Logical

     It seems in this world today that what used to be a simple and logical solution to many problems is not even considered.  Something like sitting down and talking things out just doesn’t come up in the conversation for bringing an end to conflicts:  And it doesn’t matter if the conflicts are small or large.  The answer is almost always the same:  Let’s fight!

    

     Years ago I heard a comedian who was discussing how the world’s conflicts should be resolved.  I understand that he was only making comments to gain the laughter of his hearers; however, when some of his suggestions are given a logical consideration maybe he had a valid point that was being made.

    

     Let’s consider a couple of the points he introduced.  First, do you recall seeing scenes on television or perhaps you have been within the United Nations Assembly Hall when a “discussion” is going on.  In either case you would often see one of the delegates holding his finger or hand to his ear as he adjusted or concentrated more fully on the translation he was receiving through his ear piece.  The comedian suggested that regardless of what a speaker was saying or how demonstrative a speaker was, the translator should be telling the delegate: “Everything is going to be fine.  We love each other.  Let’s just all get along in peace.”  And other such comments.  Besides isn’t the United Nations purpose to bring peace to the world of mankind?  Like we know that’s going to happen!

    

     His second point was also very interesting.  If nations were determined to have conflicts between themselves maybe there should be a more simple way to resolve these issues.  The leader of each of the conflicting nations should put on a pair of boxing gloves and “duke it out” for ten rounds or whoever wins by knock out first.  There should be an agreed concession to be forfeited or lost by each party prior to the fight beginning.  And the losing party must be willing to accept this loss as a finale to the agreement.

    

     Think of all the lives, the property, the time, and the money that would be saved by proposing such an arrangement!  Millions of young people would no longer be sacrificed to the ravages of war.  Millions of dollars could be saved on not needing such expensive military weapons.  Communities and innocent people in many lands of the world would no longer be subjected to the horrors and disasters of war.  And although it was not available at the time, a lot of money could probably be made by broadcasting the event on “pay-for-view”.

   

     I’m not suggesting any of the above recommendations for a way to resolve the conflicts of human nations today, but it does seem to be that the search for a more peaceful means is often perhaps considered as a last resort.  With the costs of property, lives, and so many other considerations at stake does it really seem logical to bypass a peaceful solution?

QUOTE TO CONSIDER

THOUGHTFUL GEM

"It seems that the simplest solution to a problem

would be the most logical one!

But that's not often the case."