Conflict Resolution -- Now or Eventually?

Confict and violence have always been two concepts we experience throughout our lives resonating with various images that come to mind when the two words are heard. Perhaps for we Americans: Bush, Iraq, Iran, N Korea, murder, lack of morals (whatever they may be). But what is our responsibility as individuals to see that violence is minimized when conflict arises? Again and again I think we sheltered Americans find it hard to think out of our own comfort zones, ignoring the pain and violence that exist beyond our created artificial bubbles of personal space. This is not to put down those who go on mission trips, those people who volunteer time at orphanages, soup kitchens, environment clean-up, those who donate money to help children in Africa...this is to inform you that your money and time are perhaps wasted efforts in the global arena due to government confiscations of funds, the temporary nature of mission trips and volunteering which tend to cause more damage than good when you go back to comfort while the pain and violence continue elsewhere. Speaking specifically of conflict resolution in some African countries, Middle Eastern countries, Asian countries, the individual willing to give aid is limited by the governance of more than one country and by international rules and regulations. Thus for the individual to aid in resolution, the individual must rely on the governing body under which he or she lives to forward the aid. However, the specific government finds itself in similar entanglements worrying about such things as free trade, alliances, oil...yadayadayada...power. Conflict resolution propositions at the nation-state level can only be acceptable if a, b, and c are met. Right? Unless you have a cowboy President like George W. Right? Let's ask ourselves a question. Did George W make his decision to go to war with Iraq dependent upon whether a, b, c conditions were right to do so or did he make the decision to rid the world of a violent dictator? Depending upon which way a person leans, the answers get quite complex and conspiracy theory-esque. This brings me to a more important question. Should we wait until a country ends the violence for itself or should we, if we can, step in to bring it to a close much more quickly? Is there a certainty to how many casualties there will be either way? My gut answer is to avoid violence to end violence setting an example of violence as the answer to conflict resolutions. Would I swim out to save Adolph Hitler if he were drowning in a lake if I knew the atrocities he was responsible for during the second World War committing. In this situation, the act of violence would be ignoring the pleas for help and allowing him to drown. Granted, this does not compare with the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam since this violent act is perhaps a bit more active (or perhaps not depending upon ones perception of the act). Non-violence is perhaps a critical understanding firmly implanted during the Civil Rights movement within the United States by the late Martin Luther King jr. There is a power in nonviolence I agree, but the other side to the Civil Rights movement, less mentioned are the militant ones who fought and died for their civil rights...which was more effective? I've seen various arguments to date. Unfortunately escaping violence is a bit harder than most Americans would expect since we do live in imaginary bubbles where violence is somewhat foreign and exotic and atrocious. The average American does not understand violence as it is, but only as it is in what they've read or seen on a short stay abroad, or seen on television. Referring to what I said earlier, the average American perhaps gets more out of their attempts to resolve "the other" conflicts than those "others" affected by that conflict since the individual is limited in what he or she can do abroad. However, the individual does have a local existential responsibility to recognize the violence that occurs not just on the scale of governments, but in their own personal lives every-day. Look up the term "violence" in the dictionary and if you want to do something on the global scale start on the local being conscious of the every-day violence that occurs. Know yourself. Democrats -- realize the violence that ensues from hate for the Republican governing bodies. Republicans -- realize that violene that ensues from hate for Democrats unable to understand your reasoning. Arguing is beneficial in this circumstance, but hate merely kills the argument and divides people onto sides. We're criticizing violence elsewhere but merely accepting ideological violence here as if physical violence and ideological violence have nothing to do with each other. Both kill the possibility of conflict resolution. Let's get in gear America. No more taking sides, no more hate, no more violence, and for goodness sakes make an effort to think for yourselves.