this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
393 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19229 readers
3130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek 52 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Same interview.. “US is committed to Israel’s defense and would supply Iron Dome rocket interceptors and other defensive arms, but that if Israel goes into Rafah, we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used”. Defense secretary Austin Lloyd reiterated that same point

[–] [email protected] 57 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Ok, good? All you can do with Iron Dome is shoot down mortar rounds and slower-moving rockets (and maybe drones?) - it really only works for defense. I don't see the problem.

[–] kromem 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

In general I love the idea of the US moving more and more towards only supplying defensive munitions to countries (such as the long list of really fucked up countries we deal arms to that would surprise most people).

We could always take special action to supply offensive arms in response to justified conflicts such as in Ukraine, but let's not let authoritarians build up a stockpile of offensive capabilities from US sweat during times of peace. That's a recipe for less peace.

But by all means we should let allies buy as much defensive capabilities as they desire.

Being an ally to the US should be more associated with the benefits of protection from bullies than capacity to bully.

(And most important IMO is that we don't allow selling tech officially or privately by US corporations to enable authoritarians to abuse their own citizens. Something we very much do and I really wish we didn't.)

[–] hark 2 points 7 months ago

My issue is with the definition of defense, seeing as the US's department of war is called the department of defense and in the past israel's actions have been excused as a right to defend itself.

[–] jaybone 2 points 7 months ago

Israeli companies make and sell a ton of that spy tech. Probably more than the US.

[–] assassin_aragorn 5 points 7 months ago

I'm fine with this model. Defend them from attacks, but don't help them offensively. And leverage our defensive aid to strongarm them into not being genocidal.

[–] cyd -5 points 7 months ago

US worded its statements carefully. They'll still provide support for all the other parts of Israel's military operations, just not for the Rafah invasion. Israel is free to shuffle things around so that it won't make a difference.