|
As far as aid to Israel or Bush's Africa/aids thing, a point of view that most might agree on is the good old American capitalist analysis: cost vs. benefit and risk vs. reward.
Does giving Israel money return equal, or preferrably, greater benefits? How many billions of dollars would we have to spend developing not only military technology but other high tech products that the Israelies create and share with us versus the amount we give them. What is the risk of investing in the trade vs. the reward? Do we wish to have strong allies in the rest of the world, especially in those parts that cause us trouble and harm? Is Israel such an ally? Does it provide us with a foothold in the heart of the world that harbors enemies that wish to harm us? Does it provide intel that would be much more difficult to gather? Would providing it military aid support any military actions we might have to incur? Would the reward be greater if we didn't take the risk of assisting Israel? Would it be replaced by equally strong allies? Would the Middle East then become "pro-American"? Or is our problem with the Middle East a difference in values and principles. Is our attachment to Israel due to a sharing of those values and principles and our problem with the rest of the area a difference in those values and principles? Would our reward be greater if we abandoned our principles and espoused those of our enemies? These are some of the things to consider, there are others, no doubt. If we stick strictly to cost vs. benefit and risk vs. reward, we can agree on whether to assist Israel or not.
Bush Africa/aids thing I always considered more of a way to control the spread of aids than so-called humanitarian assistance. Of course one sort of eqauls the other. If the money actually accomplished what it intended, lessening the potentially worldwide spread of aids, then I think most would say the benefit was worth the cost, and the reward was greater than any risk.
|
Hybrid Mode
