjavik and surrounding areas. reykjavik has 120k. surrounding areas about another 60.

Even then 320,000 is not 320,000,000

[deleted]

This was pointed out, i was looking at the numbers pulled from around reykjavik, the capital and my brain forgot to doubel it, i already acknowledged it but it still doesn't change anything, 175k,320k is still insignificant compared to even the population of Alaska, which is double that again.

did they what in iceland.. did you know the osamabinladen did not blow up the towers..

Iceland did not wipe out the debt.. that is also a lie..

edit: where are you reading these stories.. I have heard about this .. but its not the truth so please if you would like to entertain me for a talk and tell me.. is it in newspapers in your country?

Bankster propaganda. The main thing the government subsidized banks do with the money they borrow at zero percent interest is buy government debt and Fannie Mae mortgages, which gives them above zero returns, and no risk of loss of principle.

There's a name for that plan. It's called Project Mayhem

You can wipe the debt, I support that, but it won't fix anything, unless you cut spending. You are adding about 1.5 trillion per year, even if you were to wipe all the debt, in just 6 to 7 years you'd still go up at about 10 trillion debt.

You must reduce the deficit, there is no other way!

We are fine, china is still giving us money.....

Do you see any other way to cut spending other then to stop murder, torture and terrorize the world?

Its a real question.. it seems all the money go´s there.. so what do you think..

Look you can't bring down the defense budget to 0, as that would mean you would have no military at all. So from about 700 billion you can cut half or so and bring it to about 300-350 billions, that would still make for 1 trillion deficit.

So yes I do see other ways to cut spending. If I was elected to be a tyrant I would allow competing currencies, print another 10 trillion dollars and give all individuals over 18, 30k us dollars, cut the deficit by 1.4 trillion by abolishing the FBI, reducing the CIA by half, dismantling the homeland security, ending the wars and cutting back the defense budget to about 250 billion dollars, cut the FDA, EPA, end Obamacare, remove medicaid and medicare, transfer state schooling to the states, reduce congress salaries and benefits by half, remove insurance companies from the medical equation and provide real FREE medical services paid for by the government in the emergency service and set up an account for donations to the emergency service, remove fractional reserve banking, allow market interest rates, abolish the FED, remove all business regulations, end all food stamps, revamp the social security and make all accounts private, unable to be used by the government, allow everyone to opt out of it, start a full audit of unemployment benefits to curb double users or users that are employed and I believe this will be enough to cut 1.5 trillion dollars.

With the 30k worth of bailouts of every individual it will assure people who are fired like all the people in the FBI and TSA and the rest of them have money for about a year, it will insure most of the debt is payed off, whether its student loans, business loans or house loans, this will in turn free up the banking system and increase confidence as people are paying off their debts, this coupled with the removal of fractional reserve banking and allowing market interest rates will promote accountability by the banks and allow for savings, with interest rates rising high due to the economic situation before this, we'd actually see the value of the US dollar increase offsetting the 10 trillion dollars of newly printed money and then ending the fed to ensure no more manipulation of the markets.

In case the 10 trillion actually causes very high inflation or borderline hyper inflation, I would have allowed for competing currencies of all kind be used, so people have a fallback.

With all of the cuts the federal budget would actually make a profit for the first time in over 100 years. I would do all this within 3 to 6 months, the sooner its done the faster the recovery can occur and I expect within a year all that individuality and all those entrepreneurs to start building businesses and producing stuff, starting to offset much of the unemployment and I expect a full recovery within 1 to 2 years with a steady growth of about 2-3% percent for the next 5-10 years.

I'd probably cut taxes as well within 2 years or actually increase taxes for some who have been paying 2-3% only and have a flat tax rate of 18%, remove all corporate, inheritance or other taxes and only have the income tax set at 18% for everyone with no exceptions, even for charities.

why do you still need hundreds of billion $ in defense budget..? its more if you count nsa and other agencies. you can reduce the number way more down..

There is no one going to attack you.. you are the attackers... 95% (bogus number) of the terror of this world is paid by your tax dollars..

on other points.. I not sure if you know but the 3 towers were blown up by the elite not osamabinladen.. Im curious.. whats your view on that.. hope you give me a reply..+ btw.. I like most of what you said.. I maby would dare to elect you a tyrann for a few months ;)

This is how the one world power begins. By giving everyone unplayable debt.

Unpayable*

But you have to also take into the argument that the US is the only first world population that is still growing, so our future tax forecast is still increasing so that's why our economy hasn't gone in the shitter like it would for most other countries with the same situation. Also you have to put into account whoever has the biggest stick makes all the rules and with a 14 trillion dollar debt which is mostly spent on the military I'm pretty sure we have the biggest stick by far. 'Merica

EDIT: Deeper in the shitter

Big stick in the shitter eh? Sounds like 'Merican foreign policy for sure.

Yeah Teddy Roosevelt I believe.

Yeah and that stick goes both ways, in your assholes and other countries people's assholes and is controlled by the globalist elite.

You got to understand the USA has been taken over and it does not serve the general public interest, it serves the globalists and bankers interest and that is to destroy all free countries that aren't under globalist control and then form a one world government with the global economic collapse and global warming as a pretext to set it up, so they can "fix" it.

Oh yeah I know what's happening only the dumbest of the people can't see that anymore. But I'm just trying to say that's what we should have done instead. I'm also saying that since we have this huge military our debt really doesn't matter because who's going to come collect it. But way to recognize the problem good sir robot.

Yeah, but the USA debt to other countries is not very large, about 3.5 trillion only, most of the debt is owned to the federal reserve actually.

About 6 trillion is real debt to banks and investment companies and countries and stuff like that, the large portion is owned to the federal reserve.

Yeah I agree, lots of domestic debt from the banksters. That just makes my argument even more valid, if we owe the people in control all the money and they control the military then they're the one's with the biggest sticks making it impossible for us to collect our liberty from them. They read the same things we do, they just know how to turn them around on us.

even so, if we can take that money and invest it in things that bring a return on investment (industries that provide essentially profit for the gov't) then I think it could go a long ways.

Well again, nice theory, but it rarely works. Thing is as long as the government can auction off money (for whatever reason, even things like building roads) it will provide incentive for private companies to lobby and that creates corruption and corruption creates more corruption and we all know where that leads to.

I'd say you want very limited government and only small local government being able to offer small local contracts like to some company to maintain the lights and stuff.

But yeah, 4 trillion dollar government and look where that got you, more or same amount of government isn't the solution, its less government, less governments contracts, less government workers, less government involvement, less, less, less.

Look the USA just federal government is bigger than any government that has ever existed in the history of the world, there has never ever been bigger government in the world, how is that working out for you?

The answer is less government, significantly less.

EDIT: And believe me I've heard and analysed the argument of: "oh we just need better government, not less" it doesn't hold water at all. Its absolutely incorrect. Its just not humanly possible, any way you look at it.

you're talking to a libertarian (i'm a redditor, of course i'm a libertarian, right?!??!) btw. just reminding you that there is more to it than just simply removing money from one source and giving some to others. but we always oversimplify on here so whatever.

[deleted]

That's just a soundbite to get you into the false paradigm of more government. I call it getting back to free markets and property rights and family. You can still have actually many government programs like social security type, which is supposed to be a guaranteed bank account of your money and when you reach a certain age you are able to get back your money.

In a free market system, putting those same amounts of money into real banks will be 10x more beneficial as you would be getting big interest on your parked money.

Essentially if you put 50k in your social security account you will only get 50k, if you park it at a bank, you would be getting 100k, 50k more on interest over your lifetime.

This is just incorrect. The government spent 3.6 trillion dollars this past year. You just rounded up 10%. And more than $100B was for the wars that are ending. And this ignores the costs that are indirectly caused by the war, like increased military costs. (See http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629. ) So take the total down to $3.5T.

Now, most of this is social welfare programs, instituted because the Us government decided that the policies that allow economic growth at the expense of some individuals should be compensated by creating a safety net, paid for by the increased growth the policies allowed. The problem is that the taxes have been decreased as economic growth and resulting displacement have increased.

O gee, look at how that payed off. I don't know if we compare it to 20 years ago, then 30 years ago, 50 years ago, it seems to me its been becoming worse.

The US government spends 4 trillion US dollars each year, that is 500 billion more than the whole German GDP

That's TEN TIMES the GDP of Myanmar!!! WHOA!!! So relevant!

The GDP of the US was ~15 trillion in 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

[deleted]

For profit public education? University of Phoenix style?

Poor people can't afford even k-12 school now?

How bout we fund the homeless?

Or send them into space

"Now you might be asking yourself, 'Cave, just how difficult are these tests?', 'What was in that phonebook of a contract I signed?', 'Am I in danger?'. Let me answer those questions with a question: who wants to make $60?"

I'd vote " DO IT"

Or, at the very least, corporate welfare.

We would need to learn how to adapt to great new technology a lot faster. Because I'm a cunt that doesn't realise my entire life depends on technology, I'd say thats why I'm against it.

Signed, politician.

How about we end ALL government insanity and let people keep their wealth!

How about we do both?

Yes, let's do both: end the wars and fund NASA.

Oh, wait, that's what he said.

'>:|

Lets end the wars AND stop supporting Israel.

THEN fund NASA.

Think before you post.

Ah, gotcha!

End the wars, stop funding Israel, and end NASA, and use all the money to give back to the American people. :)

There are an awful lot of American people I'd rather see starve before shutting down NASA...

That's true, but it was their money to begin with.

You sound like one of those people that contributes 1 tax dollar and whines that he/she doesn't get $3 back...

I act like one of those people that contributes 1 tax dollar and whines that he doesn't agree with what it's being used for. I don't care much about getting my taxes back (and I especially wouldn't want to take someone else's money), I care that they've been taken in the first place.

Right, but....

That's true, but it was their money to begin with.

Most people that use that argument think they contribute a lot more than they actrually contribute, and don't even realize how much they already get back through basic public necessities.

If this does not apply to you, then move along. Just realize that most people that will pick up your torch on this one are giant moochers with zero understanding of how tax dollars are actually used. A lot of them are people that especially would want to take someone else's money, and they happily do every day.

Isn't that the exact same thing?

the amount of financial suport that NASA needs to be great is tiny in comparison to what America spends on wars and other such things

The next great accomplishment is a mission to Mars. That would be expensive.

[deleted]

Not to come of dickish. But WTF does AIDS in Africa have to do with the US budget?

It is estimated that for every dollar that goes into NASA's budget, there is a TEN-FOLD return. Seems like a logical place to invest in. How are you going to inspire a generation to take up the sciences when the sciences are shit on in this country?

We need a priority shift.

Can we get a kickstarter going for NASA?

This person here thinks like a new age native!

That sounds like something a newscaster would call an 18 year old. Oh my.

The powers that be have been trying to devalue the term "new age" for 30 years now. Well, the kids growing up now are not the same as they used to be, the new age is upon us and the elite are terrified.

It is estimated that for every dollar that goes into NASA's budget, there is a TEN-FOLD return.

Yet no one donates or invests voluntarily.... hmm, strange.

If this were even half true true, why not privatize a fraction of it to appeal to private equity?

Because the ten-fold return is not a return on investment in finance terms, but more of a return on investment in the form of societal benefits.

I'm sure that 1000% number is totally legit too.

[deleted]

You're telling me people don't invest in and use toll roads?

The claim that tax expenditure should be determined by the actions of consumers in the free market would mean that the US government would be pouring money into McDonalds and Walmart.

That's a pretty silly idea. Obviously that wouldn't be a "free market". The US should stop taxing/taking money from people by force and let them spend it where they see fit. If the government gets out of the way and frees up resources, individuals can allocate those resources.

[deleted]

but would people drive nearly as much if every road were a toll road. Its rhetorical, as I don't believe there is a nation on the planet where every road is a toll road.

Of course not. No one who thinks about the issue for more than a minute would think this. I mean this is already the case that people create and maintain roads privately (i.e. gated communities and businesses). We don't need to socialize the costs of road upkeep in a community to the entire nation. Honestly, google or youtube search "free market roads", there is ample information. It's not a difficult problem to solve, especially with technology, but even without it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1gp9_oCafM&feature=plcp

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

My response was implying that a lack of free market spending should not be taken as a sign that it is not valuable or in the public good, and while my examples were hyperbolic, the price paid by the consumer rarely reflects the implicit costs of an object or service, whether it be a net positive or negative one.

Yes, this is why for example we have an unsustainable situation of suburban sprawl, because the true costs have been socialized.

Had resources been allocated more efficiently as a result of a functional pricing mechanism, such massive problems would not arise at least to the same degree.

