In church today I listened to a few songs done by a member of the congregation. She is, like most Unitarians, upper-middle-class, white, and liberal. her songs were musically well done, but the lyrics were more than a tad lacking.
I am not a person opposed to the notions of peace and love, and global harmony, and all the other, overdone hippie idealism. What bother me, and what really, for me, devalues this idealism, is the notion that is is all so simple to just stop conflict, and then we have peace.
Certainly, immediately ending conflict and then not having any more would lead to a peaceful world. And if you're an upper-middle class white American, that certainly sounds like a good idea.
For the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and those generally not benefiting from the high points of this civilization, it is effectively ending the possibility of radically improving their lives. Now, I am not saying that violence is the way out of poverty, but I am saying that conflict certainly is. The threat of violence, especially large-scale violence, is a powerful bit of leverage, and more importantly, a powerful fear of those who have plenty to lose. Hell, the US of A was formed from a tax revolt. Violent resistance to injustice, and other forms of resistance and conflict that bring about the end of injustice, are a very important part of how the world functions.
Wherever we cannot understand why people are fighting, it would be a good idea to look at how much rhetoric in the conflict concerns writing wrongs and establishing justice. Because, honestly, faced with peace and oppression or conflict with a potential ultimate goal of more justice, I'm surprised at how many people pick oppression.