Libertarians HATE Palestine!

That is certainly not true, neocons are pro Zionist, Libertarians are pro neutrality.

I try not to insult you personally, but you make it harder by the day! What does that statement even mean?

wow, you are getting dumber.
im niether a libertarian, or a zionist.
man you are in love with labeling people.
so much so you had 5 down votes before i even happened across this

as the recipient, i wish i could tell ya, but it is as retarded to me as it is to the rest of us

Correct, Rand Paul is not a libertarian.

Before you start spouting off you better read a little history. The Jews have been in Palestine for thousands of years. Most Palestinian supporters have take to claiming that they are the literal descendants of the biblical philistines in attempt to prove that they have occupied Palestine first. there was a palestinian state proposed but Jordan was created instead and awarded to the son of a powerful Arab king.

How does this all justify the 44 year old OCCUPATION?

How about the 40 year old occupation by the PLO? How about the current occupation by Hamas? If the Palestinians weren't busy fighting Jews they would be busy killing each other just like the current situation in Iraq.

We are the cause of the current situation in Iraq.

No shit. Instead of Saddam killing and torturing them now they are busy doing it to each other all on their own.

Aside from the Kurds Saddam had a policy you do not screw with me and I do not screw with you. When he was in Power an American could walk down "ANY" street in Iraq 24/7 flashing money and no one would dare touch you. Now you get beheaded going to the grocery store in broad daylight. Dont buy Rumsfelds BS.

I correspond with several people from Iraq both through email and snail-mail and have for years. They all agree that there are plus and minus to Saddam being gone, but the minuses FAR outweigh the pluses. The biggest winners in Iraq have been Haliburton and the Kurds.

thats my own opinion of the situation.

If you're a libertarian shouldn't you think that all states are fake, or at least illegitimate?

even as over a million palestinians freely reside in israel?

how is our 400 years of occupation justified?
at least the israelis offered to share, we just took

well actulay they are, being as hamas killed hundreds of fatah in order to arrest control of gaza

you cant think it is that simple.
you dont know about the sunni shia thing huh?

saddam favored the sunni, over the shia and made it worse by accusing all shia as traitors when he was at war with (shia) iran.
dont fuck with me, and i wont fuck with you was not a policy ever held by saddam.
im gunna fuck with you based on the slightest hint of what ever was his policy.

thus leaving sunnis and shia to be hyper xenophobic of one another once his influence was removed.each thinking the other was going to capitalize,
shia thinking saddam represented how sunnis would govern them, and sunnis fearfull that shia would exact identical revenge if in power.

I think that more death and suffering is inflicted by the palestinians on each other than from the israel.

Dont forget a healthy dose of Kurds who didnt like either party.

I am telling you what people who live/lived there tell me. The country is now a lawless hell hole they we created and have just said screw it.

hey, this is no place for facts.just antisemitic hyperbole

i agree it would be better for all had we not usurped thier natural order, but the results arent our responsability.
just as the bullet manufacturer isnt responsible for how it is used, we cant be blamed for iraqi's internal bullshit.

Cheney and Rumsfield were told what was going to happen with 100% accuracy. When one general stood up and gave correct estimates of troop strength and time lines for victory he was fired. They knew what the results were going to be and did it anyway.

Correct, Rand Paul is not a libertarian.

Of course the Zionists sent their mossad agents over to conspire with the Rothschild's to blow up the twin towers and trick America into destroying their Arab enemies.

While I do not believe the Israelis are responsible for 9/11 they do have a LONG history of carrying out terrorist attacks and TRYING to frame Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

No doubt. But the Palestinians are being used by their Arab "brothers" and a good portion of their problems are created by neighboring countries such as egypt, syria and Iran.

As far as I know Raimondo has not called out Israel as having been responsible for 9/11 like many other 9/11 researchers have concluded. He has has accused them having been involved in one way or another but from what I've read it was only having prior knowledge, receiving advanced warning and only passed on vague, non-specific threats.

There is really no debating the fact that they, along with the rest of the neocons in the Bush administration knew something was going to happen and made no attempt to warn specifically warn the people of America.

Even if they did I doubt our government agencies would have been competent enough to prevent it anyhow. Five years prior to 911 the FFA suggested armoring cockpit doors at a cost of about $750 per plane and the airlines declined to spend the money. The flight training had already been brought to the fbi's attention by its own agent. Does it really matter what the Israelis did or did not say ands would we have listened anyway.

I do not deny this, but the bottom line is the occupation NEEDS to end. There is little doubt in my mind is the occupation ended the Palestinians resistance to it would end as well.

I will have to disagree with you I think that if they were given a palestinian state it would resemble Lebanon with outside parties such as syria and iran operating it as a proxy state much as they do now to continue their policies against israel and each other.

george lucas would ipe his ass with that script, the story is so rediculous

yeah, that is the story all right suuure

oh so they would go back to that state of peace that existed before huh
and if i bang my wife in the ass, it would unpregnate her.suuure

Do you think that they are being apologists for Arab terrorists or that it makes them feel better about themselves to believe in massive government conspiracies?

in some peoples reality, but not in actual reality.

centrist has a habit of not recognizing left wing propaganda when he sees it, and is simply missled.
massanova on the other hand, is just floating antisemitism to see what he can build upon.

I think I read something like this before. On yea his name was Chamerlain. Just sit back in the good old usa and ignore the rest of the world because it doesnt make any difference to us.

Is this the best rebuttal you got? Accusations of isolationism will not work simply because I've already faced these accusations before. I support a non-interventionist foreign policy where we can have diplomatic relations and trade relations with other nations, but no entangling alliances and nation building. The only nation we should be protecting and concerned with is our own, but it doesn't hurt to have relations with other nations. Thomas Jefferson made the same argument I assume you thing he's an isolationist. As for Chamberlain, he was an appeaser because he gave former Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938. Try to come up with a better argument next time.

http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=849 Looking dispassionately at the political scene, the British choice made sense: Britain needed the Arabs more than they needed the Jews. There were a number of reasons for this: there were more Arabs than Jews in the region, and Arab countries spanned an enormous expanse; the Arabs also had a choice of supporting the Nazis - as many of their leaders in Palestine and Iraq indeed did; the Jews, on the other hand, had no choice but to support the Allies.

And, last and not least, the international standing of the Jews was weak, given the ascendancy of Nazism and of anti-Semitic movements all over Europe.

So the British government decided to placate and appease the Arabs. The British White Paper on Palestine, which was released in the spring of 1939, was a dramatic withdrawal from the Balfour Declarations and the commitments Britain made to the League of Nations in accepting the Mandate over Palestine.

An absolute cap of 100,000 future immigrants was put on Jewish entry to Palestine - thus condemning the Yishuv to the status of a permanent minority in the country; severe limitations on purchase of land by Jews were enacted, ensuring that the Jewish population would not be able to spread out to areas - such as the Negev - which could give a future Jewish state an adequate territorial base.

This was indeed appeasement - not of the Nazis, but of the Arabs. And the reasons were the same as the current trend in US policy: because the Arabs were an unreliable ally; they could cross over to the other side.

It was politically a reasonable step; morally it was despicable. It was responsible for the British policy of turning back Jewish refugees from the shores of Palestine during the war, even if they were able to flee Nazi-occupied Europe. This was the policy which was responsible, among others, for the sinking of the Struma and for the deportation of the illegal immigrants of the Patria to Mauritius in the middle of the war against Hitler.

there is more to history than what you read on current by bleeding hearts crying about the Palestinians.

so when a ship is destine for your shores, usurping security protocals, boarding said ship is piracy? what is it called then when a ship enters your nation after being denied? what is it called when it tries to enter your ports, and refuses to adhere to security checks?

so if we blockade our borders from aggression, despite it being a defensive move, to you it is war? if it is war, then how is bording the ship piracy, not part of the forementioned state of war?

