Is composite dialogue better than waging wars?
By adinukala
@adinukala (67)
India
July 22, 2009 12:47am CST
Even though so many wars have been fought throughout the centuries, it only increases the resentment of the captured people towards the captors. This resentment, which is borne out of mistrust, ultimately leads to break out of protests and then into a revolution and ultimately into a war.
Through war, the only thing that is achieved is the killing of innocent people in the name of the "greater good". These people do not have any concerns with the war. All they want is a place to live and 3 square meals a day.
Through composite dialogues between two warring nations, it helps in breaking the ice and slowly with gradual increase in contact between the people of the concerned nations, the mistrust decreases and the tensions get wiped off. All this without any bloodshed.
But, has this dialogue building been a success anywhere in the world?
1 person likes this
2 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
22 Jul 09
This sounds great. Lets see how has it worked in the middle East? Israel has had talks and made concessions for61 years and where is the peace.
Israel defeated Jordan and Egypt in a war and forced real peace talks. Today the do not always agree but they have not been at war since then.
The Allies fought Germany, Italy and Japan and defeated them and forced peace talks. Today they all get along and work together.
Talks after WWII divided Korea into North and South. There was a war that had to follow the UN rules (fight but don't defeat the enemy). The UN has been talking to the two sides for close to 60 years and we are no closer to peace and some would say today we are closer to war between the two countries.
War to liberate people or correct an injustice that defeats the enemy and ends with a just peace is far better than having fighting going on for years while the parties talk and talk and have their fun. No diplomatic solutions ever worked that was not backed up by the threat of force if you did not comply.
1 person likes this
@adinukala (67)
• India
22 Jul 09
I agree that wars should be fought against injustice or to liberate people from oppressive regimes. But to fight wars for land is not the cause that I will support. In these kind of wars, if you notice, its always the "innocent bystanders" who have to suffer the terrible consequences of the war.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Jul 09
If you are talking about aggressors who start wars in order to expand their land and power, you are talking about people who are not interested in discussing peace. The bully is never interested in peaceful solutions until the victim of his bullying stands up to him.
Eliminate those who would destroy others and you eliminate war. Placate them with "peace at any price" and you will find the price you pay is perpetual war against you.
1 person likes this
@adinukala (67)
• India
22 Jul 09
I don't know to be honest. Its just that after noticing so much destruction around the world, waging wars seems such a bad idea. It might be necessary in some cases. No denying the fact there, but probably you might be right when you say that diplomatic solutions work only when there is a threat of force.
@meatballseven (10)
• United States
22 Jul 09
The first post was correct. War should always be the last option but you can't have diplomatic dialouge without clearly having force behind the words. If it's a scenario where the human rights of millions of people is being violated and the government won't listen to reason (Darfur) then that is a justified time to take action against the government of the nation. Peace talks work, as long as both parties are tired of fighting.
1 person likes this
@adinukala (67)
• India
22 Jul 09
Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with you when you mention that incase of human rights violation, action against the perpetrators becomes necessary.
