A reminder Israel has both universal healthcare and tuition free university...and voted yesterday to give $255 million to ultra-Orthodox programs and institutions, including yeshivas...that actually refuse to engage in military conscription...
5k is almost free. And yes you pay tax to find universities. Makes sense. Paying full tuition in the USA is like paying a tax, only worse, it's a lot more.
Israel, the nation state, came into being in 1948, with the explicit financial and military aid of the United States to do so. It has had American support since within hours of its founding.
"At the end of 1948, 53% of Israel's Jewish population was insured, about 80% of them by Clalit, with a few small health funds insuring the remainder. In the following years, Israel's healthcare system was expanded, and within a decade, about 90% were insured."
Universal healthcare became a thing in 1995, it seems.
To be fair here, what people often overlook by using Israel's current government as a reference point is that during the Kibbutz era Israel was decidedly left-wing. So I wouldn't necessarily attribute the presence of 90% or later 100% health care to US money.
Ah yes...the criticizing Israel is antisemitic argument...
"I stand behind the Israeli soldiers; whether there are children or women, it doesn't matter to me if there is damage. There are no innocent civilians in Jenin" - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWWUmuFDgqP/
It would have been a valid criticism if it mentioned US aid to Ukraine (which is far larger), or aid to Egypt or the aid by maintaining military bases in South Korea, Japan, Europe. But nothing of that was mentioned, only the Jewish state. Hence it is a good ol' antisemitism.
US is already very unpopular even among the traditionally very pro-US populations, which means anyone not distancing themselves from US will underperform and in many cases pro-US politicians will be ousted.
These posts are getting flagged but its actually vey relevant for US tech as US tech may end up blocked across the world with potentially reducing its userbase by %90 percent as US population quite small actually.
No, this is a different strike. Please read the NYT article you linked more carefully.
> The Feb. 28 attack occurred the same day as a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile struck a school in the city of Minab, several hundred miles away, killing 175 people. In the case of Lamerd, though, it involved a weapon that had been untested in combat.
You're welcome to review my commenting history; I'm by no means supportive of either administration nor the Iran War. (You'll find me, for example, noting Israel's campaign in Gaza is ethnic cleansing; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46519718)
They rely on the US defense umbrella and do not significantly invest in their own defense.
They host two US bases with significant air assets (in Seville and Cadiz). Pretty sure those agreements don't say "And you can tell us what to do with our defense assets whenever you want".
"To this end, Spain grants to the United States of America the use of operational and support installations and grants authorizations for use of Spanish territory, territorial sea and airspace for purposes within the bilateral or multilateral scope of this Agreement. Any use beyond these purposes will require the prior authorization of the Government of Spain."
"Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee."
I want to say upfront that I'm absolutely not trying to say Spain should or even needs to join this silly war.
But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place. Iran is in fact a threat relevant to NATO considering most of it is/was within ballistic missile range. It's also a simple fact that Iran's manufacturing base has been supporting Russia's war machine, which has been a key contributing factor in the Ukrainian stalemate. There is some genuine strategic overlap.
Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
I don't want Isreal dragging us into wars for it's personal benefit. But this whole conflict has really got me realizing I don't want Europe dragging us into any wars either. The only transactional benefit to those air bases is that they power American global logistics. If this becomes a pattern then I think NATO will likely become nothing more than a nuclear umbrella, even after Trump leaves office. And only as a hedge against nuclear proliferation.
People take for granted that Biden was technically the most Pro-NATO president we have ever had, and likely ever will.
The base is not some favor to Spain. Who does Spain even need defending from? It is a means of regional power projection for the US, granted to them for free as a favor. They've been very ungracious guests lately.
"Granted to them for free"? The US has been paying Spain for base access since 1953. Hundreds of millions per renewal cycle in military aid, economic assistance, and direct spending. It was never free and it was never a favor. Spain negotiated compensation every time.
"Who does Spain need defending from?" Nobody, because of the security architecture my tax dollars built. That's not evidence the bases are a favor to us. That's evidence they worked. You're welcome. And if they can't be used when it matters, I won't lose any sleep if they get closed.
> But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place.
Why lie like this? I linked the agreement; the US doesn't maintain everything.
"Each Party shall bear the costs of operation and maintenance of services and installations, or parts thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which it uses exclusively, as well as the identifiable direct costs for its use of jointly used installations and general services of the base."
"The bases listed in Annex 2 of this Agreement shall be under Spanish command... Consistent with the provisions of Article Sixteen, the security of each base shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the each base... The functioning and maintenance of general services and installations of the base, and the management of provisioning for these services and installations shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the base, who shall assure to the United States forces the availability-of these services and installations under conditions which guarantee the operations of United States units. To discharge this responsibility and promptly and effectively resolve any contingency, the Commander of the base will seek the collaboration of the United States forces. The general services and installations of a base are those which characterize it as such and are essential to the operability of the units."
> Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.
No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!
> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.
Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.
I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.
If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.
> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.
Is it ok now to call the US electorate suckers?
"US Republicans consider health care cuts to fund Iran war" - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-republicans-consider-he...
A reminder Israel has both universal healthcare and tuition free university...and voted yesterday to give $255 million to ultra-Orthodox programs and institutions, including yeshivas...that actually refuse to engage in military conscription...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/opposition-mks-voted-to-alloca...
> Is it ok now to call the US electorate suckers?
I don't think you have to wait for 2026 on that one.
> Israel has both universal healthcare and tuition free university
This is both wrong and off topic.
Israel health care is funded by a 5% additional income tax tier. non working people pay a significant fixed annual fee.
University is not free. $5K for the public institutions - which have limited admissions. $10K for many of the spill over private institutions.
Now - about those space lasers ....
5k is almost free. And yes you pay tax to find universities. Makes sense. Paying full tuition in the USA is like paying a tax, only worse, it's a lot more.
As disgusted as I am with Israel's action over the last 80 years, put the blame where it belong.
5k is far from nothing, it is more than enough in any country than subsidize higher education.
Which is most of the world at this point.
I mean have you seen what US colleges cost?
The US is very much an outlier.
This give a very different picture:
https://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees/
[dead]
[flagged]
There would be no public education nor healthcare in Israel without US money.
Israel has had public education and public healthcare forever, even going back when US had no colored and jews signs in their public spaces.
> Israel has had public education and public healthcare forever…
This also applies to US aid.
Nope, Israel had it much earlier.
Israel, the nation state, came into being in 1948, with the explicit financial and military aid of the United States to do so. It has had American support since within hours of its founding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Israel#State_of_...
"At the end of 1948, 53% of Israel's Jewish population was insured, about 80% of them by Clalit, with a few small health funds insuring the remainder. In the following years, Israel's healthcare system was expanded, and within a decade, about 90% were insured."
Universal healthcare became a thing in 1995, it seems.
To be fair here, what people often overlook by using Israel's current government as a reference point is that during the Kibbutz era Israel was decidedly left-wing. So I wouldn't necessarily attribute the presence of 90% or later 100% health care to US money.
Ah yes...the criticizing Israel is antisemitic argument...
"I stand behind the Israeli soldiers; whether there are children or women, it doesn't matter to me if there is damage. There are no innocent civilians in Jenin" - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWWUmuFDgqP/
[flagged]
You're doing it again, conflating antisemitism and criticism of Israel, I flagged your comments.
Boiling legitimate criticism of the USA funding of Israel to “of course the Jews stole it” is intellectually dishonest.
It would have been a valid criticism if it mentioned US aid to Ukraine (which is far larger), or aid to Egypt or the aid by maintaining military bases in South Korea, Japan, Europe. But nothing of that was mentioned, only the Jewish state. Hence it is a good ol' antisemitism.
[dead]
Israeli media reports that today USA bombed a school again with an experimental ballistic missle, killing 21 people: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2026-03-30/ty-...
US is already very unpopular even among the traditionally very pro-US populations, which means anyone not distancing themselves from US will underperform and in many cases pro-US politicians will be ousted.
These posts are getting flagged but its actually vey relevant for US tech as US tech may end up blocked across the world with potentially reducing its userbase by %90 percent as US population quite small actually.
edit: Well, crap. I was wrong. Apologies!
I guess we've obliterated two schools now. Ugh.
No, this is a different strike. Please read the NYT article you linked more carefully.
> The Feb. 28 attack occurred the same day as a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile struck a school in the city of Minab, several hundred miles away, killing 175 people. In the case of Lamerd, though, it involved a weapon that had been untested in combat.
Crap, you're right. My apologies.
Oh its from 2 days ago? Okay then, let's vote in the politicians that will drag us to war crimes and genocides with US and Israel - said no one.
You're welcome to review my commenting history; I'm by no means supportive of either administration nor the Iran War. (You'll find me, for example, noting Israel's campaign in Gaza is ethnic cleansing; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46519718)
edit: Strike the rest.
That's fine I don't accuse you of anything.
People are now joking about Iran deploying inflatable schools as decoy so to make US spent their bombs on those.
[dead]
[flagged]
Europe is currently being invaded by Russia and your idea for a "hardliner" course is to start sending Russia money?
