OzNimbus said:
With all due respect, that's just not the case. Read a history book. Anytime anything major got solved, it was because of violence, not negotiation. Protest lines didn't save England from invasion during the summer of 1940... the R.A.F. did.
I know that might be a somewhat controversial view, but I do believe that it's time to wake up & realize you just can't negotiate with religious extremists. When they burn embassies to the ground for the high crime of printing an editorial cartoon, it's pretty obvious there's a few screws loose.
-0z-
conflict itself is rooted in aggression.
the history of mankind really is a bad example to build the future upon.
and yes, sometimes peacemaking is to use the end-all massive
amount of aggression that eradicates one of the actors.
but i like to think that its not per sé a good solution.
take hiroshima for example.
also note that i referred to a statement by kev, there was no abstract context.
its bitter enough such things as stoning people exist so theres no point being cynical about this.
plus, as you were mentioning the royal airforce: military action should be of good reason,
what the allies did in wwII was the absolute right thing. the nazi regime had to be stopped.
but the british airforce also killed thousand of civilians during the bombenkrieg-which was evidentially not necessary.
you see theres always two sides of the story. judging by plain numbers, wwIII already started,
just look at the death tolls and nations/peoples involved in the middle east conflict. just my two cents.
with all due respect, i've read a few books on history. im a history student
edit: speaking of cynicism, the folks that enraged about those caricatures and burned down embassies
were simple citizens. your statement maybe was a little one dimensional, theres more to it than "a few screws loose".