Re peacekeeping between warring factions: My thinking is that "peacekeepers" cause more violence, not less. The British used "divide and conquer" to secure their own control. It happened again and again, all over the world, throughout modern history. When the U.S. government says that we're in Iraq to protect the people from each other, what they really mean is that we're joining, or even provoking, the war to put "our side" or our puppet government in charge. Naturally, they kill people to do this. They are warriors, not peacekeepers. The very word "peacekeepers" is a wartime atrocity. People who would not support war and killing might fall for the notion that we're spreading peace.

I also feel that nationalistic condescension is implied, i.e., those poor ignorant natives can't take care of themselves. Kipling said it better: "Take up the white man's burden..." I've never quite forgiven him for that.

Although I am not a Quaker, I agree strongly with many of their political views, which are faith based. I recommend reading the website of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, www.fcnl.org (the link maker here isn't working). Their slogan is "War Is Not The Answer." They have some very good pieces on what the problems and their roots are and how to right some wrongs without wars.