Was Stalin's subordination of Eastern Europe seen as defense? Although there are of course vast ideological differences between Stalin's Russia and Israel, the reasons behind the occupations of both respective territories of Palestine and Eastern Europe remain quite similar. After winning the Second World War, Stalin wanted to make sure that the West would never be able to attack Russia again (Napoleonic France and Germany had launched brutal invasions against Russia). By setting up buffer states in Eastern Europe, achieving this by eliminating significant non-communist parties in the areas, Stalin effectively created a line of defense against the West (called the ''Iron Curtain'' by Winston Churchill).

Israel has fought many wars throughout its short history. It knows very well that a single failure could result in almost certain annihilation. No matter how much US and UN peacekeeping forces have tried, Israelis and Arabs have always been bitter enemies. Israel clearly and rightfully wants to claim its historical land, while Palestine also rightfully wants to co-exist. However the US has always constantly vetoed against Palestine's bid for independence, due to the common thought of a free Palestine being the ''first step'' in the destabilisation of the Middle East (this is a lot to do with Jerusalem being both a Jewish and Muslim holy site).

I personally do not agree with Mr. Chomsky because I do not believe that the Israelis will simply pull out of those settlements without further cooperation with the Palestinians (and possibly the end of Hamas' arguably violent attacks, which were in turn answered by violent Israeli strikes). Would the Soviet government have allowed their buffer states to be granted total independence? Of course not...Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev brutally invaded Hungary in 1956 due to its wish of leaving the Warsaw Pact.

I try to envision myself as neutral in this situation...yes I do want an independent Palestinian state but I also believe that Israel has the right to co-exist with its Arab neighbours. Old antagonisms should be put aside, and the Israelis and Arabs should work together for a better future.

The will of an individual to take in substances is of no affair of the state. No matter what drug, the state should not mingle into the affairs of the individual. As long as someone takes marijuana for their own personal use, and does not in any way harm anybody else, I see no problem in legalising marijuana.

The criminalisation of marijuana can be directly compared to the Prohibition era in the United States during the early 1920s. The sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages were unconditionally banned, and this unfortunately resulted in a huge amount of crime being perpetrated by criminal gangs, such as Al Capone's mafia, who smuggled the alcohol into the United States and killed anyone in their way. This is exactly the same with the drug lords and cartels. On top of this nearly 2 million people are arrested in the United States each year due to marijuana use, and billions upon billions of dollars have been spent of the defective ''War on Drugs''.

Legalise marijuana...not only for the sake of reducing crime and potentially saving many lives...but for the sake of basic liberty. No matter what political views we may have, governments should never have the right dictate what we should or shouldn't put into our bodies.

Same sex marriage is a fundamental right in a free society. For those in the US who believe that same sex marriage is wrong because it is against American values, they are ignorant of the values America was founded upon. The US is a secular state meaning that the church would have no interference in the lives of individuals. Instead people should rightfully have the freedom to choose to follow the church's laws and creeds. This is the same for the great majority of countries (aside from the ones with state religions, such as Sharia Law).

The legalisation of same sex marriage is one step closer to a more libertarian society...

No matter how dangerous Iran might seem in the Middle East, the US has no right to invade a country unless attacked first. Even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will never have the technology to strike into American territory and thus it is not a danger to the US. Think about Iraq...did Saddam have the nuclear weapons those politicians were always telling us about?

We must stop believing all the biased mainstream media about Iran. Yes Iran is a dictatorship which discriminates against women and homosexuals...and yet even this is not covered very well by the media. Instead there is so much coverage about how ''dangerous'' Iran is and how it threatens the world stability. The truth of the matter is that Iran is weak...it has never recovered from its confrontation with Iraq in the Cold War era.

A war against Iran would be disastrous. Even if it doesn't bring China and Russia into the conflict (effectively starting World War III), the civilian fatalities will be horrific... For the sake of our families...please opt for diplomacy and world peace.

Iran will never have the technology to strike into US territory. Also with all the sanctions and embargoes, I doubt Iran will have the capital to mass produce nuclear weapons (think about North Korea, its economy produced a few near-defective nuclear arsenal). We could relate this example to Iraq...did Saddam have nuclear weapons the politicians had told us about? Nope...however the we got plenty of body bags.

I don't mind whether you're a hardline conservative, I am sure that you would find it in your heart to know that war is never an option because it will always result in a loss of life. We should use diplomacy to eliminate hostility, not weapons. Please don't think I'm an anti-war pinky liberal...quite honestly I dislike conservatives and liberals equally.

Exactly. I strongly believe in the Second Amendment as I believe that we should be i control of our own lives and protection. We must stop being so lazy and ignorant, and for once think about our surroundings! Why must we have all the things we need spoon fed into our mouths?

Dictators are not stupid...they take precautions every single day in order to stay in power. Everyday they arrest people...everyday they create conspiracies...all in order to continue on oppressing their people. In truth, we can only ever overthrow the dictator if we had guns...but is it not coincidental that all the dictatorships in history have been against civilian ownership of usage of firearms?

Did Hitler give the German people stability? Not at all...in the end the people whom Hitler loved the most found themselves completely ruined, having their nation split in two by the victorious Allies. Dictators can never equate to stability because they will always naturally have enough power to mobilise massive armies for total war. In anarchy, such armies do not exist...

And what if that single leader is a blood thirsty warmonger (i.e. Adolf Hitler)...or what if he would be willing to set his country in a disastrous plan that would starve over 40 million people (i.e. Mao Zedong)...or what if he was a ''man of steel'' who would use his police force to execute millions upon millions of people (i.e. Joseph Stalin).

Change is good because it allows a flow of ideas. If a leader is bad, he is swiftly replaced before he causes more tragedies. However in a dictatorship, the leader reigns supreme and any who doubt him are swiftly executed.

Indeed in anarchy everyone becomes their ''own dictator''...isn't that perfect? Instead of being controlled by a group of bureaucrats, people will finally be in control of their own lives and will have the freedom to pursue happiness!