[deleted]

What do you mean? Governments are what break the pricing mechanism! How does the market necessitate the need for a government?

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/08/nasas-economic.html

Not to mention that mining asteroids is going to be a multi-trillion dollar industry when the tech arrives, and I bet you China does it first.

FTA:

And as a result, researchers over the years have come up with a wide array of returns on investment for NASA spending. Estimated ratios of revenue generated compared to spending have been as high as 14-to-1.

Some early academic and other studies "made very 'generous' assumptions about the spinoffs, goods and services produced as a result of NASA's investments," G. Scott Hubbard, a consulting professor at Stanford University, said in an e-mail. A study commissioned by Hubbard in the mid-2000s when he was director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California on the center's local economic impact found a "more conservative" 2- to 3-to-1 ratio.

Trying to find a precise value for the economic benefits of NASA spending, though, may miss the point as long as it's acknowledged that the spending has at least some positive returns, Hertzfeld argues. He said that for a mission-focused organization like NASA, which isn't making a play for profits, any ratio of economic benefits versus spending that exceeds 1-1 "is a success."

Wow, so this paragraph is fraught with glaringly obvious economic fallacies and does not consider the opportunity cost. It assumes that such contributions would not have arisen without funding NASA, that NASA was the best way to achieve them and that there were no better ways or means to do it.

This is of course the logic behind government spending who need to justify their actions (taxation/theft) to their tax livestock.

Perhaps the money spent on NASA was the best thing to do, it's difficult to say, but I doubt it and more importantly, I don't think its right to force that decision on people. Of course I think this way about all government spending and much less so far NASA, though this is the topic of this thread.

No dispute from me on this, I was just extending his logic one step farther. IMO if you simply jump to the point of "all tax money is misdirected", then you've gone way outside of his perspective.

Where do u think we're gonna get resources from when they run out on earth? Better start plundering other worlds now than later.

Space, the Final Frontier.

Because really, a fleet of ships that in tandem are self sustaining could conceivably open up the entire universe to our kind. I'd rather our mining be asteroids than Appalachia!

Yes let's not try and determine whether there are planets out there that can sustain humanity. Because after all when this planet can longer support us education, health care and things of that matter will surely be in the forefront of our minds.

I want to see Vespa turned into a colony.

Exactly! Reddit's fetish for NASA and ~science~ is out of control.

Yes, NASA is an extremely valuable agency - however, welfare, health care, education and the like are more immediately important and to more people. They should be prioritized.

A healthy planet that gets hit by a planet killing meteor is still a dead planet (just without AIDs and with a highly educated race of mammals on board).

If we hope to ever expand beyond Earth and avoid our eventual doom, we need to invest before we become the next dinosaurs.

Good luck going up against AIPAC and the Christian Zionists in Washington. You have got literally no chance of this happening. Instead of exploring the stars they would rather start a nuclear war so Jesus comes back. These people are truly insane so how does anyone expect to reason with these people?

Not to mention the military industrial lobby who benefit the most from the aid to Israel and Egypt, as 100% of that aid comes in the form of money paid to defense contractors.

Actually Israel has a special agreement that allows it to spend a large percentage of that aid on military equipment made by Israeli companies.

Who are definitely part of the military industrial complex: Soltam, headquartered in Israel, supplied both US and Israeli armed forces; Elbit is traded on the NASDAQ and owns a number of U.S. companies and subsidiaries, etc.

These people are truly insane

When over half the nation identifies themselves with this insanity, it's more the norm than not.

That's the reason why critical mass and attention hasn't been reached on Israel yet because you have millions of people who are willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities in the name of religion. The all loving, respecting religion advocates a war on Islam and vice versa.

faggot

[deleted]

The Christian Zionists do though which make up some of the members of AIPAC.

OK.

Also Egypt. Cut their funding. And stop the Iraq war. And Afghanistan. It would mean billions to NASA in just a year.

Too bad it will never happen.

The Iraq war has been over since last December...

But the funding of foreign troops and contractors in Iraq continues.

Lets start a /r/greatideasthatshouldbutneverwillhappen subreddit!

First post, stop dumping fluoride in the water on the taxpayers dime , instead just get fucking fluoride treatments from ur dentist if u really think its that important

Hell, why do we even have running water? Buy some fucking Dasani from the free market like God intended.

intellectual bonus points for using "u" and "ur" on a place other than texting on a flippy phone

I am on a phone

[deleted]

You are joking, yes?

[deleted]

Dude. it is fluoride. it doesn't do anything to you but protect your teeth. I've left the country for periods of time longer than a year and drank fluoride-free water. I didn't become aggressive or something. I think we would notice if we were being sedated. You are an insane conspiracy theorist.

[deleted]

mind control. ok. Im definitely the one who looks foolish. ok.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Its weird that people like who you have been talking to exist in this sub, they come here just to make fun of us and downvote anything that contradicts any kind of offical story, this thread was prolly linked by conspiratard

dude chill out lol. i really dont give to shits, not gonna waste my time reading articles about the government brainwashing us through our water. why the hell would i be scared. you are insane and the only one being laughed at is you. even if you were magically correct and we were being sedated, whoopdee do. ignorance is bliss and i couldn't care less.

[deleted]

k, enjoy living the rest of your life in fear, paranoia and downright insanity. ill just be happy and appreciate life and the freedom this country offers that many other countries around the world do not permit.

[deleted]

dude i wasn't on r/conspiracy. i was on r/politics on a post about giving money to israel and how we should give the money we give to them to nasa instead, when you brought up fluoride. and speak out all you want, nothing can or will change. wasting your own time, and mine.

[deleted]

What are you going to change. and if it was reputable science then you'd think more than one person would have heard of or would care about it.

[deleted]

freak

[deleted]

rofl if you're so immature as to require the last word, be my guest. tell me to kill myself again, and I wont respond. have at it, big guy.

Yup im just trying to use the "official story" against itself

Probably one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen--even stupider comments. Its this black and white thinking that has gotten our society to this stage. I would not agree that simply cutting foreign aid to Israel would just fix all the problems. Also, I dont see the point of building NASA up again when it space exploration is being privatized. It was clearly needed in the 60s when corporations were not willing to take the risk (it wasnt in the interest) where as now it is in their interest--they are doing it. Google the Google space asteroid mining (Im sure youve all heard of spacex). The problem isn't funding Israel, Egypt or any other country. Its the fact that bureaucrats have this power in the first place. Its clear that your name "freepalestinekashmir" is not about fixing the US but rather screwing over the "evil zionists".

I hate you so much right now.

I dont see the point of building NASA up again when it space exploration is being privatized

Yes, privatized, which means that companies will be doing what is profitable. Not what will best expand the collective knowledge of the human race.

You need well funded governmental research that doesn't give a shit about profits.

Someone had to say it and glad I didnt have to type it on my phone. Srsly this msg took days to write.

Its clear your a bit out of touch with what science is all about. Regardless, if you look into who are running these space explorations corporations, you are talking about people who have much passion for science and are not motivated by profits. I recommend you look at the interview of John Steward and Elon Musk, its very inspiring and gives you an idea of what this sector is going to be like. Were not talking about a Steve Jobs running a marketing scheme to make money, were talking about genuine people who love science and are willing to risk money for the research. Once again, you are keeping the argument too black and white. Also, because of the passion that most scientists have, they are easily exploited, its why many of the them get sucked in by wall street, because the govt programs in the major US universities are paying crap. Making it impossible to get a research position. Imagine how many geniuses are working for Goldman Sachs right now--look into it.

Space exploration is hardly in the best interest of the human race.

You're being downvoted because you're out of touch with reality. I suggest you read more about the benefits of space exploration.

I'm being downvoted because reddit has a boner for space. The benefits of space exploration aren't helping the majority of people.

If by majority of people you mean poor, 3rd world countries, then of course not. Most of those countries have no infrastructure to take advantage of the benefits of space. That's not the fault of other countries.

Space exploration can and will benefit the entirety of the human race, assuming that the less developed countries ever hop on the industrialization bandwagon.

Can you explain how space exploration will help the poor or even middle class of this country? What do I have in my house that I can thank NASA for?

What do I have in my house that I can thank NASA for?

Wow, seriously? You honestly don't know anything about the direct and indirect benefits you take advantage of everyday due to NASA research?

I'm really leaning on the side of believing you're trolling, because I can't believe anyone on Reddit is so ignorant of the technology in their home, but considering the influx of people Reddit is seeing, I'm going to assume that you may be telling the truth.

Memory foam, contributed funding to improving cordless power drills, precision cordless medical instruments, dustbusters, insulting paint used on houses originally developed for space flight, advancements in plasma screen technology, improving water filtration technology originally meant for recycling water in space shuttles now used in commercial water infrastructure, wireless communications technology, gps, satellite weather forecasting, anti-corrosive agents originally meant for space shuttles to protect from radiation now used on buildings and bridges, development of new safety precautions in food manufacturing in order to prevent food spoilage in space, nutritional supplements in baby food originally meant to supplement astronaut diets, advances in fire fighting technology such as satellite fire tracking and fire resistant materials, enormous increases in solar power research, research done on phase change materials for use in spacesuits is now used in athletic equipment and shoes, advances in digital photography technology for incredibly high resolution photos in space and on other planets, research funded by NASA to examine ways to reduce vibration has been applied to guitar manufacturing methods, contributed to advances in MRI technology, adjustable sensitivity for smoke detectors.

There are many more, but I think I've made my point. You can search Wikipedia and other websites for more. NASA puts out a magazine every year called Spin-Offs which detail all the products that are either direct implementations of NASA research or draw on NASA funded research to create new privatized products.

No matter how you feel about the topic, the fact remains that NASA needs to do shit in space. They need to do it well. If they don't have the technology to do what they need to do, they fund research to make it so they do have the technology. That research either brings about new products that can be used in the home or social infrastructure, or it is used indirectly to improve already existing technologies.

So basically space exploration hasn't helped me. R and D projects used in space have. What has been discovered in space that improves our every day lives? Nothing. All the things you listed are great but we would have discovered them anyway. Wars encourage development of products and new technology as well but you never see anyone supporting wasted money on a war. Fact is NASA was a great organization when the budget could support it but private industry is catching up and the budget can no longer support it. I'm sorry you like space but it isn't doing anything for us.

I'm sorry that you're so incredibly uneducated about the pros and cons of privatized business. Please attend more courses at your local university.

I'm sorry you're upset that space exploration is a relatively useless thing to spend money on in our current situation.

Except that it's not. Investing in new technologies and creating new industries is exactly what would boost our economy. But again, you probably don't understand that, considering I've given you plenty of reasons that NASA has been more than worth the investment. It's been one of the most profitable investments the US has ever made, always making us more money in tax revenue from its new industries and spin off technologies.

I do understand that. I personally feel the private sector does it better than a bureaucracy. NASA was a good investment. In the future it might be a good investment. Right now the money NASA gets is fine. It doesn't need more. It especially doesn't need money that keeps the middle east from turning into a shit show.

OP definitely has an agenda, but I prefer reading it like "Let's stop funding stupid shit and start funding some more meaningful shit".

Isn't that how everyone feels always, though?

"screwing over 'evil zionists'" lol, screwing them over by not giving them 3billion a year? haha, how about we just don't give it to them and not talk about where else the money could go.

$3b is what is public, theres probably a lot more that isnt not open to the public..thats where the real funding is.

In the 60s it was still an off-shoot of the arms race, that's why government was involved. It restricted private corporations from even having satellites, go look up the levels of restriction and the dates different steps were made generally open to privatization. Obama has done more to open space to corporations and individuals than anyone before him, the result is going to be a space boom.

There was much collaborations between private (none govt) institutions such as universities (MIT etcc) and corporations such as IBM..The whole country was somehow involved, they were even using high school kids who showed talent in arithmetic to help out..correct me if Im wrong

corporations collaborating on the mathematics required to weaponize a space program doesn't mean that IBM could legally launch up a rocket if they had one.

As to using high school kids with talent... that is not something we talk about here. MK-ULTRA picked up half a million of the smartest kids of that generation, held them for months, then returned them to their families. Who knows what all they did and do?

Do you know about the Duke talent search? If you show up as being in the .001% in terms of IQ or an individual gift the Duke talent search scoops you up before you're 12 and then WHAT HAPPENS? Where do all these most gifted go? They don't reappear in society... their families receive a stipend... but what about the smart kids?

holy shit didn't know about MK-ULTRA--reading up on it ty.

Actually the intelligence level of comments is much better than your average /r/conspiracy post. Even the antisemites who plague this subreddit are more or less keeping their views to a low profile here.

Or just use it towards the national debt.

...because it will all flow back into the hands of the jewish bankers who keep us in a state of perpetual debt slavery? Fuck you.

