121
AOC voted against MTG’s amendment to strip Israel funding from the Defense Appropriations Act of 2026 (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your ad homonym means that this conversation is over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent