Comment: "An attack on Israel is

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Meaningless political rhetoric? (see in situ)

"An attack on Israel is

"An attack on Israel is treated like an attack on Israel"

That IS a meaningless statement.

Rand [and Ron] doesn't want Israel dragging us into any conflicts. That is the primary point of his stance, that if Israel bombs Iran -that they do it on their own, that if Israel builds settlements in the West Bank -that they do it on their own, that they can negotiate with Iran and Palestinians on their own and they and the world will ultimately be better off for it. Rand supports Israel's sovereignty and independence. Israel is currently a package deal [sorta like cable tv, I only wanted 5 channels, but they gave me the minimum bundle of 50]. It is a 30 year old son still living with his parents. Rand wants to help push him out the door, wean him off the nipple. There's been too much debate at the dinner table of whether or not Johnny Junior wears a condom tonight on his date.

Israel has its own means of defense. It needs to be recognized as a true ally like UK and Canada, less like Kuwait [Kuwait is not truly sovereign and exists as a protectorate] and South Korea.

Your perspective that he is an utter neocon and uses meaningless rhetoric when pandering to libertarians is unfounded, completely ridiculous, and flirts with being utterly insane.