I am wondering exactly when it became required – even a political imperative – to wave a presumably over-sized penis dramatically, growl oaths of death and destruction to every question, and stare askance at anyone who equivocates at ‘shoot first, talk later’.
Even our new, female, Prime Minister, appears to need to wave presumably theoretical equipment in the breeze, assuring the world that she would be happy to pound away at the nuclear button.
Over many centuries man, bless him, has always been happy to attack an ‘enemy’ rather than attempt to negotiate a peace. Or at least in public.
Every politician, every leader knows that the only lasting solution is, at some stage, to sit down and talk. Through every conflict, over centuries, whilst we have thrown bodies and weapons at each other in ever more destructive ways, behind the scenes the discussions, negotiations, compromises carry on.
Unfortunately, because man is a deeply flawed and imperfect manager of peaceful co-existence, there will always be conflicts. However, why does this mean that proposing a peaceful resolution as the first option, rather than the last, is such a shocking and un-leadership position to take.
As the member of a group of people who have, over the centuries, had more than their fair share of despotism in a variety of forms, I know the cost of man’s ability to inflict destruction. But is that not a reason, more than anything else, to always look for the alternative solution.
And have we not learnt, not only from previous centuries, but from the progress of the current century, that international aggression has created nothing, has solved nothing, has only instigated chaos, catastrophe, ever increasing death tolls, and a more and more fractured world.
What is wrong with someone saying that their first response to conflict is to talk. Sounds like a rational and realistic alternative to far too many penises waving in the air.
cherokoffdotcom 