Europe is sending repressive gulf monarchies money. Europe is sending LNG money to the US that threatened to invade Greenland.
New account for spreading misinformation?
[flagged]
Looks like a rinse and repeat, create new account to spread more lies
[flagged]
Should Spain get to run US airspace?
If not, why does the US get to run Spain's?
What do you mean "allow"? Spain is a sovereign state, this is their decision alone.
Being sovereign hasn't stopped the Trump administration in Venezuela, Iran or Cuba.
> It's kinda crazy we allow countries like Spain
It's crazy that we recognize country's right to determine the use of their own airspace??? Are you serious?
They rely on the US defense umbrella and do not significantly invest in their own defense.
They host two US bases with significant air assets (in Seville and Cadiz). Pretty sure those agreements don't say "And you can tell us what to do with our defense assets whenever you want".
> Pretty sure those agreements don't say "And you can tell us what to do with our defense assets whenever you want".
Of course they do.
https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/
"To this end, Spain grants to the United States of America the use of operational and support installations and grants authorizations for use of Spanish territory, territorial sea and airspace for purposes within the bilateral or multilateral scope of this Agreement. Any use beyond these purposes will require the prior authorization of the Government of Spain."
"Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee."
I want to say upfront that I'm absolutely not trying to say Spain should or even needs to join this silly war.
But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place. Iran is in fact a threat relevant to NATO considering most of it is/was within ballistic missile range. It's also a simple fact that Iran's manufacturing base has been supporting Russia's war machine, which has been a key contributing factor in the Ukrainian stalemate. There is some genuine strategic overlap.
Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
I don't want Isreal dragging us into wars for it's personal benefit. But this whole conflict has really got me realizing I don't want Europe dragging us into any wars either. The only transactional benefit to those air bases is that they power American global logistics. If this becomes a pattern then I think NATO will likely become nothing more than a nuclear umbrella, even after Trump leaves office. And only as a hedge against nuclear proliferation.
People take for granted that Biden was technically the most Pro-NATO president we have ever had, and likely ever will.
The base is not some favor to Spain. Who does Spain even need defending from? It is a means of regional power projection for the US, granted to them for free as a favor. They've been very ungracious guests lately.
"Granted to them for free"? The US has been paying Spain for base access since 1953. Hundreds of millions per renewal cycle in military aid, economic assistance, and direct spending. It was never free and it was never a favor. Spain negotiated compensation every time.
"Who does Spain need defending from?" Nobody, because of the security architecture my tax dollars built. That's not evidence the bases are a favor to us. That's evidence they worked. You're welcome. And if they can't be used when it matters, I won't lose any sleep if they get closed.
Iran was never a threat to NATO. It was posing no threat when the US launched this war. The entire threat is the fault of US aggression.
> But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place.
Why lie like this? I linked the agreement; the US doesn't maintain everything.
"Each Party shall bear the costs of operation and maintenance of services and installations, or parts thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which it uses exclusively, as well as the identifiable direct costs for its use of jointly used installations and general services of the base."
"The bases listed in Annex 2 of this Agreement shall be under Spanish command... Consistent with the provisions of Article Sixteen, the security of each base shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the each base... The functioning and maintenance of general services and installations of the base, and the management of provisioning for these services and installations shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the base, who shall assure to the United States forces the availability-of these services and installations under conditions which guarantee the operations of United States units. To discharge this responsibility and promptly and effectively resolve any contingency, the Commander of the base will seek the collaboration of the United States forces. The general services and installations of a base are those which characterize it as such and are essential to the operability of the units."
> Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
The Iran War is one of aggression, and Spain justifiably wants to be left out of it. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...
NATO is a defensive alliance, and specific to... the North Atlantic in theory. (In fact, Hawaii isn't even covered under the NATO setup. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hn...)
The only country in history to invoke Article 5 was the US after 9/11. Spain stepped up, as expected of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
The United States has never activated article 5. Get your facts straight before attempting to use an LLM to reply to me.
The coalition for Afghanistan was voluntary. This isn't even that, it's just flying our planes over Spain's airspace.
Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/intl/io/nato/index.htm
> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.
No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!
> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.
Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.
Is the US not one of those "NATO allies"?
I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.
I hate to say this, but they're correct, if only pedantically. The claim was:
> The United States has never activated article 5
The US didn't activate it. It was:
> The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative, without a request by the United States
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...
Regardless, article 5 was activated _on behalf_ of the US, if not at the US's request.
If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.
I tend to agree.
> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.
US defense from... who exactly?
And of course, the US bases are guests in Spain, a favor the Spanish are doing for their friends. They're still expected to follow their hosts rules.
Who is „we“ in this context?