It makes zero sense to only remove defense unless your goal is more death on both sides rather than lessening the current amount of deaths.
I think that the logic here, if anything in Greene’s head could pass for logic, is that limiting Israel’s defensive support could make them more vulnerable and and thereby hopefully force them to the negotiation table and or at least provide motivation for a cease fire since they would be more at risk. Right now they are in a position where they can be as aggressive as they want to whomever they like without concern for retaliation.
While I agree that stopping all weapons shipments to Israel should be the goal, stopping defensive systems could make them dial back offensive moves thus reducing casualties on the other side.
Your comment comes across to me as though you didn’t want it to pass. My point is that if this is all that can be done we should do it. We should pass this and then work to pass additional restrictions. I don’t care how piecemeal it ends up. We should stop what we can when we can.
You asserted it would cause more death on both sides but do not back that up with any reasoning, despite me suggesting that they can reroute offense spending to defense spending which would curb death on the Palestinian side while preserving the defense of Israel.
I would not be interested in providing defense aid to hitlers Germany. I’m not interested in providing military aid either for offense or defense to anyone committing genocide. If they are concerned about their defense they can stop the genocide and regain aid.
Right…
Like I said, stopping all weapons is the right answer.
But if you’re going to defend bombs or missile defense…
It makes zero sense to only remove defense unless your goal is more death on both sides rather than lessening the current amount of deaths.
I think that the logic here, if anything in Greene’s head could pass for logic, is that limiting Israel’s defensive support could make them more vulnerable and and thereby hopefully force them to the negotiation table and or at least provide motivation for a cease fire since they would be more at risk. Right now they are in a position where they can be as aggressive as they want to whomever they like without concern for retaliation.
While I agree that stopping all weapons shipments to Israel should be the goal, stopping defensive systems could make them dial back offensive moves thus reducing casualties on the other side.
Your comment comes across to me as though you didn’t want it to pass. My point is that if this is all that can be done we should do it. We should pass this and then work to pass additional restrictions. I don’t care how piecemeal it ends up. We should stop what we can when we can.
Cool…
So you understand this would have caused more death on both sides…
You just still want it to happen
That’s your opinion, but I’m definitely not spending more time here.
You asserted it would cause more death on both sides but do not back that up with any reasoning, despite me suggesting that they can reroute offense spending to defense spending which would curb death on the Palestinian side while preserving the defense of Israel.
I would not be interested in providing defense aid to hitlers Germany. I’m not interested in providing military aid either for offense or defense to anyone committing genocide. If they are concerned about their defense they can stop the genocide and regain aid.