War: And Why Diplomacy is Useles

Einstein:"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."

[Note: Read carefully, because this could be easily misinterpretted. I would never (and am not) endorse war. However, I do encourage action, and that's what this peace is about.]

English Philosopher John Stuart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." The wretched thing is not the fiery and fervent politicians who defend their honorable country in war, but the decrepit, unscrupulous gents who cower behind diplomatic desks while their nation is hacked to bits.
War truly is an ugly thing. There is no doubt of that. Ben Franklin says, "There was never a good war, or a bad peace". Any time people die and live in discordance, it is bad; any time humans can live in prosperity and harmony, it is a good time. Additionally, Sartre says, "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die". All people die in war, however. It is a repulsive phenomenon, killing other people for a cause. However, despite how repulsive that thing is, it is nowhere as near as disgusting as an impassive morally corrupt person or group whose patriotism has been deflated and whose tenacity, extinguished. Keeping the fervency of honoring your nation alive -- through war, through negotiations, through arms, through defense, through togetherness, through compromise --- is the important thing. Betraying your patriotism for the belief that war is never okay is a weak and erroneous principle.
Will Rogers writes that diplomacy is just really biding time to fight. He says, "diplomacy is really saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock."
The revered Margaret Thatcher says diplomacy is beating around the bush: "We didn't have to do the minuets of diplomacy. We got down to business". Diplomacy, in Thatcher's book, and in my own, may be a nice dance to put a finishing touch on something or to get the ball rolling, but it is, ultimately an inferior priority in severe times.
Regarding the end of war, Plato writes, "only the dead have seen the end of war". War will continue in some form of another. Whether you cover it up and tuck it away with diplomacy or fight it out in the battleground. The intelligent thing to do is to admit it's presence and aim not to eradicate it, but to diminish its impact to negligibility. Aristotle says, "We make war that we may live in peace". When people wage war it has malicious awful, atrocious ramifications. However, when people do so to defend their country patriotically and with certainty, it creates more certainty.
You see, the problem with diplomats and affinity for diplomacy is that they are pseudo-resolutions. Diplomats more often live in a fantasy world where their own problems and skirmishes and dilemmas are piling up right under their nose, while they go prancing around preaching "a progress for peace". Yeah, they're engendering a process all right -- stewing the process for depression, even more confusion, and muddier waters. If you have an issue, get it out on the table, don't bottle it up and "save it for diplomacy". That's how people get hurt, wars start, and the real wars -- the important wars -- go overlooked.
Gandhi writes, "If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children". Starting with the children is vital, but fighting wars against war is the concern here. Wars against war are not fought over tables with smooth jackets, paperwork, and ball-point-pens. Real wars against war are fought with movements like Gandhi's, reforms like Teddy Roosevelt's, and the many other saintly fellows who understood that lasting change comes from resilience, a bit sacrifice, indomitable sincerity, and most importantly, believe, perseverance, and absolute trust in oneself.