Hey everyone,

I have just been given a debate motion which is 'Political differences are better solved through wars than peaceful means.' I am opposing the motion and I need to know the following :

a) Examples of political differences that have been solved by peaceful means
b) Why are wars sometimes a better approach to solve political differences?
c) Any link to websites that are associated with this motion.

I am seriously lost in this motion. I have no idea what to reseach about. I really need help here. Please save me.:confused: :confused: :confused:

DK's signature says it all "Sic vis pacem parabellum".If you want peace prepare for war. I'm not taking either of the debate propositions because of course peace is the ideal and generally a negotiated settlement of differences is preferred. . But just as important as a peaceful resolution to disputes is the nature of the resolution. As DK observed in a recent posting the absence of conflict is not necessarily peace.

The UN of course had a sole purpose of ending world wide conflict (see preamble :Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)) . You see how well that has worked . Yes there have been some instances where they have been effective. But I consider that the exception.

However the Human Security Report of 2005 http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resources/terrorism/toc/toc12.pdf
Attributed a decline in conflicts post cold war to international activism mostly spearheaded by the UN .

I have found however that the UN does not have the desire and/or the muscle to enforce it's various resolutions so their effectiveness is at best contingent on nations providing the appropriate force structure to achieve their goal.

Here is a list of NGOs whose stated purpose is international conflict resolution

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8945/links.html

Hope this helps

Thank you very much, I am literally drowning here

The problem, Darkknight (is that a Batman reference?), is that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Historically speaking, war has solved more political differences than peaceful means. The number of times when peaceful means have brought a political resolution to a problem are very few in human history.

Karl Von Clausewics has some interesting stuff in his book "On War" about politics and the military and hwo the two work together (or don't). Problem is he was speaking from the military point of view, so he tends to be a proponent of military strength to support a political agenda. I suggest reading it for a good bakground understanding of the nature of war, government, politics and the military. You can get free copies of it on the internet.

Solving political problems though diplomacy is a rare occurrence. And in every case where it occurs, it happens when there is a credible threat of military force to back up diplomatic efforts (ei: If you don't go along with our solution, we're going to invade your country). There is almost ALWAYS a military component to any diplomatic solution, even if it is only in the threat to use the military if a diplomatic solution isn't reached.

Frankly, I can't think of a viable argument for your side of the debate. Historically speaking, your position just simply isn't true.

Sorry about that, Darkknight.

Elliot

Hey everyone,

I have just been given a debate motion which is 'Political differences are better solved through wars than peaceful means.' I am opposing the motion and I need to know the following :

a) Examples of political differences that have been solved by peaceful means
b) Why are wars sometimes a better approach to solve political differences?
c) Any link to websites that are associated with this motion.

I am seriously lost in this motion. I have no idea what to reseach about. I really need help here. Please save me.:confused: :confused: :confused:
I would suggest that you use Northern Ireland as a model and John Hume and David Trimble as exemplars of the proposition and principle that 'only peaceful means must be used.' The uncompromising unionist vs. the honorable nationalist.

Sissela Bok writes about what she calls '"The Pathology of Partisanship", about how war can create in us a mental state which leaves us devoid of respect, even of pity, for even the most innocent victims. She recalls the writer Stephen Spender's horror at finding that pathological condition in himself in the Spanish Civil War. Only through strong leadership and institutional guarantees can a society withstand such destructiveness, Sissela Bok concludes'.

The Nobel Peace Prize 1998 - Presentation Speech (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1998/presentation-speech.html)

The problem, Darkknight (is that a Batman reference?), is that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Historically speaking, war has solved more political differences than peaceful means. The number of times when peaceful means have brought a political resolution to a problem are very few in human history.

Karl Von Clausewics has some interesting stuff in his book "On War" about politics and the military and hwo the two work together (or don't). Problem is he was speaking from the military point of view, so he tends to be a proponent of military strength to support a political agenda. I suggest reading it for a good bakground understanding of the nature of war, government, politics and the military. You can get free copies of it on the internet.

Solving political problems though diplomacy is a rare occurance. And in every case where it occurs, it happens when there is a credible threat of military force to back up diplomatic efforts (ei: If you don't go along with our solution, we're going to invade your country). There is almost ALWAYS a military component to any diplomatic solution, even if it is only in the threat to use the military if a diplomatic solution isn't reached.

Frankly, I can't think of a viable argument for your side of the debate. Historically speaking, your position just simply isn't true.

Sorry about that, Darkknight.

Elliot
Frankly, we don’t know how many times political problems were solved though diplomacy, it is naïve to believe they have all been recorded.:rolleyes:

Dark Crow,

The only problem with Bok's conclusion is that it is wrong.

The British victoy over the IRA came from an uncompromising battle against the terrorists COUPLED with a political/diplomatic program with the Irish Government. Britain worked diplomatically with the rightful and legal regime in Ireland, not with the terrorists who were the cause of the terrorism. All attempts to work diplomatically with the IRA terrorists failed. Instead, they worked with the government of Ireland. They told the Irish government that they were going to hold the Irish government responsible for keeping the IRA in check. They said that they would help Ireland do that if they so desired, but that it was Ireland's responsibility. And they stuck to their guns on that position. At the same time, they waged an all-out offensive against the IRA itself. Eventually, it was the IRA who called for the final peace talks.

So the solution was a diplomatic one with the Irish government, but a military one with regard to the IRA.

Bok's assessment ignores decades, even centuries of history that prove that diplomatic efforts to work with the IRA terrorists and their predecessors were fruitless and in fact dangerous.

Similarly, we are trying to accomplish the same thing in Iraq. A diplomatic program with the Iraqi government in which they are held responsible for keeping the terrorists in check, but an unyielding battle against the terrorists themselves. The solution in Iraq will not be a diplomatic one, as much as those on the left woul wish it were so. It will be a combination of diplomatic efforts between govenments and military efforts against the terrorists.

