Cut foreign aid to the middle east

Again, my opponent is basing her arguments on unfounded and unsupported claims. Now she wants you to believe that without our financial support, ISIS will completely take over the region, destroying our trade goods. If you know much about the region you will be pretty sure that currently ISIS does not have a prayer of defeating Saudi to the south, Iran to the east, or turkey to the north. They are having enough trouble dealing with Syria and the Kurds to the west. If they finally broke through that way, they get to Egypt and Israel, both ready and able to crush them. They are surrounded. Our Arabian oil will continue to flow. The statement that without a few million dollars of aid, countries like Saudi, Iran or Turkey will crumble before the assault of ISIS is laughable. My opponent says that "The point of an alliance isn't about the money, it's about the lack of support at all." I agree. It is not about money. We can continue to have our alliances without sending them this money. We will still have our bases in their countries, healthy trade relations, humanitarian aid and diplomatic relations. In short, everything that makes up an alliance. The change this plan makes is that we will no longer be handing out free cash to countries that do not support our interests. Far from helping our alliances and strategic interests, military aid is shown to cause harm. Patricia Sullivan, assistant professor in the University of North Carolina"s Department of Public Policy, Peace, War and Defense, May 2012: " The United States gives aid without gaining new leverage. In general, U.S. military aid proved to be negatively correlated with cooperation by the nations receiving the aid. In fact, national governments that received aid exhibited less cooperative behavior toward the United States than governments given no military aid. military aid will not usually induce general cooperation. And providing military aid to foreign governments can backfire. Arms transfers to developing countries have been linked to increases in human rights abuses and may impede democratization. Military assistance can enable client states to aggress against their neighbors " which may hurt American interests in the region. Finally, when alliances shift or governments are replaced, America can find itself in combat against an enemy equipped with U.S-made weapons sent at an earlier time. " Yes, I have "used a lot of quotes that all say the same thing." They are all experts who support my plan/arguments. As teenagers, our statements are not, in their own right, credible. That is why I am using experts to back up my opinion. As Rand Paul said in my first speech, it is our responsibility to use our power position in the world to speak for those who cannot. In the status quo we are sending money to countries we know will use it for terror. As far as putting myself in their shoes, we are not harming them. Most of the citizens of these countries will be utterly unaffected by this plan. It does, however, express to their governments that they are in need of reform. Put yourself in the shoes of those who are persecuted by these countries while we do nothing. Put yourself in the shoes of those who are killed by terrorists funded by the United States of America. That must end! Senator Rand Paul at CPAC, February 27, 2015: "We do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan. It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting "Death to America" in countries that receive our foreign aid. I say it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America!" Our country is taxing us, and going into debt to fund terror?? Not if I have anything to say about it!