We members of the rational and reasonable modern era; that era I define as when the world accepted, often begrudgingly, American military and commercial dominance as an empirical fact, have established, in the interest of servicing a vivid imagination, as well as, an insatiable curiosity, a continuum of debates over irresolvable subjects. The origin and the contesting of these subjects are thousands of years old. They have nourished the contextual of fiction and non-fiction; these subjects have catalyst the most profound and the silliest of actions. Nevertheless, although there seems to be no solution, no consensus of the moral right or wrong, the debate is aggressively intense with life and death consequences as more than simply a possibility.
Spurred on by humankind’s propensity for hubristic excess, the debate, although never settled by the sensibility of the rational and reasonable, even at the cost of the most horrific outcome, humankind, maintaining the conventional course, debates the merits of alternative political ideals, the theory or reality of a number of economic systems, they attend or not, to Pandora’s revenge of initiating World-Wide suffering, emitting hope as a resolution of convenience, integrating the good, the bad, and the ridiculous into the ever complex nuances of human behavior; the debaters thrive within their sphere of confusion, befuddlement, and their time without end.
Americans must understand that a tangent forewarning of any policy of intercourse among nation states are the recognition that violent conflict benchmarks the history of every culture. Every society, since man thought to sharpen the end of a stick, has adopted mores of war-like acceptance, indeed, under many circumstances societal mores honor the killing of other human beings. It seems obvious that conflict, in general, is an inherent risk of discourse; noting that (I believe) the historical behavior of humankind is a sound harbinger of future result. Utilizing reasonable deduction as the means of establishing the worthiness of my heretofore assumptions, my declaration is that: ‘Peacefulness’ in the face of the threat of war is never fully secured by a single tiered policy of merely talking over the issues of disagreement; but, by America’s willingness to use superior power. This use of superior power could include trade, distribution of value or valuables, guarantees, the disbursement of specific resources, including cash, as well as, a plethora of other tangibles and intangibles; however, without the willingness to use the overwhelming power of a nation’s armed force, all other means of securing ‘peacefulness’ will fail.
As I view the landscape of humankind, the everlasting contesting of irresolvable subjects’ are numb to oral persuasion; the so called rational and reasonable will never harvest the desired result; America is the only nation state positioned to enable the righteous, safeguard the weak, feed the hungry, abate the suffering, secure trade routes, as well as, render surety of goods delivered and international agreements upheld.
Withstanding, the debate of the irresolvable will continue forever; the debaters will decide from time to time to kill each other; the weak will suffer, the contesting for dominance within the ranks of the less than number one will endure all sensibilities to the contrary and in the final analysis America’s resolve to enact a difference is not forthcoming; America will turn a blind eye to the issue and simply enjoin with the debaters of the irresolvable.