Racist troll almost made a valid point...

No, instead we should just pick up pennies from our car floors, it would do the same thing.

Discretionary spending is NOT THE PROBLEM regarding the deficit. It's rising health care costs due to the perverted for-profit health care industry, along with military and SS spending.

HC costs are being driven by baby boomers retiring.

Nope, since they are rising per-capita. Try again.

Why not both? The number of retirees drawing from Medicare and Medicaid will double by 2050.

Ok, it's both, not simply increasing numbers of retirees.

Err poorly phrased. HC expenditures.

The money would definitely be spent better if it went to NASA.

One thing that I never got a decent answer for is: what is the US getting out of its abusive relationship with Israel? The benefit for the Israelis is pretty clear, I have no idea what benefit the US is getting from being a client state of Israel.

what is the US getting out of its abusive relationship with Israel?

Military/industrial profits.

The amount of money the US gives the Israel in aid far surpasses what we gain by selling them military equipment. In fact Israel develops the majority of its own hardware these days.

Clearly not worth it.

Most of it is military research and trading. We give them money and weapons in return for high level R&D for military technology. It's also our most stable ally in that part of the world. Whether you agree with us even needing a presence there comes down to your own opinion.

Here's a read up on what they do with the money and military technology we give them http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

I would be impressed with all that military technology and stuff, but the reality is that the US has been fighting a bunch of goat farmers in the hills of Afghanistan for the last 10 years, people who have pistols, AK47s, RPG7s, the occasional 50 Cal anti-aircraft and a smattering of road-side bombs.

Despite this very basic arsenal, against which the US has 2 of everything that's available to the modern war fighter, they haven't won a decisive victory. I think that's ever-so-slightly embarrassing, especially when you consider that the US spent almost $140 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan in 2011, the Afghani GDP being in the environs of $36 billion. And that doesn't translate into a victory.

How much toys do you actually need? At the prices mentioned above, you could give every Afghani a job, double their pay, give them Afghani-level single payer health care and you'd be cheaper off than what you spend bombing them. I really think you should try that one time.

I totally agree with you. Our military budget is completely unjustified.

The reason we still work on advanced systems is because this current conflict in the ME won't be the last the US decides to get itself into.

Israel gave our military advice on how to fight militants who try to blend in with the civilian population while minimizing civilian casualties. They also gave our military advice at how to combat suicide bombers.

This has lessened both coalition and civilian casualties in that war.

The thing is that we would have had more allies, or at least neutral non-enemies if we'd never involved ourselves with Israel in the first place.

It's really hard to say. This goes into a lot of Cold War history and a whole lot of "what if" situations that we will never really know.

Well, we know everyone in the Middle East can't stand Israel because since their recent birth, they've had war after war. We know that because no one in the Middle East supports Israel, that we can conclude, by default, that no one in the Middle East supports us.

Fair point. I'm more talking about the USSR's involvement over that region and what their influence would have been if we were never involved at all. The history of that region since the end of WW2 is so complex due to the worlds involvement that it's hard for me to simplify it if we were never involved with Israel in the first place we wouldn't have these enemies. But if you get into current events, and the fact that no other world power has a whole lot of influence there, then I do agree that our current involvement directly relates to having enemies in the region.

They do some of the best military research in the world and there's some minor trading of it back to us once they've hit the next step.

To some neo-cons Israel is on "our side" and the Muslims are "their side" and that mindset has obvious pitfalls, like turning a blind eye to the faults of our friends. I've literally had people become spitting mad that I was criticizing "our only friend in that sandy hellhole."

We should try some civilian research for a change and spend some money on things that are actually useful.

So true! The world should stop obsessing about military affairs and concentrate on more meaningful and useful things.

It was part of a treaty brokered between Egypt and Israel. They agreed to stop fighting as long as the US gives them both military aid every year.

Also, the ability to completely rely on Israel for any sort of military assistance in the region.

the ability to completely rely on Israel for any sort of military assistance in the region.

What can Israel do for the US DoD that it can't do for itself on a $660 Dollar/year budget?

I'm struggling to get my head around that.

I would stop giving both of them money and I'd like to see whether they'd really start fighting again.

The Pentagon likes the fact that no matter what happens, they can put troops on the soil in Israel.

You know, it's not that I don't understand the realities of that in a geopolitical context, because I've been here for a while, I'm not a fucking alien.

The thing though, I'm seeing a country where desperately many things are going wrong and very many millions of people need very much more help from their government than they're getting. It's time to cut some DoD spending and start using that money where it will do some good.

Troops on the soil of Israel? Really? Because we're going to invade Syria next?

It's a massive waste of money and resources and the US has been doing it for so long that it actually believes that this is the natural state of being.

In case you forget, that neck of the woods is home to a huge amount of the world's oil. To the pentagon, it's strategically vital. As in, they feel they need to make sure that there is a 0% chance that the oil will stop flowing for a long period of time.

A classic case of "How dare they decide what happens with our oil", right?

For a fraction of the cost of the wars, the US could have developed a new energy source.

But why be creative when you have a chance to kill a lot of people, right?

I'm not defending US policy. I'm just explaining it.

.... or better spent on the Secret Space Programs

legalize marijuana and put the taxes to the NASA fund

this way, we ALL go high!

Well played.

searched this thread for marijuana. Good job!

newsdrifter for President!

If more powerful people in the U.S.A. had astronauts in their bloodline, this might happen.

Even more if there was an astronaut genocide that they can exploit for sympathy to advance their agenda.

How about we spend that on arts programs for inner city schools so that they dont think their only option is the military

No offense but Art "careers" don't pay very well.

As a hobby while holding down a job, art can break out if you make it but that is like making it to the NFL.

Band got me to college on a scholarship. Pretty much everyone in my band is on some sort of scholarship. Yet only about a quarter of our 300 piece band is majoring in some sort of music field. Supporting the arts doesn't mean the person is going to do that for the rest of their life, it's a good way to pay for college.

Arts careers pay on average better than most office jobs, and actually making a career in it isn't farfetched any more. There are hundreds of applications for many, many different art disciplines now.

Besides, the biggest benefit of arts in schools is it breeds creativity. Being able to express yourself, in whatever small way, rather than being dragged through the motions day in day out in education will help a shitload more than it hinders.

Arts careers pay on average better than most office jobs

Citation needed.

My uncle does interior design for hotels and makess a shit ton of money

And John Grisham makes millions of dollars writing books, but the average author hardly makes any money. There will always be exceptions, and just because your uncle does interior design and makes a lot of money doesn't mean that everybody else with an art career makes a lot of money.

Im just giving an example that you do make money in art careers, its just like any other industry, there are high paying jobs and low paying jobs

He said "on average".

And on average its like anyother industry

/r/design would beg to differ . There are graphic artists that design the ads you see everyday, industrial designers that designed everything you see from cars to vacuums to tables and toothbrushes.

How about we end all wars and stop spending money on shit and just give it back to the people that it was taken from...us.

That would eliminate far too much profit for the top, you see.

Not going to happen.

Even if it did happen, we'd just go right back to giving it to the successful again.

Nah, it takes a generation or two. There is a well developed theory explaining why this cycle keeps repeating.

Ok, so there's actually two problems with this.

1) 3 Billion dollars is miniscule. The NIH has $30 billion of funding per year, and NASA's funding is $18 billion. Adding $3 billion to either (unless directed towards a particular goal/project) basically amounts to a blip on the radar.

2) The money towards Israel gives us something (a stable democracy in the Middle East willing to do our bidding and provide us bases) that's surely worth $3 billion a year. Compared to where else we send our money (ahem, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.), that's not bad. To Israel, that money means a lot more than it does to us, who have massive budgets.

Take a look for yourself. I honestly can't believe that you'd think that giving money to most of these countries is better than giving money to Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid/

Edit: I changed 3) to 2). Thanks, MayorEmanuel.

How can you say that increasing a budget by 1/6th is insignificant?

Also where is 2?

So you're playing the 'massive budget' card, huh? I don't like you.

The money towards Israel gives us something (a stable democracy in the Middle East willing to do our bidding and provide us bases)

And a reason for Islamic countries in the Middle East to hate America even more. America needs to end this idealization of "peace-keeping" operations. It has no right nor reason to be in the Middle East, besides the oil to be acquired and a sense of "democracy" or "peace" given to us in exchange for American lives. America shouldn't be funding Israel, nor should it be funding any other Middle Eastern countries.

The situation in the Middle East benefits Israel, defense contractors, oil companies, and the political elite in the US. It has no benefit whatsoever for the average American citizen.

Yea 3 billion is NOTHING. Are you kidding me? There are month long committees held to approve 5 million dollar for a project. Imagine what 3 billion could do

The US has allies in the region besides Israel, it usually calls on these Arab allies to get shit done.

It rarely uses Israel's presence as an advantage.

The money towards Israel gives us something (a stable democracy in the Middle East willing to do our bidding and provide us bases) that's surely worth $3 billion a year.

The US get's nothing out of it. Jordan, Egypt (Pre-arab spring), Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE are all countries that maintain healthy relationships with the US. The US also has bases all over these countries. It's these bases they use to flex their muscles.

To Israel, that money means a lot more than it does to us, who have massive budgets.

Israeli citizens have universal healthcare. Effectively the US subsidises Israeli healthcare without having any of it's own (I know this is worded to sound worse than it is, but you get the point).

Take a look for yourself. I honestly can't believe that you'd think that giving money to most of these countries is better than giving money to Israel.

No one wants to give the money to any one else, we're saying KEEP IT!

Edit: Formatting

Stockholm Syndrome much?

Israel creating stability in the region? Are you kidding me? The west bank and Gaza? Never heard of them? And Why the flying fuck Would you need a thousand bases all over the globe fore? What imaginary threat are you scared of? Or does the us just feel the imperial urges of euroupe 1600? And don't give me the "budget is already to big crap" since when did 3 fucking billions become a small sume? They could do a shitload of stuffs with that money. And about the other countries that you mentioned as a horror example, those are mainly countries that are in a rebuilding state from when the us fucked them up, by giving them this money they are mearly repaying what they fucked up and helps the countries back on foot. Israels main priority seems to be fucking up their neighbouring countries.

That means we support the garza blockading. Have you seen the realities there or read about them? Most mainstream news sources don't cover that.

OP clearly hates Isreal, check his username "FreePalestineKashmir", also notice his comment/post history, all anti-Isreali and a redditor for a whole 5 days. I may not agree with everything Isreal does, but I think this person is clearly biased and thinks Reddit is a great place to spread anti-Isreali propoganda.

I hate Israel, too. So what...?

Um.

I'm a pure blooded american and i think israel was founded semi-illegitimately. I don't advocate for the isrealis to get kicked out and murdered. But realistically, they are asshole to their own citizens and bullies in general. Even though the OP is an anti-Semite, the concept of cutting foriegn aid to invest here at home is something we can all agree on.

How about we cut aid to isreal and pakistan and call it even?

Why don't we pull money from farm subsidies, or one of the many other corporate welfare programs we're currently running? There are many, many sources of funds which could be re-allocated to NASA, so what the fuck does NASA have to do with Isreal? It's not like someone said "lets shut down NASA and give the money to Isreal" so I don't even see why this is being discussed, other than the fact that OP is using a popular sentiment on Reddit (NASA getting funding) and twisting that into their anti-Isreali agenda.

Because they have nukes. That's why.

Upvoted for making a good argument. But it's also important to note that the people (I'm assuming) you think they are being 'assholes' to, are not Israeli citizens. Israeli Arabs and Israeli Muslims get the exact same rights and treatment as Israeli Jews or Christians. This is no different from non-citizens in countries all over the world.

the palestinians are israeli citizens. Yet they are denied their rights daily.

A palestinian needs an israeli passport to travel. Israel does not give many palestinians passports however, so many of them can't travel freely.

Supporting Palestine does not mean you hate Israel. Israel violates international law by occupying Palestinian territories. It is not outrageous to assume our money can be better spend somewhere else.

I wish Israel the best, but it has no right to occupy Palestinian terrorities and US money should not support it.

Redditors are leftist anti-Israeli morons

Here's where your argument fails: Why pull it from only Israel? You could round up probably $20 billion from everywhere in the budget to increase NASA's funding.

But no matter what, the GOP will continue to view NASA as a waste of government money. "The free market will travel to space!" they'll say.

Actually, Congress should be ashamed of the bill that just passed in May , it limits funding for all kinds of scientific agencies like NOAA as well.

What about how much money we give Brazil? or Egypt? or ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT DESERVE MY TAX DOLLARS!

