Is it better to fight a small war now than a large one later?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proposition that it may be preferable to engage in a small war now rather than risk a larger conflict in the future. Participants explore the implications of this idea in the context of political nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, particularly regarding figures like Bush and Blair.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express agreement with the notion that fighting a small war now could prevent a larger one later.
  • Others question the timing and effectiveness of such a strategy, noting uncertainties about the stability of Iraq as a nation.
  • One participant challenges the rationale behind the nomination of political leaders for the Peace Prize, suggesting that previous recipients have had controversial legacies.
  • Another participant provocatively asks why any war should be fought at all, indicating a broader philosophical inquiry into conflict.
  • A historical reference is made to Hitler's nomination for the Peace Prize, suggesting skepticism about the legitimacy of such nominations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and skepticism regarding the idea of fighting a small war now. There are competing views on the implications of such actions and the appropriateness of the Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying assumptions about the effectiveness of military intervention and the criteria for awarding peace prizes, which remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in political philosophy, conflict resolution, and the implications of military action may find this discussion relevant.

GENIERE
Simonsen (sp?), a member of the Swedish parliament has nominated Bush and Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize. One main reason is that it is sometimes better to fight a small war now than a large one later.

How true!

Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by GENIERE
Simonsen (sp?), a member of the Swedish parliament has nominated Bush and Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize. One main reason is that it is sometimes better to fight a small war now than a large one later.

How true!

Regards
I agree, but isn't it a little premature? We don't really know if Iraq is even going to work as a country yet.
 
Yes and no, I guess well have to wait to see the exact reason(s) to make a judgement.

Regards
 
Oops - Make that Norway!
 
Hey, if Arafat can get the Peace Prize, I guess Bush can have one too.

I do find the appeasement line re Iraq rather ridiculous, though.
 
Bush for the Peace Prize. I think so. Not.
 
don't limit you thinking. take the next step: why fight a war at all?
 
Didn't Hitler get nominated once?
 

Similar threads

Warning: Bad actors may already be in store-now-decrypt-later mode
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Is a noninterventionist policy viable for the US?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Econ: Budget cuts and expensive laboratory science projections for 10s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K
News CIA rigged at least one Nobel Prize
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Is Perpetual War a Means to Control and Consume Human Labour?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News UK Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
News What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics in the Gaza War?
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
13K