Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by church mouse guy, Jul 21, 2014.
Should the USA give $47,000,000 to Gaza?
Not a dime.
Not without concessions from Hamas that could lead to a truce.
Not having any interest in the welfare of their people, They will just use it to buy weapons and escalate or prolong the conflict.
In a word, NO!
Terrorist deserve NO help of any kind!
Yes but in the form of food and so forth.
We've been giving money to Gaza for seven years, since they finally formed a government and held "free" elections. $10 million of this money was already going to Gaza, but is to be redirected to meet immediate humanitarian needs.
Another $22 million is going to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which would have gotten the money anyway as part of a Mideast aid package that benefits all developing nations around the region for economic and educational development. President George W. Bush's concept was that an educated Palestinian was not so likely to become a terrorist.
The remaining $15 million goes directly to the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA.
As long as this is where the money goes, I've no problem with it. However, I doubt it will go to its designated recipients. Hamas will appropriate a good portion of it so their leadership can continue to live in luxury while their people starve and act as human shields for their terrorist wing.
Why don't the Arabs help Gaza?
They are. What makes you think the U.S. is the one country sending money?
I really don't know who is doing what in Gaza.
I imagine that you agree that Gaza is not viable as a state. The Arabs are tribal and do not like each other but I think that it is time for Europe and the USA to tell the Arabs that we are not propping up Gaza anymore. I don't know where the people in Gaza should go but they are nothing but human shields for various terrorist operations in the Gaza terrorist military base in my opinion.
The problem is that Islamic states are all nightmares to live in.
The people in Gaza should go to their ancestral homelands: Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. But their great-great grandfathers were thieves and "infidels" who would have been imprisoned or killed had they remained. So they want to Palestine, but they never bothered to form a government. They were always under the protection of some nation or empire. Not once did they make any effort to claim the land as their own. It was nothing more than refuge from punishment. Now the descendants of those men claim they "own" the land? What a large crock of male bovine excretory material! They have no right to that land, they have no right to a "homeland" since all of them have heritage somewhere else.
I would have voted no based on the fact that Foreign aid is unconstitutional but that option wasn't given as a choice.
Why wasn't it? Could it be that if you did include this option you might have to explain why you'd vote in favor of violating the constitution to send foreign aid to Israel?
I chose a straight yes/no/undecided poll for the sake of simplicity. Poncho, you did right by giving your reason voluntarily. This is the first poll that I have listed in years and only one of two or three total in all my years here. We debated foreign aid in high school nationally about 1957. There really hasn't been any change in American policy on this issue since World War II.
Thanks for your vote and thanks for your opinion that foreign aid is unconstitutional.
The Constitution (including its Treaty Clause) was designed by our Founders to limit the powers of the Federal government and give to the people the understanding that our government was created by the people as their instrument to primarily make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights (and the supporting rights, notably the right to property) according to the Declaration of Independence.
This means … It is a violation of the fundamental law of the people (our Constitution) for the Federal government to deprive us of our property by taxation in order to donate to foreign governments, or peoples, including charities, except to the extent authorized for the common Defense (protection) and general Welfare (well-being) of the United States."
This means …that any donation abroad of funds or things, military or any other kind, by the Federal government--in order to be authorized by the Constitution--must contribute substantially and directly to the "common Defense... of the United States," meaning the National Defense: the actual, military, physical defense of the American homeland.
Under the Constitution …, Congress and the President completely lack any power to act the benevolent role abroad with the American peoples’ property--money or any other type. This is true as to all so-called "foreign aid”. Individuals may, of course, give such aid out of their own property (money) as they please.
Foreign aid is a form of socialism. You have told me time and again that you are against socialism.
Now let me ask you straight out, if I were to create a "straight yes/no/undecided poll for the sake of simplicity" asking "Should the USA aid Israel?" Would you vote yes or no?
When I lived in Chicago there were always campaigns to buy bonds for Israel. I think that we should sell weapons to Israel. I would be in favor of stopping military aid to Israel if we would also stop aid to all Islamic states. However, the new anti-Semitism would not allow that. Europe has forgotten World War II and the Holocaust.
Originally posted by you. "I chose a straight yes/no/undecided poll for the sake of simplicity."
Thank you for providing your opinion CMG now if you'd be so kind as to cast your vote. Your choices are yes or no.
You're either in favor of violating the constitution or you aren't. You are either in favor of socialism or you aren't. So which is it?