Very few of those countries are engaging in the levels of blatant injustice the Israelis are. Our tax money is literally paying for the solitary confinement of restrained children in Israel.

EDIT: Downvote me because you don't like the truth, go ahead.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42527&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

Can you provide a solid link on the restrained children?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42527&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

UN Sanction official enough?

Thank you for the article. I was completely unaware of this.

What do you think the USA would do if someone shot a bunch of missiles at our schools and government buildings?

If we went and started bulldozing Mexican border towns and putting up Christian Settlements and the Mexicans started shooting back I assume we'd either change policy or shoot back. That doesn't make it the right choice.

Throw a rock at a cop, or a baby in any other country, and see what happens to you. The palestinian kids who do so aren't treated any worse than they would be in any other western country.

You think that if a kid throws a rock at a cop in the US he gets stuck in solitary confinement? Also, you're not READING the article, all some of these kids did "wrong" was have a parent the Israeli Defense Force was investigating.

If a kid throws a rock at somebody in most countries, they can be charged with attempted murder and may very well be put in solitary, yes.

You don't really understand the American criminal justice system do you? It's actually in violation of national human rights accords to place a CHILD in solitary confinement. In America you can't even take them into custody, you contact a magistrate who determines the correct course and if it is to hold them you take them to a youth facility. Stop talking out your goddamn ass and listen to what they're doing.

First off, Richard Falk is a known Israel basher and cannot be considered an objective observer any more than, I don't know, Khaled Mashal.

And no, in America you can place a child in solitary confinement. Here's a good article about it! http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/06/18/girls-in-juvenile-justice-an-invisible-population

So yea, your article follows the predictable pattern of anti-israel hysteria. Link to an article about somebody who has made a living bashing Israel, criticizing them for some minor complaint (arresting children for what would be considered attempted murder in most places and putting them in solitary) and acting as if they're the only country that acts this way, even when the majority of western countries are worse in that regard.

There's plenty of legitimate things to criticize israel about. But bullshit like this is why most americans ignore the palestinians. Their supporters rely far too much on emotional manipulation and blatant double standards.

Most Americans ignore the Palestinians for the same reason they ignore the Somali genocides or any other of numerous atrocities: because our information flow is controlled.

That article is linking to a UN sanction... not one person's testimony, sorry you perceive a world where anyone who thinks atrocities are wrong are anti-Israel.

Also, your counter link has absolutely no sources for its statement children in America are placed in solitary confinement AGAINST THEIR WILL barring extreme violence. Most children in solitary are over 16 and are there per their request for protective custody. Not even similar situations.

Please, the palestinians get access to the worldwide media far out of proportion to the actual conflict. Every time an israeli builds an apartment in the occupied territories, it's front page news all over the world. Israel kills a ten terrorists and one civilian in an operation, the HRC holds a meeting to bash israel.

Ten thousand civilians die in the Congo, or Sri Lanka...and it's buried in the back of the international section.

The UN has a systematic bias against Israel due to the Muslim bloc having a stranglehold on the organization.

I can find numerous other sources. It's not even a debatable fact. In western countries, children are placed in solitary. Just as it's not remotely debatable that calling the solitary confinement of violent offenders an "atrocity" cheapens the term.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to criticize Israel. But this is just the epitome of stupid, double standard arguments.

I'm sorry your persecution complex is so complete. It's really a shame how often this occurs to people who associate themselves with Israel, in terms of ego investment. If America was systematically bulldozing Mexican homes and moving the border and the Mexicans blew up a few buses (And in America people not in contact with the Jewish communities are exposed to the anti-Israeli violence all the time in the media) I suspect the UN would sanction America just like it keeps trying to do to Israel.

As to why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets covered front page... there's a significant portion of the US that is made up of ignorant bible thumpers who like to hear how white people control Jerusalem again. There's also a large group of liberals who believe it is the nexus from which the next world war will begin, this means that there's a lot of the population who pay attention to stories about Israel, not as many care about "that African country" and "those black people." Sad truths.

I have no persecution complex. I'm not israeli, ethnically, more non-jewish than jewish, and religiously agnostic. I don't associate myself with Israel in any way. In fact, I criticize Israel on a regular basis.

What I don't do, is single Israel out for criticism based on something that every other country does. And I don't do it based on the testimony of those who have made a career attacking israel. And I don't do it based upon a body which is structurally biased against Israel. I do it based on what Israel does; not what its bitterest enemies accuse it of doing.

Yeah and I'm an American born jew who grew up in Jewish community centers. Who cares?

When I linked you criticisms of the American policy on solitary confinement, which is nowhere near as unjust as what is occuring in Israel, you tried to tell me that was a double standard. That's not rational, that means you are seeing persecution where there is NONE. That is called a persecution complex.

You denied that solitary confinement of minors occurrence in america. That is not true.

Quote me. I specified against their will and without extreme violence. The Palestinian children being placed into solitary frequently WERE NOT violent with the police, it was routine to blindfold and bind them and transport them alone, that by itself is solitary confinement, however short term, and there is no discussion of them being placed into protective custody, rather they are placed into adult jails with adults. The situations are NOT parallel, only similar.

First off, most of these allegations you're offering were not specified in your biased link you already posted. More importantly, of course the situations are not exact parallels. Palestinians are not israeli citizens, israeli law is completely different, and palestinians for the most part hold antagonistic attitudes towards israeli institutions.

Well, as long as it's apartheid it's okay then. They're not citizens so abuse the living hell out of them and steal their land. That's some fucked thinking.

You have no idea how stupid you sound comparing the current situation in the occupied territories to apartheid.

And by referring to the arrest of rock throwers as "abuse".

the manner in which they are arrested. Also, both Friedman and President Carter have outlined how strong the parallels between present day Israel and South African Apartheid.

Yea, and the majority of Carter's staff at his foundation resigned in offense when he stated as such. I've heard from people who've seen both situations first hand how ludicrous the comparison is.

sorry if your second hand information doesn't trump good hard data for me.

No more second hand than yours. Except the people in your example make a profit off controversial ideas

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/solitary_confinement_of_juvenile_offenders

http://solitarywatch.com/2010/05/21/children-in-lockdown-richard-ross-photographs-juvenile-detention/

So both articles acknowledge the fact that such practices, even though they oppose them, are common in the west. So this is, in fact, a double standard. Glad we cleared that up.

And personally, I agree that non-violent offenders shouldn't be put into solitary. Throwing rocks? A violent offense. Several israelis have been killed or badly wounded by thrown rocks in recent years.

You're not really understanding the differences here and it's a shame. America IS getting called out for it too, it's NOT a double standard unless you critisized Israel and then turned a blind eye towards out own nation. And since it's ME you're talking to obviously I criticize both practices. Raiding a child's home at night and placing them in solitary before they get a trial is NOT the same as placing a child in solitary for protective custody.

One last thing... Falk is only known as an "Israel Basher" among those who cant' stand to hear Israel criticized. To those who believe that injustice needs to be called out he is a hero.

Falk is one of the few critics of israel who actually can be considered to be an anti-semite, thanks to his posting of anti-semitic cartoons and his endorsement of the anti-semitic book, "the wandering who".

Furthermore, if somebody makes a career out of bashing a single state (while defending, amongst others, the ayatollah khomeini) while never responding positively to that state, then it's reasonable to assume that they lack the ability to be objective on that issue. There are plenty of people who at times bash israel but who I still trust to speak about it. Richard Falk has long ago ceased to be included on this list.

It's a shame when instead of dealing with the issue brought up all you can do is assassinate the character of the person bringing the issue to your attention.

Would you trust any statement from Rush Limbaugh on unions? No. Not if you're looking for anything besides a polemic. It's the same thing. Falk has made a career on attacking israel (and defending its enemies).

If you say so.

How about we pull aid from Pakistan?

there are a lot of countries that we feed money too every year that should be spent at home.

Israel has the most efficient military force in the world right now. I think they can go without the US giving them MORE funding.

It would be interesting to see the OP respond to this. Seeing that his username references the Kashmir, I bet he might take a different stance on Pakistani aid.

You might be surprised by his answer. US money in Pak comes with a lot of strings.

While we are hopeful about positive changes, let's move the Israelies out of Palestine and drop them off in West Virginia. This would end a conflict that has spanned much of modern time and cost all of us countless lives, actual progress of humanity and unbelievable economic waste.

Oh no, you cant move them from their "home", that their family has inhabited for centuries!

But I hear West Virginia is a lovely drive to DC for picking up cheques and twisting arms. Really, it's a win-win scenario for everyone!

why? they are doing it to Palestinians

sigh

Screw giving it to NASA. Refund it back to the taxpayers.

I like that idea but we'll just waste the refund on slushies and gak

if we cut funding from Isreal, we lose our base in the Middle East. trying to get america to cut aid to Isreal would ruin our presence in the area. They're our creation and can do no wrong in our eyes. I'm not saying I support the funding, but this is a wasted effort, there is no way the gov. is gonna cut funding.

Why Israel? Why not mention the countless other countries we give money too? Three billion dollars a year is really nothing in terms of what the Government waste money on.

Probably because the 3 bill in cash and 2 bill in guaranteed loans goes to nation that is financially solvent, used to buy weapons, and promotes hostilities that lead to blow back that is not in America's interest.

Also Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It makes them top of the list to be struck out for budgetary reasons

Not sure where you go those numbers. From what I saw Afghanistan was number one in 2011 (4.10 billion). With Israel second (2.7 billion) and Pakistan third (1.8).

Like it or not Israel is a strong friend of America, in a time when we don't have many. I'm all in favor in taking that 1.8 from Pakistan and give it to NASA.

Israel gets the most by far

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid stop being a dumbfuck and read up before you talk

Lets not give pakistan 30 billion dollars and give it to nasa instead.

That's 0.13% of the federal budget for FY2011. We don't have to choose between these two options. In fact, the only thing these issues have in common is that they both fall into the "shit college kids care about" category.

I'll go one better and say let's pull the money from Israel and put it almost anywhere else!

Like Pakistan? Or Egypt?

Hell no. I'm sorry, I should have been clearer: Take the money and put into almost any NON-MILITARY endeavor.

Wait, why do we send them 3 billion a year?

I honestly want to answer your question but may I ask maby a tired question.. did you not know that is was the elite that blew down the 3 towers.. not osamabinladen..

or put it towards solar energy

How about instead of fielding 70 Nuclear powered, nuclear armed attack submarines we give the 750 billion dollars to NASA?

How about instead of having 1,000 plus military sites around the globe we give that 8 trillion dollars to NASA?

True, but you have to start somewhere.

Cutting off Israel would throw a wet blanket over all the Iran war talk. Then we could start taking apart our ridiculous war machine.

The second we cut off support to israel, iran attacks them. lest you forget, iran has no rationale reason to hate israel. It's just typical eliminationist islamic extremism. The same thing you see all over the world.

Why the fuck are we giving 3 billion dollars to Israel anyway?

It (and military aid to egypt) are conditions of the peace treaty between the two countries.

yeah give the money to a military agency who research vectors for nuclear weapons.

the military-industrial complex is the main place where pure research gets money in the u.s. and if you think that's insane, wait till you hear a libertarian seriously worshiping nasa w/o realizing that it's an arm of the military-industrial complex that failed to produce enough scary cold war space weapons and consequently lost funding.

what i'm trying to say is that no matter what, the eventual goal of nasa is to create an independence day mothership so to scare people with and all the other research is more like a bonus or diversion or whatever.

hmm money to commit war crimes in the Middle east, or money for space programs?

I think it's definitely a good idea to give it to NASA, because it will hopefully create more jobs in America too.

But I think that the money could also be considered against other things - perhaps more important things - like healthcare and education, for example?

It's not so much the anti-semite bit, it's the fact that all of our aid is military aid, and much of it is required to be spent on US military goods and services. It's essentially a big funnel of cash to the military-industrial complex. Like most of our foreign aid, it allows the government to take tax dollars and hand it out to the corporations that fund our politicians/parties. So, while you could politely disregard any allegations of anti-semitism, there's almost no way to beat the system.

Israel has been our military foothold in the middle east for 50 years, they are almost a sovereign state of the USA for the purpose of holding a highly aggressive extremely well armed military presence at the throats of OPEC. The only way we will cut funding is when the middle east is no longer important.

Israel provides no strategic value for the US in the Middle East. In fact, given the constant interference by AIPAC and company in US foreign policy decisions and strategy, it has a significant negative value.

If you need to know the strategic value of israel, just look at what the U.S. did in response to the U.S.S.R. attempting to set up missile bases in Cuba, which only happened because the U.S. set up missiles in Turkey.

Oh yes there is strategic value in having nukes so close that evacuation is not possible.

Do you have a source for this? I'd be interested to read up on this.

