>I disagree.
>If violence solved things then there would have been no WWII, based on the violence of WWI.
>Also, Hitler opted for violence to get what he wanted, thus starting WWII. WWII was simply violence responding to violence. There was no other "solution" once one party had opted to violence.
>But, most importantly, the war actually only ended once the TALKING was finished. If Hitler had won your claim would look equally true. Think about it.
>
>Aggressors have to be met with equal or greater violence. To therefore conclude that violence 'solves' problems is wrong. Whatever the problem that precipitated the initial violence, straight tough talk (WITH the party about to be aggressive) is rarely if ever tried. Our history is one of violence meeting violence. We've tried virtually no other option. So you're right that that's "reality". BUT that doesn't make your conclusion correct. All that can be concluded is that the most powerful violence "wins". Then the talking starts. Makes great sense to me to start with talking, possibly avoiding the violence step altogether.


"War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means." -- Karl Von Clausewitz