h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Isn't there an oxymoron in 'forcing peoples to come to terms'?
Doesn't it require the armed forces of a third or a fourth party of 'peacekeeping' people? Kinda like 'lay down your arms while we watch over you with our rifles'?
And isn't there something strange about telling people to stop fighting so they can preserve their 'culture' when their culture is fighting? How does a scientist or a diplomat or a socialist or a missionary or a scientific diplomatic socialist missionary say," You must find other things to do!" with a straight face when the natives say,"But this is all we have ever done!"

How can you preserve or protect a culture when you are busy messing with it?

The best way seems to be
Stay away and mind your own business.

The problem is people like Dubya, who think their business is forcing their way of life on others...

"war-loving people"? sure they exist?

Hey!
Remember the 'battle for hearts and minds'?

I think the phrase "war loving people" is a cop out. It is a nice, easy way for diplomats and international politicians to avoid tackling the real issues that drive chronic warfare in places such as Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Angola, Israel/Palestine, etc. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that warfare does not have to be a constant in societies - remember France, Britain, Germany and most "civilised" societies could have been rightly called "war loving peoples" at certain times in their history.

Lock them away in a planet's stone age and tell them to evolve into a more responsible lifeform.

Actually, it's not a half bad idea. Let them duke it out, and we'll establish commerce with the survivors.

When you have two people with loaded guns pointed at each others heads, neither can lower their gun because to do so puts them at a dissadvantage that the other party must surely take advantage of, in order not to get in the deadlock again.

If you introduce a third party pointing loaded guns at both parties heads then either can put down their gun fist knowing that the other gains no advantage by shooting them then as they are under no less a threat.

However, in order for this to work the third party (peace keeper) must be understood to be impartial and also very serious.

Of course, that third person takes on a lot of risk. I wouldn't care to be in that position.

Actually, I don't think most peacekeepers point many guns at all. They just sort of stand in the middle once the other parties drop their guard just a little bit. Which is job that sucks more than the one you describe.

"If you introduce a third party pointing loaded guns at both parties heads then either can put down their gun fist knowing that the other gains no advantage by shooting them then as they are under no less a threat."

Didn't quite work out that way in Reservoir Dogs did it

"If you introduce a third party pointing loaded guns at both parties heads then either can put down their gun fist knowing that the other gains no advantage by shooting them then as they are under no less a threat."

Didn't quite work out that way in Reservoir Dogs did it

And the third party would end up having two people holding guns, both annoyed at them.

Ooops! itchy trigger finger there

As demonstrated in Reservoir dogs, this peace keeping analogy requires the two warring factions to be concerned about their own survival.

As long as either side desires vctory above peace you won't get peace. As long as the tears of the enemy are worth less than your own, then you won't get peace. Compromise demands giving ground to your enemy in order that he will do so also.

It doesn't matter if there's a third party or not, or whether he has a gun - where neither of the warring factions is able to achieve victory but one or both still desires it above peace you're going to have an ongoing conflict. As we do, all over the world.

I read a British report a while ago about 'Bullying in the Workplace'.
It claimed that 'sensitivity training' and enlightened management had made the bullying more subtle and harder to detect.
As was mentioned in the "What's the most embarrassing thing you've ever done?" thread, there are people who will watch others be mistreated and humiliated as long as they are not the target. If the victim complains, then it is put down as whinging, because if you take them seriously then you become a perceived ally of the victim and thus a new victim yourself.

Having seen recent events in Israel, I can only find one conclusion that makes sense. This is that both sides are insane and want death. When one side makes overtures of peace and starts to make a stand at ending the conflict, the other _steps up_ their campaign of violence. I am almost tempted to suggest the solution of shiping all innocent, sensible civilians out of the area and leaving Israel/Palestine to the nutters.
Not that I say 'almost'.

Well, if the other side stops to take a breath, that is the best time to get a good hit in.

Every culture has its warriors and athletes to do the fighting and the competeing(sp?) for it. Are the 'fans' innocent?

In the wake of the Chante Mallard incident, I am once again having doubts about 'sensible' civilians.

Conflict is apparently what diverts some people's attention from their otherwise mundane lives.

I have been thinking today about proportions of assault.

There are countries that have not known 'peace' in known history.
The U.S. has had whole decades of 'peace' within their own borders.
They get whomped good for the first time in a long time and they take off like a scalded rabbit to right the wrongs of the world.

Now, let us make this an analogy.
Let us say you have two people. One leads a sedate life until that person is raped. The other is a career criminal with a lifelong history of marital problems and personal conflicts who is assaulted and gang-raped.

The first one wants the whole world to drop like a ton of bricks on the rapist and his mother and his church and his friends and his parole officer. In fact, the victim wants to put the county and city officials out of their jobs because they let such a thing happen.

And our second victim is the mother of the first victim's attacker....

Right. Both experience horror, but one is innocent and the other has got it coming. And the second one is going to experience more horror.

Actually, this is turning out almost incoherent, but...the price of liberty is eternal vigilance...to believe you are safe or better than others is just to leave yourself wide open...those who experience conflict on a regular basis hope for peace because they've never known it. Those who have peace on a regular basis hope for conflict because they are bored.

I don't think there are any such people there. If there was, they'd already have left. I say we settle it with a game of Brocian Ultra Cricket.

I should hope that anyone who is going to leave has already left, because I can't see any way out of the conflict. Apparently the leaders on both sides have no control over the people on the ground so that, even if they did negotiate a peace, they would be ignored and the killing would continue.
It's horrible and tragic, what is going on in that area, and it seems that it will only end when one side or another is exterminated. What's worse is that the conflict feeds all sorts of extremism in surrounding countries and means that we can't afford to leave them to it, even if it were not morally abhorrent.