This is a good exposition on the influence Israel's US-based lobby has on US foreign policy, much to the detriment of the US:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

Which will be never.

Isn't aid in the form of a loan? Doesn't Israel have to pay back that money (unless it is forgiven)? NASA won't pay back that money.

Am I wrong about how foreign aid works or is this thread retarded?

I don't see what we get out of sending all that money to isreal. They don't foster stability in the region. If anything their treatment of the palistinian people promotes violence and bigotry. It would be one thing if they let the them into the country and gave them a voice in politics, but they don't and that is about as unamarican as it gets.

In foreign policy, america is very happy to do lots of business with regimes that rob their own people of democracy and human rights. If U.S business has cheap access to that countries resources. See 'The school of Americas'. A training academy By the department of defence that trains mainly latin american officers. Their graduates have gone on to erode human rights and been involved in many massacres.

I would love for NASA to be reinstated and given money! I'm a big science nerd and I think that furthering our education of space with further us as a whole.

Get NASA back off the ground and when thats done (plus, you know, get our economy back in order), then we send some money over to the Middle East - BECAUSE THATS WHERE WE'LL BUILD THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SPACE BRIDGE/PORT!!!

WTF you talkin about, everyone knows that's gonna be built in SF.

I was reading that there are some peaks in the Andes that are best of all. We're almost there with super tensile solids (carbon!)and the powering of the vehicle is hitting some major breakthroughs. The Andes are near the equator, there are places you could take loads from Atlantic AND Pacific without too much additional work, and it's sparsely populated so if something goes wrong less people will be in the danger area.

In this little scenario are you also going to stop sending money to the Palestinians?

[deleted]

I thought about that at one point. Instead of the gov't deciding 100% of the budget, they decided on basic 'minimums' then part of our vote would be voting for where to place the rest (so you could vote to have 50% of that remainder going to NASA, etc)

The problem is, I looked at the U.S. spending, pie chart, and Mandatory Spending makes up over 50% of the spending, and reducing the military to non-war levels (only my thoughts on this) would still take up a good deal of that pie chart to keep us 'safe'.

The remainder, in my mind, is so small that I'm not sure whether giving citizens a vote on what's more important would change much at all.

The way you described it is how the Fed's budget already works. Congressmen are elected by constituents and they figure out the budget. What I'm talking about is drastically cutting spending from the budget, which reduces the need to tax people, which then allows people to keep more of the fruits of their labor. Letting individuals decide how to best spend their money means it doesn't go to the government at all, it means they are free to voluntarily give it to whom they see fit through the purchase of goods/services, donations, investments, etc.

Then how would we be able to enjoy public buildings, parks, roads etc.

There is a point to be made here; there are a lot of places we could cut spending so that we could fully fund NASA. I have heard that we spend more than a few dollars paying for the defense of Europe many believe they should be paying for their own defense. I am very frustrated with the lack of funding for our public school system and NASA; I am at the point where I think perhaps we should stop giving out any foreign aid at all. It’s seems all it buys us is terrorist attacks and comments about American imperialism.

A good example: TARP cost the US taxpayers more money than NASA has over its entire 50+ years existence.

the US taxpayer made a profit on TARP

Hey now, those bankers deserved all that money after how they fucked the whole world up!

Imagine all the good that could be done with this money by NASA, or by the school systems of the southern states, or to upgrade a few power generating plants. Almost anything it was spent on would be better than giving it to Israel, to be used to kill innocent human beings.

Or you know..... Medical Research....

Why is this /r/conspiracy material? What does it have to do with anything?

I think because it ties into conspiracies about why the US is even sending that much money, and goes back to some debates regarding the US government trying to push Christian agendas under the guise of helping an ally.

Am I the only one who thinks throwing money at NASA shouldn't even be in the top 100 things we could do with our money to improve things?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

What about Pakistan? Or literally every other country and military that we fund through "aid".

Fuck NASA. Let's explore out own fucking world first.

How many undiscovered species are the reckoned to be?

A world population of 9 billion people is projected in the next couple of generations - we either practice eugenics and breeding programs (heil Hitler) or seek out new resources, which sadly only exist in infinite abundance in space.

I'm pretty sure most Americans can't point out where Israel is on a map.

Is it one of the pink ones?

Our government is helping fund solitary confinement of children and somehow this isn't a moral issue. Sickening. :(

THEN WE CAN SEND ISRAEL TO THE MOON!

It can be 4.5 billion if you include the money given to Egypt that goes into the pockets of corrupt cronies and supports the military regime.

There are at least two Israeli spies in US prisons for espionage. Israel sank the USS Liberty (a naval vessel) in 1967. Currently the country is trying to buy the US election through its proxy, Sheldon Adelson. Now tell my why we're giving Israel any aid at all. By their own admission, they've got over 250 nukes and a booming economy. Let them stand on their own.

[deleted]

Great idea! I mean that is how they do all the other failed corporations.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q8662/

I wouldn't say we need to cut the 3 billion to Israel (although i think it is absured we give them an unlimited amount of money so they can sustain their "military advantage" over their neighbors) I think we should be out of Afghanistan before we worry about Israel. The money wasted on Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Please visit www.Penny4NASA.org and the Fight For Space Kickstarter Page: (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/420606009/fight-for-space-space-program-and-nasa-documentary)

NASA isn't a taxpayer black hole - it's our greatest economic engine. If you don't agree you can always stop using smoke detectors, cordless drills, swipe cards, computers, lithium batteries, GPS Navigation and take those braces off of your teeth in protest.

amen!!!

Around jews

You get hebrewed

after all, we need to find out where all these goddamn reptilians are coming from

A noble cause but as a pessimist I don't believe this will happen anytime soon.

Competely agree. $8.3 million a day. This is our tax dollars. We as a people have no say in how our money is spent. We are "represented" by a bunch of crooks. We need to revolt, take back our country and implement a direct democracy via the interwebs.

This and stop the pointless wars for profit.

I'm an Israeli and I think its a good idea

I'm not sure I consider Nasa a honest broker. But, yes get Israel off the dole.

I agree with this, and supportive towards these kind of campaign subjects. Lets start a revolution on the moon. Good proposal?

Do you have a degree in anything related to space exploration?? You know throwing money at stuff doesnt just automatically give positive results.

Yeah, your right and no I have not even graduated high school yet. But I do read a lot about exploring the universe and keeping up to date with the JFK Center, in Florida. They have been making huge impacts on the american space travels which I am happy to say they are finally getting much needed answers from the new and improved Hubble Telescope.

Eventually youll realize that everything you read is worthless until mr experience kicks in..

Foreign aid should only be given out for humanitarian purposes. Joint, international projects should also be given funding but they should always be conceived and implemented to increase the quality of life in the affected areas (such as building infrastructure, protecting waterways, etc.)

Nothing breeds Terrorism more than having a foreign entity control your family's lives in a negative way.

Foreign aid should not be given at all. If people want to donate money to the poor in foreign countries, they can do so voluntarily. Government should not make that decision for people.

Lots of Negative Nelly comments from Sour Sallys and Debbie Downers. This could work! God left the Middle East ages ago when he moved his base to Mars. We need to follow. Come on, Reddit: Let's get that money to NASA.

Why don't we take all the money we are spending on STUPID wars and put them into our schools. Fuck you GWB and your dad too. Obama hasn't done much better either though. Bring back Clinton!

I'd support such an action, NASA is far more important than the petty squabbles in the Middle East.

I would rather give 3 billion to Elon Musk. IMHO the whole shuttle program was a designed by congress pork barrel program. The 1986 Challenger failure for example, would never have happened if they didn't insist on building the rocket booster in sections from some congressman's home state, which meant they required double o-rings. No I don't have sympathy for those working at NASA either, because they were playing a bureaucratic game just trying to hang on to the money.

Giving money to SpaceX wouldn't help. SpaceX is a business, it looks for profit, and space exploration does not give that much profit. You need government funded agencies to do the research first, then try it, and then give it to the private sector. That's what happens everytime. Space exploration is very, very risky, and there's a very low chance that it would give profit very soon.

I disagree. A long time ago I thought "Hey that asshole from paypal is trying to go into space?" But I've come to learn that Elon Musk is a very dedicated and forward thinking person. His businesses aren't about profit as so much moving the world forward. I suggest you do some googling and check out some youtube videos. No one else sinks their entire fortune into space, solar, and electric cars, while at the same time telling VC's "we're doing this to go to space, you may never see a profit".

The only time we move forward is when we find dedicated and competent leaders. Otherwise it's just a giant money sink. I find nearly everything about the shuttle program stupid, whereas SpaceX is doing everything right.

Yes, Elon Musk is a space fan. But, what I meant was that private companies will never lead the space frontier. It was always the governments which start the trade, always map the roads and so on. Columbus didn't go to 'the edge of the Earth' because he was an explorer, he was given the money by the governments, and was told to put their flag if he finds any land. Later he mapped where peaceful natives were, where dangerous ones were, and so on. THEN he gave the information to the private trade so the people could profit. I'm just looking at the history, because it was always the government funding which leads everything, and later it's given to the private sector.

Well no this is wrong again. A great deal of science (probably could be stated as most of science except for the past few decades) has been done in the past basically by rich people who could afford to fund themselves and had the time to do so, or worked for a private education institutions. Isaac Newton for example? Pretty much all the classical scholars, even ancient greek.

I'm not saying NASA couldn't do good things. What I'm saying is they have no clear goals and no leadership to provide it. In case this post is viewed as private vs public, this is certainly not the case. I've worked at private institutions with the same problems as NASA. No leadership, no vision, a bunch of bozo's entrenched in their jobs who somehow never seem to do anything or get fired for it. You have to understand I was 6 when Challenger blew up. I followed that story intensely, that was my lesson in "what not to do" as an engineer. My dreams were crushed by the weight of the political and organizational problems at NASA. At 6 years old.

The leadership is at SpaceX so there the funding should go. This is clearly a better choice. 3 billion dollars would buy NASA 2 shuttle launches! Watch my circular logic here - that program was designed the spend money in US, not to go to space. The biggest pork barrel boondoggle ever conceived by humanity. Besides the Big Dig, at least.

Actually I've been thinking seriously of sending my resume in to SpaceX. Do something useful with my life...

It is a good start. How about this? 1. Stop all funding for foreign military aid everywhere. Now. 2. Cut "defense" spending 10% every year for the next 10 years The GREEN Tea party has you covered. http://knowinghappiness.net/green-tea-party-platform/

How bout the Ron Paul movement, which supports almost exactly that.

Or... i could quit getting cut 1/3 of my paycheck and maybe be able to provide for my 6 month old daughter... js

rather than risk angering people by having to vote about cutting off funding (though..we don't have to even vote to let the tax cuts expire and that's a huge fight anyway....) i assume that foreign aid already has to be renewed..if not..we really need to see why a country can get money forever and our transportation system can't...we should tie all foreign aid to some kind of emergency trigger. like if tax revenue drops the foreign aid will be in the first layer of 'crumple zones' to absorb the impact. well maybe not immediately since there's probably some contract between us...but maybe it can be auto flagged for not renewing it and since it's based on a financial statistic it's not like we're purposefully being mean to any specific country.. the world is probably used to us having a lot of strange rules that keep popping up :)

Instead of giving Israel 3 billion dollars, let's not and hopefully get out of this crisis a bit sooner?

This, while being a great idea, will never happen. This country's politics have become more polarized then ever before with the extreme elements of each party leading the political conversation. The extreme bible thumping christian right totally and unequivocally believes for Christ to be resurected the ancient temple of Solomon must be rebuilt. Therefore there must be strong Jewish presence in jeruselm to eventually force out the muslim population, tear down the dome of the rock and rebuild the temple.

Another reason for this to never happen is the concerted effort by pro Israel groups over the last 30 years to become more and more influential in Washington D.C. politics (which they have done with insanely large politcal contributions).

Still a great idea though... sigh

What's one got to do with another? You are making two entirely separate arguments:

1. NASA, which has a budget of 18$ billion should receive a larger annual budget.

2. Israel, which receives 3$ billion a year, should not receive any money at all.

Why the two are related for any reason other than the fact that they are both reddit-popular opinions is beyond me. Let's debate our policies one at a time. Putting NASA in this post to get some reddit love is plain demagoguery.

and pakistan gets closer to 30 billion and is a terrorist nation.

Take money from Palestine and Kashmir, give to NASA.

Why would you do that? NASA's current budget is less than 1% of the entire national budget (much less iirc). 3 billion is nothing compared to the amount of money we spend on defense, how about taking some of THAT money and giving it to NASA.

I am an American and I approve of this message.

