Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Hitler's war.
Saddam's war with Iran.
In short, the wars of conquest, as opposed to the wars stopping evil.
|
That's not a principled distinction, sad to say. All the Roman wars of conquest advanced the cause of world peace, as did all of Alexander's and Saladin's. Meanwhile, arguably the cause of world "peace" would have been better served by punting Korea, as I assure you the NKs saw that war as "stopping evil."
Or maybe you think it's better for the Nobel to be awarded as "Best Effort at Advancing the Ideals of a Select Group of Western Nations, the Methods of Which Not All of Those Western Nations Agree On."
I personally prefer a policy of being reticient to award a Nobel to a person who fought a war while claiming it was fought to achieve a lasting peace, as even Hitler would have described it thus. The award is designed to encourage outside-the-box thinking on how to avoid human conflict, not to reward winning it. Remember who Nobel was, and for what he sought to atone. Besides, giving a Nobel to a war-winner kinda defeats the point, like giving a dollar to your kid for winning the big baseball game.
Threaded Mode