Did you actually read what you posted? It specifically says she voted against it because it only cut off defensive (ant-missile) armaments while still allowing offensive weapons. Pretty much the opposite of your headline.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
-44 points (25.6% liked)
Progressive Politics
3015 readers
407 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 34 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
There's really no difference between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons. Israel was able to start a war with Iran precisely because they knew they would be protected by the "defensive" anti-missile systems provided by the US, and from US assets directly shooting down Iranian missiles on their way to Israel. Weapons are weapons. Don't fall or the marketing.
[deleted]
If she supported sending weapons to Russia would you write her off? Because this is even worse than that.
So she wants to make sure the Israeli military bases which bomb Gaza every day cannot be retaliated against.
OP can't read
If there is truly no difference, then only disallowing some munitions is a completely useless gesture.
"We should keep sending 9 digit amounts of money to Nazi Germany because not doing so would be a useless gesture."
Reducing the 11 figure amount by less than a tenth is a useless gesture, yes.
Apparently it's useful enough to vote against.
And lol, can you imagine if Trump was sending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to Russia? I'm betting you suddenly wouldn't oppose stopping it because it's "a useless gesture"
If you can't understand why voting against things that only pretend to help without actually changing anything might be a good idea, there is no point in continuing to talk about it.
If you don't automatically admit that I'm correct and you're wrong then there's no point talking to you
At least you admit that you can't actually defend you position from anyone who actually questions it.
[removed by mod]
Oh, you meant there's no point continuing to talk because you're going to immediately descend into angry trolling.
What? This is about giving Israel 500 million dollars for free to purchase weapons with, by the way,
Your assertion is that there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. If that is true then any allowance of any weapons is a continued support of genocide. Another way: any bill that still allows some weapon types is functionally useless at preventing genocide.
Yes which is why AOC should have voted for the amendment to not send weapons to Israel. That is kind of the point here.
Yes which is why AOC should have voted for the amendment to not send weapons to Israel
Except that's not what the amendment did, it only stopped some money for a portion of particular types of weapons.
Yes and AOC voted against that and said she did it because she supports sending weapons to Israel. Which is what she says in the tweet
I must have read a different tweet.
You read a tweet full of lies and deception the likes only MAGA normally publishes
This is some trickle down economics level of "being anti war".
So, to be clear, you would support Trump sending billions of dollars worth of 'defensive weapons' to Russia?
[deleted]
Good to see the definition of tankie has now shifted so far that in includes "not supporting arming a genocidal fascist ethnostate."
[removed by mod]
The minute amount of hope I had left for AOC is gone. This woman is not a progressive. She is an establishment ghoul.
anyone who can change their views about a politician should be commended, so i appreciate this.
it's truly a shame because i know people who are supporting AOC are generally good people who want to see real change.
Before any moron comes in to defend sending interceptors to Nazi Germany:
There is no difference between offensive and "defensive" weapons in international law.
she's starting to sound like kamala harris...
Nah, just the replacement for Kibuts Bernie, he can go full mask off zionist now he's on his way out.
Unfortunately for her it's a bad start since every now and then they have to vote and put their cards on the table.
This is already such a time. You can see she talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
A classic politician.