Absolutely, Israel has developed this symbiotic relationship with the United States - unfortunately the relationship of a parasite to its host. I highly doubt our money does anything other than get funneled into military and defense, which does nothing except create further conflict and turmoil.

Yes, let´s choose between going to the moon again or helping isarel.

Because doing the one thing or another would be better than helping people, on this very earth

If you told me could we could have an effective space telescope or planetary probe for that money, or we could send it to Israel, I would take the scope or probe. Those are tangible things that get real positive results. Who knows where that money ends up.

It won't happen until we have a new American Revolution.

Why is Israel the only country you want to take money away. We shouldn't give money to Egypt or Pakistan or any other country. Especially since they both basically support Islamic Extremism

Why is Israel the only country you want to take money away.

That's the one that keeps dragging us into shitty wars. So sit down, and shut up. Mosel extremism is shitty, but it has zero chance of becoming an existential issue for America.

Actually Israel is the only country we don't fight wars with in the middle east. Not to mention our best ally, the only democracy, and the only one without a shitty economy in there. And if by mosel you mean Muslim Terrorists. Terrorists coming from the middle east destroyed the world trade centers

do you still really think osamabinladen blow up the three towers.. that is false my friend

Yes. I do think Al Qaeda blew up the world trade centers and the pentagon and if you don't your obviously not very intelligent.

really? did they use bombs.. you say they blew up the world trade center.. you mean all three of them right?

its ok to attack my intelligent.. but educate my please because the only one who are willing to talk about this intellectually are the one do not belive your view.

this explains a lot about your world view.. this is import.. If alqaeda did atttack.. do you know of any proofs.. how did they get the bombs in the buildings... very safe and secure buildings.. can you help me to see your world view?

They didn't use bombs the flew planes into them. And there were only 2 world trade center buildings. They also flew a third plane into the pentagon which is a totally separate building. The proof of it is tons of videos and eye witness accounts of seeing planes flying into the buildings. There were no bombs involved. What country do you live in that they don't teach you this? I'd be happy to fill you in with any details about the attacks you don't know.

what wars have they dragged us into?

Last time I checked, we've fought wars for south korea, south vietnam, saudi arabia, and kuwait. But never israel.

The reason Israel is used is because they dont need the money.

How about we give it to Elon Musk and SpaceX instead? Or even better, let Elon Musk and SpaceX keep more it's revenue (along with everyone else) so they can put it towards the things they need?

Is it 3 Billion in cash, or 3 Billion worth of equipment (weapons etc, made in the USA and justified as keeping local people in jobs)? I'm guessing both.

because dropping guys on the moon is better than saving a few thousand familys homes right?

I wasnt insinuating i was pro spending it in israel btw, just saying theres better things to spend it on in the US, other than NASA!

Instead of giving it to NASA, let's give it to some food banks or how about to some school districts that desperately could use it? How nice it would be to have well fed children that are educated.

The most important thing we need to do is fund action to stop climate change. Funding Israel has no value.

I agree, why are we giving money to that country, when we could use the money at home for better uses, and get allot more out of it.

How about we use it to feed the poor.

Give it to Palestine.

but.. but israel and the US have been in kahootz (spelling?) for YEARS.. theyre not going to stop anytime soon.

The 2 corporate-funded political parties that have rigged the US electoral system, take money from AIPAC, and which run/control the US gov't do not agree with your headline.

So you're right; it will not happen. :-(

How about healthcare?

Can we get oil from the moon?

We can get helium 3, cleaner fuel and its byproducts, if I recall correctly, are fresh water and oxygen.

We would like to discover the secrets of the universe, but first we must front them some bulldozers and missles so we can have...peace.

Bring the troops home to defend OUR nation, and they can spend their military wages here. That would be an awesome stimulus!

Or cut the $3 billion entirely. Some of us think NASA is a waste of money while we still have so many problems here on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o

Not convinced. Of course he'll defend funding NASA, because he's part of it. If we're going to play that game, I might as well start making posts about how the government should give $3 billion to my workplace too.

Of course he'll defend funding NASA, because he's part of it.

Actually, he isn't a member of NASA.

If we're going to play that game, I might as well start making posts about how the government should give $3 billion to my workplace too.

See above.

Why not put the money on things that the common man really needs? Healthcare, education and a secure shelter are not guaranteed for every citizen on the US. Personally, I think a first-world countries like the state shouldn't have such high poverty rate. It's creepy. A "free" and "democratic" land should be able to provide everyone with basic services equally. The economy is messed up and the worst thing about it is that they are pulling the whole world with them into the same fucking negative circle. But then again, in a dictatorship, they take of the rich first.

it may become one of the arguments the pro-Science/NASA community have for wasted tax money that can be more useful if used on NASA or other science organizations.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd love to step into the Israel-Palestine conflict.

There are certain things in America that just can't be questioned: Israel, the NRA and the War on Drugs, just to name a few. Attempting to go against the establishment on any of these three issues will have your financial legs pulled out from underneath you faster than you can grab on to the corner of the closest table.

I wish this could happen, but it can't.

Deshi Basara

I don't know about you, but I'd take space over the middle east any day.

I'm down. I'm all for building space colonies. Then we can have wars in outer space and fucking GUNDAMS

Yes lets just stop giving money to one of the most unstable nuclear armed country in the world.

SO BRAVE

Auntie Semite has had Uncle Sam by the balls for a very long time. According to the Zionists we exist to serve them and they control the purse strings.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world - only to serve the People of Israel."

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.” - Ovadia Yosef, former Chief Rabbi of Israel, October 2010 sermon

Yea, because one extremist nutjob who has never set foot in america speaks for all jews.

How bout we use the 32 trillion the banks tucked away, and distribute it to every country, FOR SCIENCE

Where do you get the belief that banks have $32 trillion tucked away from?

http://www.infowars.com/banks-global-elite-confirmed-to-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-accounts/

Edit: article with better info

That doesn't say banks have $32 trillion tucked away. It says the combined worth of offshore holdings (much of which is 100% legally held), belonging to all parties (including non-banks), is $32 trillion.

Regardless, it's still 280 billion a year in taxes lost.

Theodor Herzl roles over in his grave.

Herzl's been rolling in his grave for a very long time already.

• He was a communist. Israel is now a predominately capitalist society.
• He advocated self-sufficiency. Israels military budget relies partially on outside money.
• He envisioned Israel being the end of the Jewish religion. Religious Jews make up 30% of the country and are the fastest growing demographic.

why do we support a hateful countries like this?

oh, because we are forced to through the federal income tax.

THANKS AMERICA!

How about we stop paying farmers to keep their fields empty, or paying people to sit on their ass and watch tv all day, or paying for oil wars, bank bailouts, etc.

This might sound more objective and unbiased if it didn't come from usernamer "FreePalenstineKashmir". You're not an American, why do you care for NASA? CERTAINLY you dont have an ulterior motive...

Better idea: stop trying to decide what other people's money should be used for and let them keep it.

Oh ok we have a god damn international finance expert here. Hey i have an idea why don't we give it to the special olympics? fuck you. ~Christa McCuliff

Why are we giving them the money? Didn't they get enough when we took the land for them?

Give it to afrika

dude, this is reddit, so FTFY

Good idea, but by the nature of your username, for all the wrong reasons.

Given that our aid to the palestinian authority has been proven to have gone to both the swiss bank accounts of the palestinian leadership as well as terrorists who used it to target innocent people, I don't think we should end military aid to israel until we end all aid to the palestinians.

Apart from your obvious agenda against Israel.. In today's dollars the budget for NASA was about $30B/year during the peak Apollo years and the estimated cost of getting us to the moon was about $130B.

While $3B is nothing to sneeze out, it is definitely not a solution to the problem of funding NASA and its a drop in the bucket if you are worried about things like the deficit.

Split it down the middle. $1.5 billion for each. Israel is one of a few if not the only ally we have in the middle east.

"Ally?" With allies like Israel... http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/x4ktk/instead_of_giving_israel_3_billion_dollars_every/c5j9mgh

[deleted]

A lot of that money is coming back to us.

Who the fuck is "us?"

That money goes to buy American bombs that are dropped on Arabs. And that costs US fucking trillions in stupid wars.

So fuck. Right. Off. Zionist. Scum.

[deleted]

Look into the soft loans we give Israel, and then we forgive the debt. The $3B could be called a red herring, to get people to focus on distractions like how much "comes back," versus how much comes back in the form of bribes, intimidation, and espionage.

I see by your username you would also like the Kashmir be returned to Muslim hands? We will cut aid to Israel AND Pakistan and we can watch the no longer peaceful Indian military and its conventional forces just roll over into Kashmir like a walk in the fucking park.

Honestly though, why just Israel? You could of used many different better examples.

[deleted]

I'm upboating this just for the: "...Columbian Endeavour for the Discovery of Atlantis, with all Challengers destroyed?"

Thanks for the laugh.

Op's username is FreePalestineKashmir.

lol'd

Yeah buddy. That "Don't Tread on Me" motto is fucking hilarious, too.

End the wars. Bring back the troops. Legalize marijuana, resulting in decriminalization of all non-violent marijuana related criminals. Take said money and push it into education reform and into NASA.

but then our military will be out of jobs and they wont get money buying and selling weapons

Fuck NASA anyway. What good are they? How does wasting tax payer money help the people?

What's with reddit's obsession with NASA? Those 3 billion dollars would be put to far better use if they were given to the poor or used for a useful form of infrastructure, such as a universal healthcare system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o

And for that matter what's with reddit's obsession with fucking Neil deGrasse Ty-JESUS THINK FOR YOURSELVES FOR ONCE PEOPLE. I KNEW SOMEBODY WOULD POST THIS VIDEO. COME UP WITH YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS DON'T PULL AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY ON ME.

The reason why I posted that is because it's the same argument I have, but worded much better then I can (also, NDT has allot more "Street Cred" then I do. If I were to say that NASA's budget was a half penny on the dollar, you probably wouldn't believe me. So I let NDT make that argument for me.

So I am coming up with my own arguments. Just that me and NDT agree fully about the issue and I'm not as good of a public

I know that NASA wouldn't take a lot of money to fund, and as such I don't really care much either way whether it gets funded or not. I'm just clueless as to why it's treated like it's so important relative to other government programs that save lives. Plus, I'm pretty sure a big portion of NASA's budget is connected to the military-industrial complex anyhow, so NASA should not only be funded if it is to be funded, but also restructured.

I'm just clueless as to why it's treated like it's so important relative to other government programs that save lives.

Did you not watch the video? I'm being serious here. He explains a few reasons why you should save it.

1) Doing missions out of low earth orbit will lay the framework for more money and services (thereby helping our economy).

2) If we repopulate at least 1 other planet, no planet-wide problem will be able to remove the human race from existence.

3) NASA does what kids dream of doing. Without it, you lose kids interest and the ability to look forward to tomorrow. Doing so will have a cascading effect in where we lose all interest in advancing science (or at least the space sciences).

No thats stupid. If we cut funding to Israel then 40 years of American policy in the Middle East goes to shit.

The big picture of military spending on Israel has tremendously stabilized that region. Israel had been in three big regional wars in 20 years from 1948-1967. US started backing Israel around Lyndon Johnson's presidency. Egypt and Saudi Arabia realized that with a great power backing the tiny state, any action by them united or otherwise would be useless. Ever since we started overtly backing Israel, there has been one large war involving Israel. That was in 1972, however their foes were backed by the Soviets in that conflict- the only time the Soviets intervened militarily in the Middle East.

As the years have gone by, those nations, the former overt enemies if Israel, have cooled their prejudices, its populace becoming more tolerant of Israel.

Now, i have not mentioned the Taliban, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan. The resurgence of Islamic extremism in those states has really thrown a bone into the grinder. But that is a product of religious fervence. The Egyptians and Sauds have come to grips with the political reality.

Though, we in the United States are confident that strategy of, in the short run, wasteful allocation of resources(your words) through military backing of Israel will eventually cool the tensions of the current enemies(extremists) over several decades, as that policy was 100% effective with Israel's former most prominent enemy (Egypt).

So in the long run the US has stabilized the Middle East, but in the headlines we're always the warmongering dick.

Sorry for the dick fingers(I love parentheses)

So who will fund us when we stop getting loans to send to Israel? Who will stabilize OUR region? Sorry, but there is no way you are going to convince me that as deep in debt as we are, we should be giving out such large amounts of money on a regular basis.

in the long run the us has stabilized the middle east??? No!

why are these country´s your enemies.. like libya.. they were fine until america/britain and those guy´s started killing people and destabilzed the country and the hole region..?

Fucking lunatic...read a book

There is nothing wrong with what I said.. you are a lunatic if you want to kill people in the middle east for no reason...

