The White House has called on Congress to approve aid to Israel and Ukraine, but Republicans oppose any measure that excludes provisions to address security on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Why USA have to always give money to solve other countries problems, specially war? I understand if there is a natural disaster that you want to help or a project you want to sponsor, but war???
Why USA have to always give money to solve other countries problems, specially war?
since the cold war (and to an extent before that) the US has decided that it will pick the winners and losers of every armed conflict on the globe in order to further US interests. The idea isn’t just to put someone in power, but to put someone in power who, once in power, is always in the precarious position of having to do exactly what the US tells them to do or we withdraw our aid and they lose that power.
The simple answer is the worldwide weapons marketplace.
Basically all military weapons used by the US can only be bought by the government of the US by contract. So, you, as a country, can ask the US for weapons and buy them, like Taiwan does, and congress passes a bill to allow you to do that. Or, if you don’t have the money Congress passes an allocation to buy them for you, like Ukraine. US weapons are preferred, but you can also get cheaper Russian or Chinese. But the cost of those has strings attached.
Why USA have to always give money to solve other countries problems, specially war? I understand if there is a natural disaster that you want to help or a project you want to sponsor, but war???
Because it’s one of the most effective ways to turn public funds into private profits.
It’s a good time to be a Lockheed Martin or Boeing executive.
Was there ever a bad time to be one?
No because the US would find some excuse to start a war to change that.
since the cold war (and to an extent before that) the US has decided that it will pick the winners and losers of every armed conflict on the globe in order to further US interests. The idea isn’t just to put someone in power, but to put someone in power who, once in power, is always in the precarious position of having to do exactly what the US tells them to do or we withdraw our aid and they lose that power.
It’s both to further US interests and to not allow Adversarial interests to take over. If the US doesn’t do it, Russia and China will.
Israelis have more influence over the US than American citizens.
Downvotes from the people that don’t realize lobbyists have a bigger say in politics than voters.
As it turns out, more Americans are engaged in lobbying the US government than Israelis. Go figure.
imagine downvoting this obviously true fact lmao
The simple answer is the worldwide weapons marketplace.
Basically all military weapons used by the US can only be bought by the government of the US by contract. So, you, as a country, can ask the US for weapons and buy them, like Taiwan does, and congress passes a bill to allow you to do that. Or, if you don’t have the money Congress passes an allocation to buy them for you, like Ukraine. US weapons are preferred, but you can also get cheaper Russian or Chinese. But the cost of those has strings attached.
It profits their ruling class of capitalist corporation owners and billionaires.
Because then they get a say in how things should be done. It gives them leverage to help get what they want.
Gotta protect our influence over the world, bro.
I agree with you, though.