The US occupying Gaza and taking on that cost sounds like one of the worst ideas in the history of geopolitics. Every “victory” the DOGE claims will be Pennie’s compared to the cost of the “you break it, you buy it” occupation of Gaza. What a rough ridin' disaster this could be.
Grok AI said the following:
The idea of the U.S. occupying Gaza has sparked significant debate, especially regarding funding. Based on the information available:
- **U.S. Government Statements**: Recent posts on X suggest that U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed that the U.S. would take over and redevelop Gaza, but there are conflicting statements about who would bear the financial burden. One post claims Trump said the U.S. would not pay for anything related to Gaza, suggesting that other "rich countries" should handle the costs.
- **Historical Context and Aid**: Historically, the U.S. has been one of the largest donors to aid efforts in Gaza, with over $674 million announced in humanitarian aid for Palestinians since the conflict began, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). However, this aid is separate from the costs associated with occupation and reconstruction.
- **Estimates of Reconstruction Costs**: Various sources, including a UNCTAD official, estimate the cost of rebuilding Gaza could be around $20 billion, given the current damage. This figure would likely increase if occupation costs were factored in.
- **Potential Funding Sources**:
- **International Aid**: There's mention in web articles of countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and European nations potentially contributing to reconstruction, although political implications make this complex.
- **U.S. Taxpayers**: The U.S. has historically funded military and humanitarian aid to Israel, and if there were an occupation, U.S. taxpayers might be expected to contribute significantly, though this would be politically controversial given current sentiments on X about U.S. involvement.
- **Business and Investment**: There's also speculation on X that multinational corporations might benefit from any reconstruction, possibly influencing where funding comes from or how it's directed.
Given these points, no definitive answer can be provided on who will pay for a U.S. occupation of Gaza since the proposal itself seems to be in a speculative stage. The U.S. might leverage international support or use its own resources, but both scenarios would be fraught with political, economic, and humanitarian considerations. The situation remains fluid, with funding likely to be a contentious issue based on public and international reactions.
It's almost like "the ends justify the means" can go off the rails when the "means" are guided by morons with questionable motives
Sometimes the way you phrase things make it seem like you are angry and combative.
I got a lot of spiritual and emotional benefit from attempting to take a break from 24/7/365 snark and sarcasm. It’s not good for me. So, when others do that to me, I have a difficult time understanding whether they mean to attack me. If it’s all the same to you and you don’t care either way, I’d appreciate it if you reworded stuff to take my delicate sensitivity into account. 
Also, I agree that this Gaza stuff is horrible. Let a player in the region or Switzerland do this crap if there is merit to it. Not the USA. That’s my view.
Yeah that is 100% fair. Didn't need to be snarky.
But in all seriousness, I think you should consider the morals and beliefs of your leaders as part of your evaluation of them and not just if they will help your most important causes. Because in general, lying/immoral people will turn on a dime if it benefits them. People with good morals will too! But I'd rather start with the good morals.
Again, I'd encourage you to think deeply about whether someone who doesn't care about trans rights or Palestinian rights and winks at Nazis really cares about keeping people in this country safe or financially secure.
We seem to be missing each other like ships in the night. A lot of this might just be semantics. I have no power over who gets to serve in the roles that they are in in the government. I voted for Kamala and I voted for nothing but Democratic political candidates Since 1992. Via my voting, I have been an unwavering supporter of the Democratic Party since 1992. There have been no elections where I have failed to support the Democratic Party.
At this present moment in this time between elections I find myself questioning the Democratic Party, and I will say that who I will vote for next time around is totally up in the air based upon who those candidates end up being and what their stated goals are and whether I believe them.
In the meantime, regarding things that I have absolutely no control over, I have made the decision to share with this board and with you that I am choosing to try and see silver linings, and I am choosing to evaluate each action on its own merits and not merely About whether I like or dislike the actor .
I acknowledge that there are many on this board, but perhaps not you, who are completely unwilling to acknowledge that the other side ever has a good idea or have any interest in supporting any initiative unless it comes from their own side.
I have also expressed my desire to be willing to negotiate on absolutely everything. That’s just a feature of my own personal value system. I acknowledge that there are others on this board who have specific topics on which they are completely unwilling to negotiate. I find it offensive when folks of that belief system Tell me that I am immoral or imply that I am immoral because I do not share their absolutism.
I know that you, Michigancat, are not asking me to again enumerate, which political figures I like and dislike, but I would like to reiterate that I do not like Donald Trump and I do not like most of what I am seeing from Elon Musk that is outside of the area of his specific businesses and tech technologies… I do not like Elon Musk political efforts.
