• @LengAwaits
    link
    02 hours ago

    Yes. I do mean that one, and I agree that is was not enough. What additional stoppages do you think should occur?

    • @AgentDalePoopster
      link
      22 hours ago

      All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.

      • @LengAwaits
        link
        1
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?

        • @AgentDalePoopster
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.

          • @LengAwaits
            link
            145 minutes ago

            I’m not as certain that it would be obviously less, as there are surely myriad factors about which I have no information. But I respect and understand where you’re coming from.

            I’m not sure that the regimes propping up Iran wouldn’t take the opportunity to capitalize on a serious draw-down of Israeli munitions, for various reasons, logistical (supply-chain) reasons among them.