From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:43:38 -0700, Dude <
punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2025 4:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Since when is a cease fire is reasonable option in war. Wars end when
there is victory and surrender. When you believe your cause is just,
there can be no surrender. If you believe you can win, there can be
no surrender. If you have a ruler who simply wants conquest, soldiers
and soldiers are tired of it all, they can surrender.
Since when do combatants care about conditions on the other side? They
are starving? Good.
Since when does a desire to get a nobel prize enable one to stop
people killing each other? You do have a small chance if you do it
the other way around. Have a desire to end a war, do that, and then
if somebody notices, you might get a nobel, otherwise not, the prize
was not the goal, right? A real desire to end a war might cause you
to learn something about why the nations are fighting and then lead
them to understanding how they are really not getting what they want.
All they are getting is dead people. Maybe that way there tiny is a
chance.
The question should be, does anyone in the free world have an ace in the >hole?
The situation is simple when you look at it long term:
Putin wants Europe and China wants Taiwan and the entire South China
Sea. One uses force to get what they want and the other uses economics.
They are both driven by a desire for Communist world domination.
I don't see an answer anywhere in there to finding a guy who can stop
wars. And be maybe be willing to accept a nobel prize for that,
maybe. Because he knows enough to realize that the war was the main
concern and now let him get back to whatever he was doing before.
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2