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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Simonsen, a member of the Swedish parliament, has nominated George W. Bush and Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that engaging in a small war now can prevent a larger conflict later. The nomination has sparked debate about its timing and implications, with some questioning the stability of Iraq as a nation and the appropriateness of awarding a peace prize to leaders associated with military action. Comparisons are drawn to past recipients like Yasser Arafat, highlighting the contentious nature of peace awards. The discussion also touches on the broader question of the necessity of war, referencing historical figures like Hitler to challenge the rationale behind such nominations.
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

Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
40
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Back
Top