we condone what israel does, regardless of what happens to the palestinians, cuz israel is the majority of the time defending, against the attacks of the palestinians.the enemies of israel, are the enemies of democracy.hence thier hatred of the west, not just one of us, but all of us.

no country has the right to exist? not even your own?
if no country has the right to exist, why care about what heppens to the palestinians, as they have no right to exist as palestinians?

to protect this nation, we must advocate for israel, as they are the front line in combat with our enemies.remove israel from the equasion, and we have zero intel on terrorism, and all the attacks israel recieves, would be focused on us.it really isnt that complex.they view us all the same, just like our hatefull view all of islam the same.they dont differenciate between israel and england and us.

if an alliance with another nation, falls under the catagory of defending ourselves, is that not permitted in your view?
cuz that is what israel is for us.

Only a neocon would attempt to argue the point you've just made. I stand by my position that we can have diplomatic relations and trade relations with all, alliances with none.

Thank you for justifying Israel's horrific actions against the people of Palestine. You've just strengthened my argument that we need to end our interventionist foreign policy and stop condoning Israel's actions. And yes, no country has the "right" to exist since Israel was created by the UN in 1948. Keep up the good work shilling for Israel, I'll stick to advocating a noninterventionist foreign policy and not have to constantly justify Israel's tactics.

excellent.
label, and name call instead of adressing a single point.
and im the neo-con huh?
seems as if you are functioning stricly within thier playbook.
less regulation (with no specifics)
less tax's (with no specifics)
security (with no specifics)
and here you are throwing neo-con out as if it were a curse word, as you follow thier protocol to the letter.broad statements, with no adressing any actual issue.
sure im the neo-con here.

i dont shill for israel, especialy in this case as i am advocating for us by using israel.if anything im shilling for the exploitation of israel, to our benefit.but i guess reactionary statements come more easily than those of substative thought.

the situation between the israeli's and the palestinians has no justification on either side, as both are clearly criminal in thier behavior towards one another.but with that said, despite criminality being s.o.p., israel has functioned reasonably.
far more so than us, by miles.

i dont understand why "no country has the right to exist cuz israel was created in 1948."
are you saying only countries before that point have a right to exist, or did you just throw in that random fact while you literaly think not a single nation on the planet has a right to exist?

i dont have to justify anyones tactics, as i lead no nation.wtf is wrong with you?

I'm sorry, you're right, you don't deserve to be called neocon. I'll just call you an agent of AIPAC lol. There, now that's better. ;)

Yes, no country has the "right" to exist. Nations are voluntarily created by the people living within the area where they decide on what kind of government they will have, where the boundaries will be drawn and other factors. Israel was created by the UN in 1948 and just because it was created doesn't mean it deserves special treatment. It shouldn't matter if Israel or any other nation succeeds or fails, they must do so on their own terms without the help of outside forces. And for the record, you just shilled for Israel. The better question is, what's wrong with you.

it is clear that you dont have the investment in israeli history that i do, and that is fine most dont.but the reality, just for clarification, israel was gunna do as it was gunna do regardless of what the un decided.they would be where they ae regardless.

i agree.i want no special treatment for israel, just equal standards as every other nation.they are the middle east jewish version of what we are to puritan western christians.

facts are facts, and if they come out showing one party favorably it is what it is.but it isnt shilling.
unless the green movement is shilling for the earth?

Rand Paul is a tool of Mitch McConnell. He sold out the minute he won the primary.

Time will tell the cut of his jib.

Hypocrite.

ah yes,the wrath of aipac who has never gotten a president into office, or out.

No, but it has gotten several Congress People into both.

not more than unions or any number of other far more powerfull organizations, like opec.
but hey why focus on the top power brokers, when the minors you hate are more personaly satisfying to attack.

i just cant seem to recall that time that aipac was offended by anyone, and that some one was ousted as a result.i know im a stickler for the bounds of reality

He is sellout. From the second he got his dick smacked in his first interview he transformed into a Republican clone.