Why do you want to dominate and kill people over there.. ??

Why do we went to dominate and kill people over there?

Fair enough question.

To ask that question you have to ask why we are there in the first place. There's an easy answer. I'll tell you, but in return I want you to read the rest of my answer. We are there for the petroleum, oil.

Oil is what made the United States the wealthiest nation on Earth. It's why we have a high standard of living. Oil makes our plastics, medicines, cars, tires, you name it. Hell there's some hydrocarbons compounds in our money. Because of it, energy is cheap and plentiful thus we can only produce as much as our imagination limits. But I'm not getting into. If you want to know how valuable oil is to the US, become an economics major. If you want to know why oil is such a wonderful compound, become a biochemist. But I'm not getting into that because that would take freaking days. I'm giving you the sociopolitical benefit that the Middle East has gotten from exploitation.

We choose to stabilize the region so the oil companies fields, refineries, and shipping routes will be safe, thus they will invest further. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. Say it a hundred times.

I assumed you already knew that.

Fuck it youre clearly a stoopid high school mutherfucker and im not wasting anymore time.

I have read a book that implies that us are warmongering dick like you said.. How are they not brutal dicks who destabilized the Middle East?

real question... hope your smart enough to give me real answer.

"Fucking lunatic..."

when you express the view the murdering and destroying a nation is not cool.. you get called lunatic for it..

so btw.. is your point of view that the billions of people in the middle east and outer region should all just die by your bombs or be slave´s to you..

dont be a coward.. answer this!

Israel should be declared a pariah state and taken apart,most of the inhabitants are Khazars who converted to Judaism and therefore have no relationship to the middle east,the best solution was Stalins and that was to sequester them to Siberia.

I am American and this NEEDS to happen

Fuck israel, the Arabs need to push those fucks into the sea

It's not like the US writes a cheque for that full amount, or delivers it all in cash. A lot of the money is given in military and civilian hardware. Things like fighter jets. medical equipment and so on. That benefits the American economy because it helps to keep those industries in operation. The alternative is that Israel would buy these things from other nations, or manufacture them themselves.

Here's a plan, invest that money in your OWN people so they can buy stuff to keep your precious economy going.

I'm not American, stop jumping to conclusions and have some manners.

Hey guys, NASA here. If you're really for the idea of funding us, why not start with donations. NASA_GUY@hotmail.com is my paypal.

• May the stars be with you

lol

opens wallet

The larger issue is that the defunding of NASA has been intentional, as is the shift towards the privatization and militarization of space exploration. Some theorists believe this ties in with the "elite's" plans for a breakaway civilization. We civilians, the "profane", aren't welcome in this new frontier.

Doubt it. The Elite cant survive without standing on the backs of the average.

That's a valid point. If civilians are allowed participation, you can be sure they would not be allowed equal status. We're viewed as a resource (like here on earth!). I guess the main point I was making is that the "elite" don't want a transparent, public space program. They're not anti-science, they just want to be the ones controlling it.

"the rich" are as varied in their objectives as the countries of the earth. If a few arab princes want to take some surfs up into space let them. If some brilliant Gates type wants to setup a fund to send people one by one (like a Macarther grant!) to their moonbase based on intellect and ability then let them. Who are we to judge what is right or wrong, let natural selection decide but don't leave the full responsibility in the hands of the GOVERNMENTS of all fucking things.

"breakway civilization" BREAK AWAY CIVILIZATIONS!

What happens when a group of billionaires can take their family and blast off? We don't want them here, let them go! If Apple wants to take all of its employees into space then let them. If a hundred thousand poor people want to band together and send a few of their kids up in a rudimentary habitat LET THEM. This is what humanity is meant for!

Enlighten yourselves on the issue, my amigos:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

What if all North American redditors supported another space program instead of NASA? Maybe reddit should look to places other than their own government program. I mean, if they dont care, why keep beating their dead horse? Why not expel our energy/money to a private company or another country with a space program? Maybe someone would take notice.

Even if you could convince them to defund Israel, me thinks they would just take the money and buy a new stealth bomber.

Actually, defunding Israel would be the first step in reducing the need for US weapons and soldiers on a massive scale.

Or how about we stop wasting money on looking for aliens or water and do something useful with it instead.

It's not really giving Israel 3 billion. Almost all of that money comes in the form of defense spending credits that has to be spent on US military equipment. So it actually goes to the US.

Fucking Jews.

Trying to take control of everything like usual.

Ha! Are you JOKING??

The Israelis and the Israel lobbies control EVERY aspect of life in America. Yes, each and every one.

well can they do something about all the damn reposts?

Only if the posts are praising nazis.

Not really. If you're negative towards Israel, you're anti semite. Shame on you

I was pointing out that hate speach actually is removed by the jewish anti defamation league, so some reposts fall into that category.

Also, if I'm an anti-semite then I'm a self hating jew. I mostly just detest Israel and the culture that makes blind support for Israel here in America so fucking common.

Also, if I'm an anti-semite then I'm a hipster jew

FTFY

Elmo has been saying this too!

Even better, the govt could steal 3 billion dollars less from people, and let those people give their money to Israel or NASA as they wish...

Why is that much money given to Israel for no reason? I thought the US was the strongest and most powerful nation, but why are they Israel's bitch?

Military aid to egypt and israel is a condition of the peace treaty between the two countries. In the long run, having peaceful allies in that area of the world has paid off.

Believe me, the yids in Tel Aviv can get a lot more out of the US$3 bn than can the bureaucratic mittelmenchen in Houston. Throw in Huntsville, and boy, is it true!

Why fund NASA there's no point there's nothing in space. Why not use the money and help our economy a little bit.

Putting 3 billion "in the economy" is like throwing a drop of water into a rainstorm. It disappears and it's effect is non-existent. OR you could give it to NASA and they can turn it into something tangible, giving us amazing insight into the Universe.

See the guardian article about the trillions in off shore banks, all tax free? Your right 3 billion into the economy is nothing (by comparison).

I just don't see the productivity of learning more about space I highly doubt that NASA will increase the money tenfold like people before have said. There's just more uses for a few billion dollars although if America would stop being everyone's hero and running to fork out money after every natural disaster like Hati for example then the economy would be a lot better but we can't change past problems we can only hope to improve the future for our kids because if we don't then in about 100 years there will be a dominating country like china or Russia that owns everything.

Your SN makes this whole post BS. Sorry.

do you guys realize why we give money to israel...because me thinks you guys have no clue..

That's a useless statement without elaboration.

It was a condition of the peace treat with egypt. both countries got US military aid, and the US got political stability for decades in one of the most strategically valuable parts of the world.

Because they got our politicians by the balls with a strong Americaside voting block.

we give them money because after world war II we were basically like, here you go jews here is jerusalem and land to make your own country. We give them money because everyone around there HATES them. We give them money because if we didn't they would be fucked. We give them money because the oil in the region is 100% essential to our economy. We give them money because it is a secured foothold in the middle east if shit were to really hit the fan.

those reasons are all the ones people give but also ignore cause and effect. the locals hate us for propping up the injustices and blatant racism of Israel, those locals all have the oil. The only way Israel being in the area with the oil comes into play outside of the hate it's creating is if Israel is going to invade and control the oil fields. Surely that's not what you're suggesting?

"secure foothold" If you say so. they muck around in our politics, are one of the least just societies on earth, alienate the neighbors, and place children in solitary confinement if they happen to be of the wrong race in the wrong place. This is not an ally.

oh, it's completely our fault. I'm not saying its a good thing, but we did what we did by setting up Israel and it's ours to help protect. unfortunately they are our only ally in an area that is ridden with american hate and we arn't about to just step back and say goodluck to them. In reality Israel is a big military base were we can tell them to go fuck with Palestine without our government being officially tied to it

Amazing technology has come out of the defense research partnership between USA and Israel, including the Arrow/Iron Dome system capable of protecting cities and bases from rocket/artillery fire. The technological innovations coupled with the fact that Israel must spend that $ with American companies, has most certainly benefited both nations greatly. Not to mention, America's continued support for Israel provides the US with a stable and democratic ally with an almost unmatched military, in the heart of the turbulent and strategically important Middle East.

Yes, more weapon systems, oh did I say weapon? I meant "defensive military technologies" is exactly what the worlds need more of.

3 billion for NASA? Sure, why not.

How about also building some schools. Or, hell, how about just getting textbooks that are up-to-date for the schools we do have?

Nope, let's keep shoveling money into that endless gulf called the military industrial complex.

Ike warned us but we did not listen. And now America wears its relationship with Israel like a dead gull with the ancient mariner.

Iron dome is a purely defensive system

Israel has transferred a large amount of advanced military technology to China. Furthermore, Israeli arms companies use US developed technology to take market share from US arms makers in the global arms market.

How dare you support israel in any way on reddit. Downvotes for you!

Instead of giving Israel OR NeverA-StraightAnswer 3 billion dollars every year, give it to the FUCKING POPULATION. Education, housing, etc, etc.

How bout them apples?

Yeah because some engineers, scientists (for example physicists), IT specialists didn't need NASA at all for a job or a stepping stone....

Fuck ISREAL!

Let those stupid Jews take care of themselves... What the fuck do we owe them?!?!?!

This country's diminishing NASA funding is sooo much more appalling when you see money go to people like the fucking JEWS when all they do is fucking fight with muslims. Fucking retarded religious fukheads

Yeah! All Jews are stupid! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

[deleted]

...really?

Why? So we can have another faked moon landing but this time shot in HD?

Adorable.

There's still Moon Hoax supporters in this subreddit? Cute.

this is where they'd be

you know if you really don't know enough to realize that the money is not simply given to Israel, and it does not constitute any significant amount of their GDP then you probably should not comment

You're right. 10 times that amount is. There is the official handout, then every single fucking year, there are guaranteed "loans" - that when come due, subsequent administrations quietly "forgive" the loan - they have never paid a single loan back.

Allowing Israel to have taken over 1 trillion dollars from US taxpayers, while loudly boasting that they've never defaulted on a loan.

It's easy to never default on a loan when you never have to pay them back.

Most of it is Foreign Military Financing and goes to U.S. defence contractors like Lockheed Martin. Since WWII the United States has provided Israel with $115 billion in bilateral assistance. Much of this money is given as a form of kickback-scheme. Israel and the defence contractors profit at expense of the average taxpayer.

So it is a logical consequence that many neocons operate as lobbyists for both defence contractors and Israel.

Here is a Congressional Report from 2012 about U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

And here is an excellent inteview. Richard Cummings highlights how lobbyists and profiteers of defence contractors played a vital role in the lead up to the Iraq War. http://antiwar.com/radio/2007/01/30/richard-cummings/

Related article of Cummings http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/media/2007/20070116.pdf

It is estimated that for every dollar that goes into NASA's budget, there is a TEN-FOLD return.

Yet no one donates or invests voluntarily.... hmm, strange.

If this were even half true true, why not privatize a fraction of it to appeal to private equity?

Because the ten-fold return is not a return on investment in finance terms, but more of a return on investment in the form of societal benefits.

You dont have to be jewish to be zionist! Look at bush and all the so called Christians

That's a valid point. If civilians are allowed participation, you can be sure they would not be allowed equal status. We're viewed as a resource (like here on earth!). I guess the main point I was making is that the "elite" don't want a transparent, public space program. They're not anti-science, they just want to be the ones controlling it.

Can we get a kickstarter going for NASA?

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/08/nasas-economic.html

I thought about that at one point. Instead of the gov't deciding 100% of the budget, they decided on basic 'minimums' then part of our vote would be voting for where to place the rest (so you could vote to have 50% of that remainder going to NASA, etc)

The problem is, I looked at the U.S. spending, pie chart, and Mandatory Spending makes up over 50% of the spending, and reducing the military to non-war levels (only my thoughts on this) would still take up a good deal of that pie chart to keep us 'safe'.

The remainder, in my mind, is so small that I'm not sure whether giving citizens a vote on what's more important would change much at all.

Nice try Shimon Peres.

I think Israel will be fine, they do have the only nukes in the region after all, for now anyway.

Haha, Israel can afford its own defense. And perhaps paying for it themselves would make them think more before acting provocatively and belligerently. They do so knowing they have a big brother who will have to come save them.

Only if the posts are praising nazis.

I read your comment as 'go to different purposes', as someone else posted.

And it's not a rambling rant, asshole.

Very few of those countries are engaging in the levels of blatant injustice the Israelis are. Our tax money is literally paying for the solitary confinement of restrained children in Israel.

