The argument for stopping Iron Dome funding is for Israel to actually face retaliation for their attacks on others. Right now they feel like they can attack anyone and slaughter civilians with impunity. The idea is that they’ll chill out if we stop bailing them out of their own belligerent actions.
Especially when said actions are violations of international law and laws of war…
Having more Israeli civilians die is not going to help. It will only lead to Israel accelerating the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Right. But, historically, killing civilians has NEVER influenced dictators with murder boners. Japan didn't even blink when we glassed entire cities with nuclear fire. They surrendered ONLY when they got assurances from the US that their emperor wouldn't be executed. Hell, he retained power!
Also, historically, attacking civilians only ever incites patriotic rage against the attackers. The reasons be damned. So if your goal is to make Israel suffer PR ouchies by murdering their civilians, ask yourself how well that worked around 9/11. What causes war fatigue? Military casualties.
It should be noted that state actors like Iran have mostly retaliated against military infrastructure so far.
That's cool. Hope they succeed in hitting military targets. They actually have a far better chance of focus firing a single target with the Iron Dome in place. "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing."
The more important part to withholding all arms, even defensive ones, is to send a message that conducting this genocide is unacceptable. Israel cannot continue this war without our aid. US backing for this genocide is critical for its continuation.
Bibi might be an authoritarian committing a genocide but he doesn’t have the absolute authority of a Tojo. Public opinion still matters. Even if you don’t count what’s happened post 10/7, I don’t think you can make the argument that Israel has become more chill since they got the Iron Dome in 2011.
I'm not even going to try and make that argument. Israel has been actively engaged in genocide for decades. That doesn't justify targeting civilians. Which is what this argument is largely over. AOC does not want to detract from civilian protection. She wants to stop the war. That's her case.
And you're right. Public opinion matters. We just disagree on the best approach to influencing it. Information influences public opinion WAY more effectively than killing them does.
The Iron Dome also protects military air bases and Israeli soldiers and equipment. It’s not that I think being pro-Iron Dome, anti-“offensive weapons” is an incoherent or even indefensible position. I also don’t think AOC is being straightforward that that’s basically what her position is.
And that's exactly what she's stated her position is. And has voted in accordance with that. She voted "no" for the bill at large, as well as the specific amendment. MTG just knowingly wrote that amendment as a catch 22 because either yes or no can incite heavy criticism. It was always a trap.
Just read her statement on the other place. Much clearer than what I’ve seen her post over here. I still disagree with you both about it, but I respect a clear statement of principles over the whole MTG is trying to trick you line. She’s not clever enough to trick anyone, certainly not Rashida Tlaib
Your disagreement is accepted. I'm glad we could have a civil exchange, I don't hold anything against you.
Yeah, I've seen those posts. I think people (intentionally or not) are ignoring her reasoning and are just pissed. MTG doesn't have to be clever to follow orders. Nor is this particularly clever. The GOP do this shit all the time. They also blatantly lie by taking credit for shit they voted no on.
And I don't get why you bring up Rashida Tlaib. Her vote was for allowing civilians to die. She fell for the trap, too. Moral dilemmas have no right answer. This amendment was explicitly designed to be a moral dilemma. Let civies be killed or fund a genocide. Fun question to ponder.
Sure. But it's less effective at defending any one spot and more effective at defending against wide spread barages. If Iran had cut their massive volleys down to a quarter in size and focused entirely on key military targets (radar and AA platforms).
I keep writing Iraq, my apologies.