OBLIGATIONS OF POWER
Well in my Country...

We maintain that we do not, and will not, negotiate with terrorists.

To whom do we proclaim a willingness to speak if we truly desire non-violent resolutions?  
If our demand that terrorist style killing cease?…Well, we are both, disregarding our own
history, and dangerously naive relative to the nature of human nature.  Within these
parameters violence will be the response...
Everytime.
Parity
Among relatively equal adversaries the merits of negotiation and compromise are quickly
recognized as a function of both instinct and logic.  In these scenarios the absence of full
commitment to diplomacy equates to the commencement of proportionate annihilation.  It’s
been done before.
In a scenario featuring profoundly disparate adversaries, diplomacy becomes optional for
the strong.   If this option is activated it is often seen and cited as evidence of commitment
and collective virtue.  But, diplomacy done
as a favor only caters to an existing
resentment- already
profound.  
Lesser adversaries become impassioned enemies when diplomacy is disregarded and/or
conducted exclusive to convenience.  In both symbolism and in application, it is both unjust and
profoundly disrespectful to regard any conglomerate as something less then equal.
If superior in both number and military strength the strong bear the added responsibility to
assure the petitions of
lessor-powers are afforded equal consideration.  If all voices are
afforded relative similar regard, the emergence of violence represents the actions of the
individual as opposed to a threat to collective tranquility.
left
right
To talk of liberalized standards pertaining to whom we will speak may well be
regarded with disgust.  Yet, any argument suggesting our current approaches are
effective enjoys a very small audience and even less credibility.  If among
enemies there exists equal passion and conviction to those things seen as
righteous cause, there will forever be an insurmountable impasse and
destructive stagnation in the absence of agreed forum and criteria.
Non-violence will forever be relegated to the constraints of
fantasy in the imagined pursuit to capture an unrealistic and
unsustainable ’peace’
left
right