winston53660

During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing—the Pentagon's biggest military aid program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel.

Foreign Policy In Focus | Who's Arming Israel?

__________________
http://winstoncreative.com/

Ikari

I'm sorry, it's just that I have no patience for childish games, the likes of which you were playing. And there are reasons we shouldn't be selling weapons to Israel. Are we making profit on it? Probably not, then why should I subsidize the Israeli military? I'm not putting my money forth to protect other people. They can work, raise money, and supply their own god dammed military. It's not my place to fund it. Secondly, you know this will get used against civilians at some point and I don't think it should be our place to encourage war against civilians. Israel should fend for itself, it's nothing but a money pit and serves us no purpose. I don't want my money going to them, I don't want my military going to them. If Israel and Palestine have to sit around acting like children, then they can do it without American support of any kind.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Ikari

It's awesome to is US tax payers to subsidize foreign military. Woot!

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Goobieman

I told you how I interpeted the word, given the context of its use -- and that interpretation is, undeniably, correct.
You can like it or not - I don't care - but either way, get the burr out of your ash.

What makes you think that 'we' aren't?
And lets be clear here -- when 'we' sell weapons to Israel, unless it is a sale of items already in inventory, the 'we' that sells them is actually the US company that manufactures said weapons. The profit margin is then based on the terms of the procurement contract.

Killing civilinas in raids against military targets is not 'using them against civilians' and it is not 'making war' against civilians.
So, your concern here is unfounded.

That might be your opinion, but it doesnt equate to a 'good' (read: rational, supportable) reason.

We have 'supplied' weapons to all of our allies, and have done so for a very long time. Israel is no different than any one of them, and so for your argument to mean anything, you must also then argue against 'supplying' -all- of our allies.

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

Goobieman

Yes -- the US government sends money to Israel, where it then is used to by US military items from US companies.

That being the case, there is most certainly a 'profit' as the US companies would not sell the items if there were not.

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

bub

That's what Bin Laden used to say too

Terror 'Blowback' Burns CIA

__________________
===|:-)

winston53660

So after all is said and done there really is no profit margin just a simulacrum of one that the taxpayers support.

__________________
http://winstoncreative.com/

Goobieman

Sure there is -- the arms manufacturers make money.
Nothing new there -- that how all foerign military aid works (save that which involves items from current inventory).

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

Goobieman

I'm sure this means somethng to you...

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

Ikari

No, I showed you exactly the definition, supply is to provide. We provide the weaponry. It's you whom decided to be obtuse.

A US company can not sell US military weapons without the approval of the government. No way no how. And I guess it shouldn't matter if we make a profit or not, we're not mercenaries and we're not the world police. People need to deal with their own problems it's not up to the US taxpayer to fund it.

It's a "raid" in the sense that it's a bombing; air raid maybe. Look at what just happened. Some Hezbola r-tards bomb some crap in Israel and kill 2 or so people. Israel bombs a civilian sector to get at some Hezbola jerks and in the process kills hundreds of people, many of whom are civilian. Is my concern really unfounded? Israel has a long track record of attacking civilians. They have demonstrated that they have no remorse or hesitation to take out a bunch of civilians to get at a few terrorists. Is my concern unfounded? Not according to recorded history.

Let them all fund their own crap. Let them all build their own crap. Let their people put up the money for the resources, the capabilities, and the production of their military. I'm not here to subsidize this for anyone other than the US military. And I especially don't want our hardware going to civilian destruction campaigns. We should have no part of that. If Israel and Palestine want to behave in that manner, that's their choice. But that action gets them cut off from American honey.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH