The answer is that we are not pulling out our support for Israel. We are pulling $15 billion in foreign aid from the country because they are a very wealthy country with a powerful army and therefore our money is better spent on Americans. Those who wish to support Israel can send money to Israel them self. If we really believe that Israel needs our financial support, then we will voluntarily donate to the cause on our own. Furthermore, it is not right to give 15 billion away when it is borrowed money. America should not collectively borrow money for charity.
How do we answer the pulling of support for Israel question?
- Thread starter deedles
- Start date
The answer is that we are not pulling out our support for Israel. We are pulling $15 billion in foreign aid from the country because they are a very wealthy country with a powerful army and therefore our money is better spent on Americans. Those who wish to support Israel can send money to Israel them self. If we really believe that Israel needs our financial support, then we will voluntarily donate to the cause on our own. Furthermore, it is not right to give 15 billion away when it is borrowed money. America should not collectively borrow money for charity.
Perry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 3,298
You obviously are not a Christian fundamentalist. Do you know that Ron Paul is? Do you know what the nation of Israel means to Christian fundamentalists? Perhaps YOU do not know what a Zionist is. Do you know that Zionism has been hijacked by extremists over the past 30 years?
Sorry if you feel I am lying. All I can do is encourage you to open your mind and accept the fact that you don't have all the answers and that maybe the world is not so black & white as you perceive it to be.
Last edited:
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
ok.... time to rapture this sucker away to hot topics.
Well I tend to agree, but more than that, if we continue on the current path as we have for some time now, if Israel was ever to REALLY need help we'd be too broke to do so, and unable to aid at all, so driving us to the ground with the current policy is NOT in Israel's best interest either
anyone supporting unconditional aid of Israel has not studied history via the bible (or torah) either. Israel REPEATEDLY defied the will of God and he was having to redirect their path many times through force. Just because they are the chosen people of God does not mean they are without fault.
Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel's. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html
Tina
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,224
yeah but sadly not many know about that
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
It's called stay on topic, if you want to discuss something else, start your own thread.
Captain Shays
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,368
With everything else thats been said, I might ad that the United States of America is not Israel's protection. God is. To imply that we protect His chosen people is blasphemy because we're attributing to us, what is His.
If there are a bunch of people here who send them money, buy their products, pray for them, visit their country etc, we are blessing them.
If we hold them back from eradicating the PLO we are cursing them.
If we stopp them from taking over Jerusalem we may be doing the work of the dark side.
If there are a bunch of people here who send them money, buy their products, pray for them, visit their country etc, we are blessing them.
If we hold them back from eradicating the PLO we are cursing them.
If we stopp them from taking over Jerusalem we may be doing the work of the dark side.
It comes down to freedom
Most of the comments in this thread have had a distinctly collectivist assumption to them. One of the major concepts in libertarian thought is that people are allowed to keep their own money to use as they wish. The government has no money to give to Israel. It only has money that has been taken from taxpayers.
Our government not only gives money to Israel but to hundreds of other "causes" both foreign and domestic. One argument is that the constitution does not authorize such "giving". (Which is really taking and then giving because the government has no money of its own.)
Another argument is that by allowing the government to take our money to give to causes which we might favor and approve means they are also using our money to give to causes which we do not favor and disapprove.
Ending such taking and giving means that we have our own money to donate to whichever causes we wish. This is called freedom. Do your Christian friends feel that it is ok to force others to do as they do? Would they steal from a neighbor who they felt was not supporting Israel enough so they could make the donation for them?
With regard to some "worthy causes", you may get the rebuttal that "Some people will not give their fair share". My response is yes, but others may donate their whole lives to the problem. Mother Theresa is such a person who gave more than her fair share to a problem she believed in. We each should be free to respond to the problems we see in the world with our own time and money but not with other people's time and money.
Most of the comments in this thread have had a distinctly collectivist assumption to them. One of the major concepts in libertarian thought is that people are allowed to keep their own money to use as they wish. The government has no money to give to Israel. It only has money that has been taken from taxpayers.
Our government not only gives money to Israel but to hundreds of other "causes" both foreign and domestic. One argument is that the constitution does not authorize such "giving". (Which is really taking and then giving because the government has no money of its own.)
Another argument is that by allowing the government to take our money to give to causes which we might favor and approve means they are also using our money to give to causes which we do not favor and disapprove.