EDIT: Downvote me because you don't like the truth, go ahead.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42527&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

Are you kidding me? Please research your facts before you insinuate the US would cause the next holocaust by stoping our money to Israel. While it is true that the US gives the most money to the Jewish state, private individuals have been sending money to Israel for DECADES and it is in the millions if not billions of dollars. (It does not have to be public knowledge as it is thought of as a religious donation). Also Israel has the most nukes of any country in the region, a hawkish government who is not afraid to use its military and a militeristic element of the population who believes that land was actually promised a thousand years ago but some man in the sky that must be reclaimed.

Also The Iranians talk a big game they would never attack Israel because they know Israel alone could wipe them out.

the ideas have been there for millenniums, but the founders which succeeded in creating the state are much more recent figures (hertzl's followers). all im saying is suggesting that jews were "forcing" jews into israel is simply not true.

I have a problem with that article:

Posit (fallacious): These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal: Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.

The problem is that anti-drug commercials and programs as they are currently implemented fail spectacularly, and if they do reduce drug use/misuse, it's not significant enough to matter.

'>:|

Lets end the wars AND stop supporting Israel.

THEN fund NASA.

Think before you post.

That's easy, I have 100,000 barrels of oil produced in a day. Say you make profits of $1 a barrel. Spread those profits out over 32,000 people and they get about $3. Spread out over 350 million and everyone gets less than a penny.

These numbers of course are arbitrary and there are areas of the US that would do very well if this was to happen, but it's a lot easier to take care of 30 thousand people when times are tough than 350 million with very diverse attitudes about things.

They WERE funded by us directly - a brutal dictatorship that they overthrew, and took the weapons from.

Now, of course, Iran is funded by the US insistence on massive-scale use of fossil fuels, as well as intense opposition from the very people wo see them as a threat. The opposition to taxing carbon, or at least paying for the wars we are fighting to keep prices stable, also is a factor.

psycho? mental disorder or reading comprehension issue?

Yes, I am sure it was not the US that forced Jews into Isreal.

Yup, those old dividing lines are fading fast into tyranny.

I just don't see the productivity of learning more about space I highly doubt that NASA will increase the money tenfold like people before have said. There's just more uses for a few billion dollars although if America would stop being everyone's hero and running to fork out money after every natural disaster like Hati for example then the economy would be a lot better but we can't change past problems we can only hope to improve the future for our kids because if we don't then in about 100 years there will be a dominating country like china or Russia that owns everything.

Honestly, I think Israel State may be the US's only "second gun" because they are pumping so much money into them. It may not turn into some sort of act of war, but it certainly wouldn't have a response like, "I guess you need your money somewhere else, no problem."

I don't think there is an issue over the bought land (however, some may criticize the tactics used to purchase it), but I think the bigger issue was that land was lost over war, as an aggressive expansion to fully reclaim some land to make a few Zionists happy.

I think the reason a lot of people don't like Israel (at least in these post world war times) is because everyone sort of sees them as the weaker brother to the US when it's very clear that they can hold their own.

And what do they need these extra billion dollars? It's not like the state is particularly hurting financially (at least not any worse than the US).

That's absolutely true, but the issue is regional stability. Israel has a lot more leeway than Egypt. Imagine if Egypt had started supplying the Libyan government with arms, or Syria.

(Egypt had its own problems to deal with so that wouldn't happen anyway, but if Mubarak had maintained his grip on power it would be in a position to meddle in other states.)

It's also a reflection of internal stability. If Egypt had a stronger economy like Israel the relative importance of foreign aid would not be so high.

The rich actually pay a significant amount of taxes.

Listen, I can't stop you from mentioning Kim Kardashian or anything else, but muddying up discussions about admittedly small cuts in foreign aid with discussions about Climate Change do neither of those topics justice.  Turns into one big mess of incoherent yelling.

We as a nation would be so much farther along if people had some focus.  No offense of course, but I personally think people need to pick their fights carefully.  

Carry on if you must.

the palestinians are israeli citizens. Yet they are denied their rights daily.

A palestinian needs an israeli passport to travel. Israel does not give many palestinians passports however, so many of them can't travel freely.

Then how would we be able to enjoy public buildings, parks, roads etc.

mind control. ok. Im definitely the one who looks foolish. ok.

See the guardian article about the trillions in off shore banks, all tax free? Your right 3 billion into the economy is nothing (by comparison).

This is only true if you're ignorant enough to believe all Jews support the Zionist regime.

Well no this is wrong again. A great deal of science (probably could be stated as most of science except for the past few decades) has been done in the past basically by rich people who could afford to fund themselves and had the time to do so, or worked for a private education institutions. Isaac Newton for example? Pretty much all the classical scholars, even ancient greek.

I'm not saying NASA couldn't do good things. What I'm saying is they have no clear goals and no leadership to provide it. In case this post is viewed as private vs public, this is certainly not the case. I've worked at private institutions with the same problems as NASA. No leadership, no vision, a bunch of bozo's entrenched in their jobs who somehow never seem to do anything or get fired for it. You have to understand I was 6 when Challenger blew up. I followed that story intensely, that was my lesson in "what not to do" as an engineer. My dreams were crushed by the weight of the political and organizational problems at NASA. At 6 years old.

The leadership is at SpaceX so there the funding should go. This is clearly a better choice. 3 billion dollars would buy NASA 2 shuttle launches! Watch my circular logic here - that program was designed the spend money in US, not to go to space. The biggest pork barrel boondoggle ever conceived by humanity. Besides the Big Dig, at least.

Actually I've been thinking seriously of sending my resume in to SpaceX. Do something useful with my life...

Do you not follow the news? Helll, do you not read history? I don't get how folks don't know what the deal is.

What Israel has done, and continues to do to the Palestinians is on the level of Apartheid in South Africa.  And the Palestinians being Muslims, all the nations in that region hate Israel, and because of our close ties to Israel, they hate us as well.  Any time Israel does something to instigate their neighbors, we are typically the ones that are indirectly blamed for their actions.

The fact that it would be political suicide to pull funding isn't a good excuse to not do it. It just shows how broke the system is. We are going to have to tear it down and rebuild a system governed by direct democracy, not representational. These "representatives" do not, and cannot adequately represent the will of the majority.

I'm being downvoted because reddit has a boner for space. The benefits of space exploration aren't helping the majority of people.

Stop the nonsense.

Its not gonna happen, and quite frankly the idea that you "need" a revolution to get things done is utter BS.

There was a political revolution in this country some ~30 years ago when the NeoCon movement swept the national stage and since then we've been living under their policies and we feel those repercussions all the time.

The notion that "the system is rigged" is both tiring and smells of defeat. Apathy is the establishment's biggest ally because it makes people think that "both parties are the same" or "its not gonna matter". I buy into that thinking, I'm sorry.

Isn't the fundamental support more from christian evangelicals than jews?

Ok, Jimmie Level: rustled

and won the rest in a war. No one disputes the Louisiana Purchase or the fact that the United States conquered Texas and Florida from Spain.

Won the rest in a war of aggression. Fought after a world war against aggressor regimes also looking to expand their territory. A war in which the same people now doing the expanding were horribly abused. The aftermath of WWII was an agreement by the world that (open) wars for the purposes of territorial expansion could no longer be tolerated. Yes, this idealism didn't extend everywhere or manage to hold up 100% of the time but one would have expected the people who as a group got their shit kicked in the hardest be the last ones rolling fucking tanks into their own Rhineland.

As for equating it to the conquering of Texas etc. anyone who's read that history knows the young United States acted pretty horrendously. There were glorious even honorable moments as there are with most wars but, on the whole? Fuck those guys. It's "ok" now because nationalistic whitewashing of history happened along a long enough time frame that the details have been "forgotten". Welcome to the 21st century, that kind of shit doesn't (shouldn't) fly anymore.

America was conquered in a much more disgusting and wrong manner than the establishment of the State of Israel, yet Israel gets a lot more hatred

It sure was. An entire indigenous population was almost exterminated. Some Mexicans died too (I kid). But you know what? Those events happened during colonial, post-colonial and imperial phases of western history. That's not an excuse for conduct, that's historical context. Context is important. Again, the young state of Israel didn't get a free pass to employ historically shameful expansionist practices because "you did it first". A new state is expected by the global community to come into the world cognizant of the era it finds itself in and conduct itself accordingly. I don't get to own slaves if I can subdue some just because my great-great-great grandfather owned slaves.

The Palestinian people were never asked to crowd into the territories, it was the surrounding Arab countries that refused to accept their own "brothers".

Are you fucking kidding me? Crowd into the territories? As if the land was already carved up just like that before Israel the new state existed? As if they weren't peacefully spread out before the state existed?

And why should the surrounding nations have accepted a nation of refugees created overnight by expansionist military aggression? Because they're Arabs? They should have just ignored the socio-political and economic situation within their own states? Just bankrupted themselves absorbing sudden unplanned immigration because their new neighbor decided to unilaterally expand its borders? Come the fuck on.

Reread what you just wrote because what you basically said was, "if they didn't like it they should have just left and other countries should have taken them in". If I were to say "if Jews in Nazi territory didn't like the segregation and discrimination they should have just left (during the period they were free to do so obviously) and other countries with Jews should have taken them in. I mean no one asked them to stay in the land they identified with home" people would lose their goddamn minds.

Bi-partisan is so easy because both of the parties want the same thing... Unfortunately they both wanna give more money to Israel. Lets get rid of these republicrats...

Fucking lunatic...read a book

What do I have in my house that I can thank NASA for?

Wow, seriously? You honestly don't know anything about the direct and indirect benefits you take advantage of everyday due to NASA research?

I'm really leaning on the side of believing you're trolling, because I can't believe anyone on Reddit is so ignorant of the technology in their home, but considering the influx of people Reddit is seeing, I'm going to assume that you may be telling the truth.

Memory foam, contributed funding to improving cordless power drills, precision cordless medical instruments, dustbusters, insulting paint used on houses originally developed for space flight, advancements in plasma screen technology, improving water filtration technology originally meant for recycling water in space shuttles now used in commercial water infrastructure, wireless communications technology, gps, satellite weather forecasting, anti-corrosive agents originally meant for space shuttles to protect from radiation now used on buildings and bridges, development of new safety precautions in food manufacturing in order to prevent food spoilage in space, nutritional supplements in baby food originally meant to supplement astronaut diets, advances in fire fighting technology such as satellite fire tracking and fire resistant materials, enormous increases in solar power research, research done on phase change materials for use in spacesuits is now used in athletic equipment and shoes, advances in digital photography technology for incredibly high resolution photos in space and on other planets, research funded by NASA to examine ways to reduce vibration has been applied to guitar manufacturing methods, contributed to advances in MRI technology, adjustable sensitivity for smoke detectors.

There are many more, but I think I've made my point. You can search Wikipedia and other websites for more. NASA puts out a magazine every year called Spin-Offs which detail all the products that are either direct implementations of NASA research or draw on NASA funded research to create new privatized products.

No matter how you feel about the topic, the fact remains that NASA needs to do shit in space. They need to do it well. If they don't have the technology to do what they need to do, they fund research to make it so they do have the technology. That research either brings about new products that can be used in the home or social infrastructure, or it is used indirectly to improve already existing technologies.

There is nothing wrong with what I said.. you are a lunatic if you want to kill people in the middle east for no reason...

Why do you want to dominate and kill people over there.. ??

I have read a book that implies that us are warmongering dick like you said.. How are they not brutal dicks who destabilized the Middle East?

real question... hope your smart enough to give me real answer.

"Fucking lunatic..."

when you express the view the murdering and destroying a nation is not cool.. you get called lunatic for it..

so btw.. is your point of view that the billions of people in the middle east and outer region should all just die by your bombs or be slave´s to you..

dont be a coward.. answer this!

Why do we went to dominate and kill people over there?

Fair enough question.

To ask that question you have to ask why we are there in the first place. There's an easy answer. I'll tell you, but in return I want you to read the rest of my answer. We are there for the petroleum, oil.

Oil is what made the United States the wealthiest nation on Earth. It's why we have a high standard of living. Oil makes our plastics, medicines, cars, tires, you name it. Hell there's some hydrocarbons compounds in our money. Because of it, energy is cheap and plentiful thus we can only produce as much as our imagination limits. But I'm not getting into. If you want to know how valuable oil is to the US, become an economics major. If you want to know why oil is such a wonderful compound, become a biochemist. But I'm not getting into that because that would take freaking days. I'm giving you the sociopolitical benefit that the Middle East has gotten from exploitation.

We choose to stabilize the region so the oil companies fields, refineries, and shipping routes will be safe, thus they will invest further. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. Say it a hundred times.

I assumed you already knew that.

Fuck it youre clearly a stoopid high school mutherfucker and im not wasting anymore time.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law