Pretty sure it's the opinion of anyone capable of critical thought. You give a genocidal nation half a billion dollars for defense that means that's half a billion dollars they can use elsewhere. I wonder what they're going to use it on?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, it's your opinion that Israel doesn't need the Iron Dome to act the way it's acting?

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm saying that's not the path to a solution.

On one hand that just galvanized more aggression and people wanna act like there is no more aggression that can be had, there is.

I also think much like the country I live in, most of us don't like our government and I think poor people are always the weapon. Israeli kids are now getting killed too, their government isn't going to change its tone over that.

And on top of it all, look at these comments. None of these people understand what is being voted for, all they see is the headline. This entire thread is full of people who pride themselves on knowing, being smart, being confident in their opinion. Yet none of them thought to consider MTG is what she always is, a baboon banging the drum for attention while getting nothing done.

This bill was never going to be stopped, that's the truth. The US will never not supply Israel. What is the REAL solution to that honestly? I think that's what people are trying to figure out. Governments make money conducting genocides and building weapons to justify more genocides. What are we gonna do about that?

Well I dunno but it certainly isn't drowning ever progressive when they misstep or you disagree with them.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Iron Dome is what allows Israel to act with impunity in the region, like kids burning ants with a magnifying glass or gods behind their perfect shield. Take that away, start raining rockets down on the Knesset, I think they'd change their minds about the war.

Poor people are the weapon, but rich people live in very vulnerable areas that could be obliterated if they didn't have interceptors.

Now, if you're saying that it's impossible to remove Iron Dome funding, yeah, that's basically true. The US will support Israel until one (or both) of them ceases to exist, there's basically no path towards cutting funding through budget votes or amendments. Voting for this amendment would never pass a majority, it would just be a signal to voters (and donors) about her priorities.

Voting against this amendment is also a signal, though, and what she signaled is that her priority is support for the Iron Dome.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay.

How does that lead to a solution? How does that not lead to more fighting and death?

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So, a knight with shield and armor is killing people. Take away his defenses and he kills less. Yes?

When the casualty ratio is more than 1:1000 and the only reason it’s like that is because of the armor . Then helping repair the armor is a war crime.

Also stationing a huge USA navy fleet next to Gaza to prevent any organized from reaching Gaza is a war crime too. Having them move away will reduce the loss of life and allow food to reach the area.

The United States is totally complicit in this

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network -2 points 1 day ago

Except in your analogy there are no women or children or noncombatants. So you think it makes sense. But it's more like if you had an army of knights vs an army of peasants but both armies had babies tied to them and your goal is to stop the baby killing.

Removing armor does nothing.

The casualty ratio is because it's specifically not a war. Israel claiming it is a war is part of their push. I know you know that though.

So why didn't MTG try to pass legislation to remove that fleet? Because that wasn't her goal. Instead she managed to sow more division and get nothing done while stroking you all and making you feel justified and giving you a place to put your anger.