>Do you mean force 'never' works in all aspects, including say state on state or in the context of torture?
I think I mean that the *use* of force never works. But where does success come from force?
As a deterrent it works until the day it is used, and then it becomes entirely counter productive. I guess there must be some times when total annihilation will stop the problem, but even then it'll rise up again in the future.
one has to differentiate between the acts of individuals and the acts of groups.
a simplistic example;
A bully thinks about bullying me;
- Decides I am too big and beats up on someone else. My problem was avoided, society's was not.
- Decides I am weak and so bullies me. I turn around and beat him senseless.
What next?
1) He experiences a change of state, realizes bullying is wrong and never does it again.
2) He realizes bullying me doesn't go well. So he;
a) restricts himself to bullying others
b) brings friends the next time he wishes to bully me
1) will never happen.
2) will happen as either a) or b).
I may have resolved my own issue, or perhaps not, but I will *NOT* have resolved society's issue.
Its pretty much the same with gangs, states, countries and dictators et al.
If you want the enjoyment of beating up on the individual, then crack on. But not only will you solve nothing, you'll probably make society's problem worse.
With the Falklands, a well respected "conflict in the UK, the commonly held belief is that the war was unnecessary on both parts.
As an aside, read this; its wrong in several ways, but does communicate the idea that pretty much every act of violence results in another.
richmcsheehy.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/911-why-did-al-qaeda-attack-the-united-states/
|