Ending such taking and giving means that we have our own money to donate to whichever causes we wish. This is called freedom. Do your Christian friends feel that it is ok to force others to do as they do? Would they steal from a neighbor who they felt was not supporting Israel enough so they could make the donation for them?
With regard to some "worthy causes", you may get the rebuttal that "Some people will not give their fair share". My response is yes, but others may donate their whole lives to the problem. Mother Theresa is such a person who gave more than her fair share to a problem she believed in. We each should be free to respond to the problems we see in the world with our own time and money but not with other people's time and money.
The fact that he won't is the MAIN reason. Gosh i can think of 50 more relevant reasons, the economy and personal freedoms being two. People often support Israel not because of religious reasons but because it is a democracy in the hellhole that is the middleeast. This is one position of his I'm not so hot on, I understand non-interventionism but of all the places to help, Israel is probably the most important tactically and in our best interest.
Second Strike Capability
Israel doesn't need us protecting them because they have a second trike nuclear capability, the most powerful defensive deterrent in the world:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html
Do you really think Iran (or anyone else) will destroy Israel (with their own religious holy land) when they know a retaliatory second strike from Israel will destroy them as well?
Israel doesn't need us protecting them because they have a second trike nuclear capability, the most powerful defensive deterrent in the world:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html
Do you really think Iran (or anyone else) will destroy Israel (with their own religious holy land) when they know a retaliatory second strike from Israel will destroy them as well?
the threat i from terrorists groups mostly, not nations. However, Israel can't use nuclear weapons as that tactic incites terrible war... Really the transfer of arms planes and some technology is what America gives them nukes don't defend from terrorists and would be used.
RonFan1776
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 188
Okay, so I decided to write a response on this matter due to my mother-in-laws support of the Iraq war based on a need to support Israel. So anyway, maybe it will be useful to someone else:
Chickensoup
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20
The big issue with Isreal foreign aid and all other foreign aids just like it is clearly mapped out in Ron Paul's book A Foreign Policy of Freedom.
1) American foreign policy over the past century has been to subsidize one side of a conflict, then when they do something we don't like them doing, we subsidize the other simultaniously. This is both burdonsome on the taxpayer and idiotic foreign relations wise as we build enemies on both sides. For instance right now we are allied with India, while at the same time allied with Pakistan. Two countries who have nuclear weapons and fight over Kashmir. What sense does that make? Who do we support if relations geet worse between them?
2) American foreign aid is used to prop up American political interests in the economy while disregarding that governments human rights abuses and totalitarian regimes
3) The buck only goes one way. If America is threatened we can only count on a handful of countries to come to OUR aid when needed. If China/Russia/Whomever attacked us today we could only realistically count on England, Germany, Australia, India and Japan to provide any sort of support that would actually matter. Yes those are some of the industrial powerhouses. However we have given trillions of dollars to other countries in foreign aid that could at no time realistically do anything at all for us. How is this good for the defense of US? Why is it the US taxpayers burdon to provide defense not just for the US, but for houndreds of other nations? Specifically why are we aiding nations that have nuclear weapon capability?
Those are the arguments I use when people bring up the Isreal questions. It has'nt been a huge success but I have been able to convert one person
1) American foreign policy over the past century has been to subsidize one side of a conflict, then when they do something we don't like them doing, we subsidize the other simultaniously. This is both burdonsome on the taxpayer and idiotic foreign relations wise as we build enemies on both sides. For instance right now we are allied with India, while at the same time allied with Pakistan. Two countries who have nuclear weapons and fight over Kashmir. What sense does that make? Who do we support if relations geet worse between them?
2) American foreign aid is used to prop up American political interests in the economy while disregarding that governments human rights abuses and totalitarian regimes
3) The buck only goes one way. If America is threatened we can only count on a handful of countries to come to OUR aid when needed. If China/Russia/Whomever attacked us today we could only realistically count on England, Germany, Australia, India and Japan to provide any sort of support that would actually matter. Yes those are some of the industrial powerhouses. However we have given trillions of dollars to other countries in foreign aid that could at no time realistically do anything at all for us. How is this good for the defense of US? Why is it the US taxpayers burdon to provide defense not just for the US, but for houndreds of other nations? Specifically why are we aiding nations that have nuclear weapon capability?
Those are the arguments I use when people bring up the Isreal questions. It has'nt been a huge success but I have been able to convert one person
Last edited:
Similar threads