Bottom line: it is very rare to see a diplomatic effort, sans military effort, that results in lasting solutions to problems. Diplomacy is indeed a necessary component, even if only to accept the surrender of the enemy. But it alone is not, and cannot be, the solution. Diplomacy without military action is weak, and temporary at best. Diplomacy can only operate when the military has created the environment in which diplomacy can exist.

Elliot

Frankly, we don’t know how many times political problems were solved though diplomacy, it is naive to believe they have all been recorded.:rolleyes:

All? I'm not looking for all cases where diplomacy worked as a method of conflict resolution without military intervention or the threat of military intervention at some level. I'd be happy if someone could point out even a few. Let's start with one. They are so rare as to be nearly non-existant.

Diplomacy cannot exist in a vacuum without military strength to back it up.

Elliot

The idea that nothing is worth fighting for is far worse than war; however, it may be useful to ask why the United States needed a Revolutionary war to “be free” and Canada did not.

I remember in October 1963 when President Kennedy gave a threatening speech to Khruschshev of the USSR who was putting in nuclear weapons in Cuba. Those were very dangerous times, very dangerous. WWIII was just about to happen because Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak.

The tension eased when, through diplomacy, Khrushchev agreed to take the missles out of Cuba... and soon, there they went off on ships back to the USSR. What never was mentioned was that Kennedy agreed to take our missles out of Turkey four months after the Cuban missles were removed.

We often don't know when diplomacy prevents horrific wars. I would direct you to the very active diplomacy from the end of the Korean War to 1989 when the Soviet Union imploded for many, many examples, including the Cuban Missile Crisis that I mentioned above.

You have a point there, now you understand why I am drowning here:(... and yes, darkknight is a batman reference (I like it):cool:

The tension eased when, thru diplomacy, Khrushchev agreed to take the missles out of Cuba....and soon, there they went off on ships back to the USSR. Hello Choux:

I don't know about that. My ship, the USS Robert K Huntington, DD-781 was part of a blockade against Cuba. I even searched a Russian ship on the way back to Russia

Blockade's ARE acts of war.

excon

I would direct you to the very active diplomacy from the end of the Korean War to 1989 when the Soviet Union imploded for many, many examples, including the Cuban Missile Crisis that I mentioned above.

You fail to mention that the US made a concerted effort in the 1980s to ratchet up the arms race to a point that the Soviets could not compete. You also fail to mention that proxy wars around the world between the west and the Communists claimed millions of lives in the period you mention . Yes diplomacy was important but if it wasn't backed by force it would've been fruitless.

Which is better to solve political differences?Hello dark:

Well, it's better to talk than to hit, doncha think?? But, we're not evolved enough yet as a species, to realize that. If we don't kill ourselves off before then, maybe we'll get there.

excon

Walk softly and carry a big stick…

I remember in October 1963 when President Kennedy gave a threatening speech to Khruschshev of the USSR who was putting in nuclear weapons in Cuba. Those were very dangerous times, very dangerous. WWIII was just about to happen because Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak.

The tension eased when, thru diplomacy, Khrushchev agreed to take the missles out of Cuba....and soon, there they went off on ships back to the USSR. What never was mentioned was that Kennedy agreed to take our missles out of Turkey four months after the Cuban missles were removed.

We often don't know when diplomacy prevents horrific wars. I would direct you to the very active diplomacy from the end of the Korean War to 1989 when the Soviet Union imploded for many, many examples, including the Cuban Missle Crisis that I mentioned above.

I have to disagree Chou.

Again, this is an example of the fact that diplomacy cannot exist sepparate from military power. The two need to work together. Diplomacy alone cannot prevent a military crisis or war. The threat and/or use of military force must be there to back up diplomatic efforts. If not for the fact that JFK had nukes of his own pointed at the USSR and Cuba and if not for the fact that both Castro and Khruschev perceived that JFK ould and would use them in retaliation for any attack, they never would have backed down. Only the military strength of the USA (in that case the nuclear arsenal of the USA) was able to create the environment necessary for a reversal of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Military power played a HUGE role in that situation.

Elliot

DC,

The Magna Carta could never have been signed into being had there not been a war between England and France to set the environment for its execution. It was the fact that the barons of England, Prince Arthur of England and King Phillip of France went to war against King John of England in 1212 and defeated him that led to the signing of the Magna Carta as a way to keep future Kings from abusing their powers as John had. Furthermore, the Magna Carta actually resulted in open civil war in England in 1216, called The First Barron's War, when King John rejected the document soon after signing it. John died during the war, and it was only after his death that the Magna Carta was re-issued and became a permanent part of English law.

War was clearly a huge part of the reason that the Magna Carta existed. Without war, it never would have ome into existence.

Elliot

'Political differences are better solved through wars than peaceful means.'

What has that got to do with the OP?

excon,

WWIII WAS AVOIDED!! Also, shooting deaths and other deaths.

I call that a diplomatic/negotiated settlement, blockade or no blockade. Remember the arial photographs of the missles on the ground in Cuba? :)

Elliot,

I never said America shouldn't have a strong military, EVER.

I'm tired of you misrepresenting what I say, so going forward, I'm will not read any of your propaganda.

Have a great weekend!

Chou,

I never said that you said the USA shouldn't have a strong military. What said was that the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not because of diplomacy, but because of military strength and the willingness to go to war, and as excon pointed out, the actual military actions (blockade) that convinced Khruschev of that fact. MILITARY ACTION and a willigness to take military action averted the Cuban Missile Crisis, not diplomacy. Diplomacy was merely the AFTERMATH that was brought about by military action.

It seems that it is you who are misrepresenting MY position.

Elliot