First, Israel has access to several “emergency” supply caches in the area (that we actively replenish).
Secondly, any aid we cut off, say in March 2024 when it was overly clear what Israel was doing, they would still not be close to emptying their stockpile.
Thirdly, AIPAC would galvanize congress, the media, and then they would be shoveling aid to Israel and overriding Biden’s veto.
Fourthly, the US doesn’t have a monopoly on weapons export. I guarantee that other countries who are antagonist towards the US would step hand over fist to supply Israel with everything they need – or worse – because it weakens the US.
That isn’t hyperbole. It’s geopolitics.
So what’s worse?
A rogue client state that is itching to attack Iran and start wwIII with shout 50% of Congress in a death cult which requires Israel to exist to be destroyed so that sky lord can come and save them.
Or India getting a free field test of their armament?
One of those two options feeds the military industrial complex and the economy by extension. The other makes Pakistan enter the conflict. Now you have a regional war.
None of these things are good. But calling your congressman is a better use of your energy than yelling at idiots on Lemmy.
Just so we’re clear, your position is that Biden is at fault, but if he wasn’t supporting this genocide, it would actually be worse?
It’s late, and I’m watching the fights, so I don’t have my full attention to spare, but I had enough available to read your comment and see that that you’re being earnest in your argument, and your analysis is not disingenuous.
That’s important to me, because while it’s really bad, it also means that you’re probably not a bad person.
For starters, it’s all counterfactuals, and while that alone means it’s a just barrel of formal and informal fallacies, it’s also based on deeply flawed, or just grossly uneducated, misunderstandings of a wide range of fields, ranging from international relations, to military procurement and sustainment.
I’m not trying to be mean, and to be fair, I have an academic background in multiple fields related to these subjects, so I’m not pulling my criticism out of my ass.
But another fight is about to start, so my text to speech comment must end.
It absolutely does, Biden is a Zionist.
He is a proud and open one.
Could he cut off lethal aid? Absolutely!
But what would that accomplish?
First, Israel has access to several “emergency” supply caches in the area (that we actively replenish).
Secondly, any aid we cut off, say in March 2024 when it was overly clear what Israel was doing, they would still not be close to emptying their stockpile.
Thirdly, AIPAC would galvanize congress, the media, and then they would be shoveling aid to Israel and overriding Biden’s veto.
Fourthly, the US doesn’t have a monopoly on weapons export. I guarantee that other countries who are antagonist towards the US would step hand over fist to supply Israel with everything they need – or worse – because it weakens the US.
That isn’t hyperbole. It’s geopolitics.
So what’s worse?
A rogue client state that is itching to attack Iran and start wwIII with shout 50% of Congress in a death cult which requires Israel to exist to be destroyed so that sky lord can come and save them.
Or India getting a free field test of their armament?
One of those two options feeds the military industrial complex and the economy by extension. The other makes Pakistan enter the conflict. Now you have a regional war.
None of these things are good. But calling your congressman is a better use of your energy than yelling at idiots on Lemmy.
Signed - a fellow idiot.
Just so we’re clear, your position is that Biden is at fault, but if he wasn’t supporting this genocide, it would actually be worse?
It’s late, and I’m watching the fights, so I don’t have my full attention to spare, but I had enough available to read your comment and see that that you’re being earnest in your argument, and your analysis is not disingenuous.
That’s important to me, because while it’s really bad, it also means that you’re probably not a bad person.
For starters, it’s all counterfactuals, and while that alone means it’s a just barrel of formal and informal fallacies, it’s also based on deeply flawed, or just grossly uneducated, misunderstandings of a wide range of fields, ranging from international relations, to military procurement and sustainment.
I’m not trying to be mean, and to be fair, I have an academic background in multiple fields related to these subjects, so I’m not pulling my criticism out of my ass.
But another fight is about to start, so my text to speech comment must end.