OneLuke wrote:
Through simple pondering, I have become interested in simple historical examples of where 'head-on, direct action' has failed to overcome conflict, and where instead 'social' and 'diplomatic' or 'avoidance' approaches have been realised as the best approach to conflict. Stories of pub brawls involving good samaritans sustaining life-threatening injuries for the sake of trying to directly breaking up a fight is a little too insignifant for my purposes of discussion, and the Iraq war too protracted (it is far from being solved) and complex.
What evidence can you find of either words or avoidance tactics being better suited to conflict resolution? After all, some two-or-more-party events of tension can sort them selves out.
as visnof suggests, war DOES consist of both, if you examine the concept a bit closer.
War consists of:
1. violent hostilities.
followed by
2. diplomatics and negotiations to end hostilities.
its very rare that #1 is skipped altogether.
_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''