Why do people choose to resolve their disputes through war and killing?

Question

Please do not tell me about people's disposition to natural aggression.

Why can't we resolve disputes through compromise and peaceful mediation?

Thank you for answering my question.

Answer 1

Because too many people refuse to see things from the perspective of those they oppose. Unless and until humanity is willing to accept the differences amongst ourselves, whether religious, political, economic or anything else that divides us, intolerance of the "other" will continue in perpetuity. Intolerance begets hatred; hatred begets killing; and killing begets warfare. It is the same vicious cycle, repeated over and over again, down through the ages, since the dawn of "civilized" man.

Unfortunately, too many people are so wrapped up in their own beliefs that they refuse to recognize the beliefs of others. It takes wisdom and tolerance to view the world from the point of view of someone else. It takes seriously hard work to negotiate compromise and seek peaceful resolution to that which divides us. It requires little to no effort whatsoever to take up arms and kill those who are different from ourselves. Waging war and killing people is actually the "easy" way to "resolve" problems. Peace is hard work and thus has few takers. Sad but true.

Answer 2

a million. The Falklands DO have a authorities and they are just about all decedents from england. 2. The Dispute is over 2 variations of tale, the Argentinians declare that the falklands are theirs because of a few declare spain had on them. The english have had a colony on the Island because the mid 1800's and they say the Islanders have a excellent too decide on who they prefer to rule them. The Falkland Islanders all prefer to be ruled by Britain and not in any respect Argentina and they are in a large number of techniques extra British then many British. The Argentinians reject that the Islanders have a say in who ought to rule them and that is the significant sticking aspect in any previous negotiations. 3. The Argentinians haven't any colonists on the Island for just about 2 hundred years and so they aspect to vague heritage and guidelines. The dispute is often about delight and money for my section. The Island's have a large wealthy fishing grounds and now oil has been got here across. 4. Argentina is damn its Sabre in the present day because quickly the Falklands will be oil wealthy and be able to pay for this is defence (pay off decrease back england for this is troop upkeep) and it is going to continuously be lost to them. also England for some reason were given rid of this is vendors formerly that they had a alternative service and if Argentina by some ability ought to take the Airfield on the Falklands then England ought to no longer in all likelihood retake the Island. in short the window is final on Argentina's declare. 5. both section HAVE tried to take a seat and talk and the humorous difficulty is that if the Argentinians did not invade england became both going to provide them the Island decrease back in 1983 or percentage the rule of thumb their yet now the Falklands are firmly Anti-Argentina from a rule attitude.

Answer 3

There are several reasons

1. There is distrust between the two parties so that negotiation is not an option in the minds of the parties

2. One party is (perceived as) intent on subdueing/controlling the other party eg:-Palestine - Israel war

3. The most important reason: there is lot of money involved in war. Weapons is a multi billion dollarsi ndustry. not to mention the oil (Iraq) that the losing country might have. Also weapons have to be tested and the army made use of.

4. Most ppl are not naturally aggressive. That doesn't matter. If the person who has the power is aggressive a whole nation can be carried into war (Germany / USA).

5. Doing good. Believing in a religion and following it is not bad in itself. It becomes bad when the believer starts believing that non-believers are wrong. This leads to war. (Crusades / religious persecutions)

6. Ground reality: no amount of peaceful intent at the top is likely to work when on the scene you have uneducated, poor and bred-in-a-war-environment people. Fighting is a norm (Afghanistan/Kashmir)

7.Other

Answer 4

Well, I like this question...but
Let me point something which might be used as a correction to the answer.
People are not the " one" who chose to resolve their disputes through war and killing, it is the leaders, either political leaders or religious lead res.

In most cases, " The Leaders" will be setting at their palaces or houses, far from the war, while " the people are dying for what they think is their ultimate goal...which in fact was laid by " the leaders"

Now, imagine a world without arms..how people will fight ? fists and kicking...it will hurt but it will not kill millions.

But this will not be good for some economy of some countries...so political people, " the leaders' will find a way to boost the economy by creating war, may be too far from their own land and country, may between two other nations while no ones that who was behind it...

I am not trying to be philosophical, but it is the truth, see for example, the wars in Africa, I can bet that if not all of those wars, most of it was engineered by either super powers, or by the manufacturers of the arms directly or indirectly.

People are really helpless, at the time that they think, they are the Government..they are being used.

Answer 5

Because compromise and peaceful mediation are only possible when at least one side is willing to concede something to the other. When fundamental interests are at stake, sometimes neither side will be willing to compromise, and armed conflict will be the only way to resolve the situation.

Answer 6

Because its easier to pull a trigger and have what you want than to sit down a discuss an agreement that might take years to figure out. Just think about Korea, we are technically still at war with them but for the last 50 years we have been trying to solve it the peaceful way and it takes a LONG TIME.

Answer 7

Laziness & Fear.
Many times a peacefull compromise requires real introspection and a willingness to change.
This is too hard for most people. They are scared of what is really within. It's easier to kill the infidels than it is to empathize with them.
Also, war is a profitible business. It is the easiest way to rally the economy and the only way to sustain a hierarchical society. 1984.

Answer 8

In the majority of wars, one side will not compromise. thats how almost all wars start. It helps that outside the US not many people view all people as equals, just look at what people write about us.

Answer 9

Because usually the best way to ensure that the dispute is truly resolved, it is best to remove the threat entirely.

Answer 10

I could give you the reasons that you would expect to hear but the truth of the matter is:

There are leaders that just want to act like spoiled children and do not want to work things out like people should.


It's mine and if you don't give it to me I'll punch you...

Answer 11

Because that's the easiest and most effective way.
There are times when both sides are right and compromise is not possible. What do you do then?