Marjorie Taylor Greene's amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it. What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.

I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established.

I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.

For the record, I think this is a shitty explanation. The Iron Dome permits Israel to commit it's genocide with impunity and act as a belligerent in the region. I get the attempt to differentiate between defensive support and offensive support, but cutting of arms for the Iron Dome would be the fastest way to curb Israeli aggression. But this statement in no way, "clarifies that she supports genocide."

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well that is certainly one interpretation of her words. Maybe not the one closest to the truth but definitely one way of thinking lol.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean I disagree I think it's absolutely closest to the truth. She's just trying to fudge what she means but that's exactly what the truth is.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works -4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

No, her goal is to preserve life. Israel needs defense just like any other country. They don't need the other three billion dollars that we give them for offense. Removing their money for defense is the dumbest idea. That is what AOC is pointing out.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Well that's just nonsense. First of all any money you send them for defense is money they don't have to spend a defense so they're spending offense. That's just common sense. Secondly giving them a giant suit of armor just allows them to act with impunity in the region. That giant suit of armor is what allows them to slaughter people with no thought to consequences. All she's doing is arming and equipping a genocidal fascist state. That's it. That's the truth.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works -4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Because it's not money. It's the value of the equipment that they are given or allowed to spend the money on. We give them 500 million or whatever in credit towards American companies that make defensive equipment.

If we only gave them the giant suit of armor, and nothing else, then that's all they could possibly use. Defense.

If we give them no suit of armor but tons and tons of guns then that's all they could possibly use. Offense.

That's the difference here, MTG wants to remove their defense so that they get more aggressive. AOC says that's ridiculous and we should remove their offense while keeping their defense solid. AOC cares about all life not just who's side is getting bombed now.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The idea that Israel being immune to facing any blowback to it's endless aggression is somehow making it less aggressive is so absurd that I can only assume you're trolling.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Brother that didn't make any sense whatsoever. Did you not read my comment?

Any money you give to a genocidal state. Any money whatsoever. Any equipment. Any Aid. Anything. That's funding genocide. End of story.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I would support a drawdown of aid across the board.

I would not support a plan that would make Israel more aggressive. That is what this MTG amendment would do.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The idea that taking away their armor makes them more aggressive is just nonsense.

You are arguing that we should directly fund genocide here. You are sitting here saying that the American taxpayers should pay to murder children. Please be honest with yourself that's what you're arguing.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So you would support the USA sending billions of dollars of defensive weapons to Russia to protect them from Ukrainian attack?

Or are you a hypocritical toad?

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works -3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Your ad homonym means that this conversation is over.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Ah yes, the classic reddit loser move of reading off terms from the wikipedia entry on logical fallacies like they're magic incantations that win internet arguments.

Maybe you should actually learn what ad-hominem means before trying to act like a mystical debate wizard, because nothing I said was one.