A wise old Egyptian....knows peace with Isreal is better than IslamoNazi War!

[Christians4LessGvt]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3752.htm

[Xavier_Onassis]

All peace is better than any war.  Egypt has nothing that Israel wants, Israel (note the spelling)has nothing that Egypt wants, except for a friend and they will not be likely to get that so long as they practice apartheid against the Palestinians.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Another wise Egyptian talking about IslamoNazi lunacy!

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3749.htm

[Christians4LessGvt]

All peace is better than any war. 

Really?
So you think the peace of 1859 was preferable to the war in 1863?
In my opinion peace in shackles or death camps is not better than any war.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you think the peace of 1859 was preferable to the war in 1863?
In my opinion peace in shackles or death camps is not better than any war.

--------------------------------------------
Hell yes! The Civil War wrecked this country and was entirely avoidable.

WWII was not fought over Nazi death camps, nor was the Civil War about slavery when it began.

[sirs]

So tell us oh wise linguistics professor, you're saying it would have been more appropriate & preferrable for Jews to live "peacefully" under a Nazi regime??   

[Christians4LessGvt]

So you think if there is "peace" no matter how horrid the conditions that it is preferable to war?

If there were concentration camps in a country.....but it was not at war.... that this non-war status is always preferable to a war that corrects the injustice?

So every war in the history of the world ....past and present is/was not worth fighting even if it frees millions from bondage?

Maintaining tyrants in peaceful times is always preferable to war?

To me that is more lunacy from the Left.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are no concentration camps in either Israel or Egypt, which were the original subjects of this discussion. There are no Egyptians held in Israeli camps, only Palestinians. There are no Israelis held in Egypt. The leaders and governments of both countries were elected in free and fair elections.There are no tyrants.

There were all sorts of camps in Cambodia... The US did nothing. There are camps in North Korea... The US does nothing. There are tyrants in a variety of countries, and the US has no plans to overthrow any of them.

That is as it should be, we have neither the capacity nor the moral obligation to intervene. Perhaps if there were Americans held in Canada or Mexico, that might justify some action.

The US, by the way, has maintained many tyrants over the years: Pinochet, Somoza, Sukarno, Mobutu, Franco, Lon Nol, Batista, Trujillo, several Argentine and Brazilian generals, several South Korean presidents, Chiang Kai Shek, just to name a few.All right wingers, all supported most often because there were fatcats here doing business with them.

[sirs]

Let's try this again, since it seemed to get missed the 1st go around.......you're saying it would have been more appropriate & preferrable for Jews to live "peacefully" under a Nazi regime??

There's a distinct difference between Peace thru freedom vs Peace thru oppression.  Here's a hint, the latter generally requires war to bring about the former

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, dummy, WWII was NOT FOUGHT to save the Jews from the Nazis. The US was attacked by Japan,and Germany and Japan were allies, and Germany declared war on the US.

The US and Britain even refused to bomb the railroads taking Jews to Auschwitz. and other extermination camps. Both the US and Britain refused to allow Jews into their countries, as did most of the Allies. Your knowledge of world history is pitiful and pathetic.

It would have made sense for the Jews to attack the Nazis,but that is not the issue. The FACT is that the US did not fight WWII to save any Jews.

And again, it is indisputable that any war between Israel and Egypt would be detrimental to both sides. THAT was the subject of this discussion.

[sirs]

Nor did I claim it was fought to save the Jews.  So let's try 1 more time....you're saying it would have been more appropriate & preferrable for Jews to live "peacefully" under a Nazi regime??  You seem to answer in the affirmative, with your reference that it would have made sense for Jews to attack the Nazis, which means war, which kinda refutes the whole notion that "All peace is better than war", now doesn't it     

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Nazis started a war on the Jews, didn't they?and it would have been preferable for all concerned had they not done that, right? Resistance to attack is not the same as starting a war.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Perhaps if there were Americans held in Canada or Mexico, that might justify some action.

so now you are changing your position, that there are clearly justifications for war vs peace.

[sirs]

Indeed, he has.  Despite who "started it", war is war.  Most, if not all the time, it's a last resort, but in certain cases, absolutely justifiable, which debunks the notion that All peace is better than war.  There are indeed circumstances that war is a far better option than peace, such as under some murderous dictator or fascist regime

[Plane]

In our Declaration of Independance , this statement;

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Is followed by this statement;

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[

I agree peace is better than war, up till the point that it isn't.