Israel v Hamas

CPFCSaturn said:
My understanding is different - from ChatGPT:

The current $2.8bn package, although calling it a “sale” is technically accurate in the U.S. arms-export system but potentially misleading without explaining how it is financed.


The key distinction is:


  • The U.S. is formally describing the package as a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Israel.
  • But most of the $2.8bn is expected to be paid for using U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF). In other words, the U.S. government provides Israel with the money, and Israel uses that money to purchase the U.S. weapons.
  • So, yes, U.S. taxpayers are ultimately funding most of this particular “sale.” The Washington Post explicitly reports that the $2.8bn package “would be purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
  • This isn't unusual in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Congress appropriates roughly $3.3bn annually in FMF for Israel under the current assistance framework, with additional supplemental military assistance provided since October 2023.
Click to expand...
ChatGPT is going to give you back what you ask for, so just be aware that you need to make sure you are reading what it says. You'll need to look at the sources where it got the data from as it is easy to manipulate. For example, did yours reference Democracy Now! or did it have a more unbiased reference?

For example, when it says "technically accurate" it means it is accurate. It is kind of like saying "technically pregnant," it either is or it isn't. While the US government does make and sell small arms ammunition, it does not make missiles so there is no way for the US government to just give a gift, which means it has to be FMS unless it comes through Global Train and Equip (which is a different program then FMS but is still executed by DSCA under the oversight of the Secretary of Defense). Is this all super confusing? Absolutely, which is why 99.99% of all American servicemembers have no clue how it runs and and even smaller number of civilians do.

US FMF goes to between 60-70 countries a year, depending on prioritization for what the US is looking for regarding national security at the time. FMF is how the US got Israel, Egypt and Jordan to stop attacking each other, good old fashioned bribery. FMF is a large portion of the US strategy against China in the Pacific. That is how the Philippines can afford new missiles and ships despite having a trash economy.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
My understanding is different - from ChatGPT:

The current $2.8bn package, although calling it a “sale” is technically accurate in the U.S. arms-export system but potentially misleading without explaining how it is financed.


The key distinction is:


  • The U.S. is formally describing the package as a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Israel.
  • But most of the $2.8bn is expected to be paid for using U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF). In other words, the U.S. government provides Israel with the money, and Israel uses that money to purchase the U.S. weapons.
  • So, yes, U.S. taxpayers are ultimately funding most of this particular “sale.” The Washington Post explicitly reports that the $2.8bn package “would be purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
  • This isn't unusual in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Congress appropriates roughly $3.3bn annually in FMF for Israel under the current assistance framework, with additional supplemental military assistance provided since October 2023.
Click to expand...

Wait until Dan sees this
 
Mark B said:
ChatGPT is going to give you back what you ask for, so just be aware that you need to make sure you are reading what it says. You'll need to look at the sources where it got the data from as it is easy to manipulate. For example, did yours reference Democracy Now! or did it have a more unbiased reference?

For example, when it says "technically accurate" it means it is accurate. It is kind of like saying "technically pregnant," it either is or it isn't. While the US government does make and sell small arms ammunition, it does not make missiles so there is no way for the US government to just give a gift, which means it has to be FMS unless it comes through Global Train and Equip (which is a different program then FMS but is still executed by DSCA under the oversight of the Secretary of Defense). Is this all super confusing? Absolutely, which is why 99.99% of all American servicemembers have no clue how it runs and and even smaller number of civilians do.

US FMF goes to between 60-70 countries a year, depending on prioritization for what the US is looking for regarding national security at the time. FMF is how the US got Israel, Egypt and Jordan to stop attacking each other, good old fashioned bribery. FMF is a large portion of the US strategy against China in the Pacific. That is how the Philippines can afford new missiles and ships despite having a trash economy.
Click to expand...

To try and simplify what seems to be a deliberately confusing structure, I think the 'technically true' part of your post is relevant around the question of who paid for the $2.8bn package... the answer seems to be predominantly the US taxpayer, as reported by AP, Reuters, The Washington Post.

The US government's own DSCA says that FMS can be funded either with the foreign government's own money or with US government funds.

AP reports that most of this $2.8bn is to be paid for through Foreign Military Financing, which means US taxpayer money is provided to Israel, who then use that money to buy the weapons from the US...

All of that makes it difficult to conclude this is really a 'sale' (I appreciate it may be technically) or that it is benefitting the US economically.
 
Last edited:
Can't be true though Dan, it's all in AI remember? Why aren't you dismissing it as rubbish this time?
 
CPFCSaturn said:
To try and simplify what seems to be a deliberately confusing structure, I think the 'technically true' part of your post is relevant around the question of who paid for the $2.8bn package... the answer seems to be predominantly the US taxpayer, as reported by AP, Reuters, The Washington Post.

The US government's own DSCA says that FMS can be funded either with the foreign government's own money or with US government funds.

AP reports that most of this $2.8bn is to be paid for through Foreign Military Financing, which means US taxpayer money is provided to Israel, who then use that money to buy the weapons from the US...

All of that makes it difficult to conclude this is really a 'sale' (I appreciate it may be technically) or that it is benefitting the US economically.
Click to expand...
I get it, you have created a fiction in your mind to validate you beliefs. You acknowledge that it is incorrect but you still want to believe it because it aligns with your preexisting beliefs.
 
Mark B said:
I get it, you have created a fiction in your mind to validate you beliefs. You acknowledge that it is incorrect but you still want to believe it because it aligns with your preexisting beliefs.
Click to expand...

Incredibly baffled by this response. What fiction have I created? What have I acknowledged is incorrect?
 
Utter fantasy to think that the USA are just going to hand Israel billions in arms for nothing. They believe anything that fits in their heads.

@Saturn, you should listen to Mark B, he clearly knows his stuff on geopolitical military strategy. Doubt you will though, truth hurts.
 
Spindle said:
Utter fantasy to think that the USA are just going to hand Israel billions in arms for nothing. They believe anything that fits in their heads.

@Saturn, you should listen to Mark B, he clearly knows his stuff on geopolitical military strategy. Doubt you will though, truth hurts.
Click to expand...

Corr look at you cheerleading.

If one of you geopolitical military experts wants to explain why ChatGPT’s explanation on the financing of the deal is wrong, I’m all ears.
 
HKOwen said:
Let's all condemn this planned murder of British citizens.

See if our resident jew haters keep quiet or have the courage to be truthful in their beliefs?

I wonder if those arrested are Lutheran, Anglican, Druids...........
Click to expand...

Saturn replied, but not to this.

Nothing from Wisbech, Dantifa or JP
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Corr look at you cheerleading.

If one of you geopolitical military experts wants to explain why ChatGPT’s explanation on the financing of the deal is wrong, I’m all ears.
Click to expand...

Dan will explain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top