• Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is there any middle ground between “not receiving 20 billion a year in weapons” and “disarmed”

    The centrist mind may never know.

    • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Is there any middle ground between “not receiving 20 billion a year in weapons” and “disarmed”

      Of course there is. The US has already stopped sending certain weapons aid to Israel over the situation in Gaza.

      I’ll mostly ignore the childish insult, but you can do better at discussing the world like a mature adult, I’m sure.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

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

          • AgentDalePoopster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months 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.

      • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Of course. But a mature adult likely wouldn’t have injected the term “disarmed”. Like we were enacting an arms embargo, which we do to dozens Of countries around the world.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Okay, so let’s discuss the level of armament withdraw you think would be appropriate, and the affects varying levels might have.

          • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sure, complete adherence to the Geneva conventions is a baseline requirement for any future military aid.

            No aid that would affect the long-term health of human habitants such as mines or depleted uranium munitions.

            Independent war crime investigations to be performed concurrently and concluded concurrently with internal investigations until some bar of accountability is established. With outstanding penalties to aid for proven falsification in these investigations.

            If I had my druthers I would also like an end to mossad spying inside the US and AIPAC funding of our politics.

            • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I pretty much agree with your positions 100%, in broad strokes, and will continue to send letters to that effect to elected officials.

              I also believe that there are likely a slew of very complicated and interconnected factors within geopolitics that I’m unable to consider or include when formulating my opinion due to the classified nature of much of the world’s foreign policy. For that reason I also try to rein in the part of my mind that tells me I know best what should be done.

              The world is so intensely complicated and I struggle to not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, as I did in my 20s and 30s. It’s very difficult to do when we’re talking about death and destruction no matter what path is chosen.

              The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.