3 ms·
That $3.2 billion would be enough to pay for 23,000 Americans' college education. Is that more valuable than giving weapons to Israel? Of course it is. Even a s
by rsj_hn 5y ago
That $3.2 billion would be enough to pay for 23,000 Americans' college education. Is that more valuable than giving weapons to Israel? Of course it is. Even a single college education is a better use of the money.
The rhetorical tactic of citing some much larger number to justify a misuse of funds is meant to obfuscate and confuse, and it's not a good faith argument. It's like a mayor saying "yes, this program is wasteful and corrupt, but look at how big our military spending is! Why aren't you talking about that?!". Or "Yes, I may have created a made up job for my brother, but look at the trillions we spent in Afghanistan! Why aren't you talking about that?!"
We should not be falling for that type of rhetoric when calling out government waste and abuse.
There is no reason that the U.S. should be sending any aid to Israel (or, for that matter, Egypt), it's not a poor country, there are many more countries deserving of the aid, and the aid is being used to increase the militarization of a region that has already had too much military conflict.
- slg 5y agoI pointed to a big number because it reveals that the motivation is neither to battle waste and corruption or to provide for those 23,000 Americans. There is obviously much bigger waste and corruption in the domestic military budget. You are singling out Israel because of a specific political complaint about Israel. You admit as much in your last paragraph. That is a perfectly reasonable political opinion to have and I'm not even arguing against it here. I am arguing against the hypocrisy of taking that political opinion and trying to make it more attractive by dishonestly claiming it is motivated by fighting waste, corruption, and the floundering of the US.
- rsj_hn 5y agoAgain, questioning the motivation of someone who raises a point you don't have an answer for is no better than trying to change the subject when you feel like you can't win on the merits. If you think it's a good use of the money, then defend it. But changing the subject and questioning people's motivations, or insisting that all larger forms of abuse in the military be talked about before anyone can call into question our aid to Israel - that's not a legitimate argument.
- ILMostro7 5y agoThe answer may well be that we have mutual interests that span generations, and which have--and continue to--pay dividends. The broader question may be what those interests are and if they are truly beneficial to us in the long-run. I'm not making a claim either way, FWIW.