So I've been told, there's always a way to resolve any problem without using force or violence. Just make a deal, it's ridiculous to fight. Everything inside of you wants to say, yes, you completely agree with that, you wish it to be true every single time.
Then you think about real life scenarios, not just hypothetical ones. Someone getting attacked in a dark corridor. A whole nation watching innocent people get slaughtered every day. What the heck do you do at that moment? Do you sit and wait for non violent dialogue and discussion to come up?
There are some extremely valid arguments made by extremely credible people, people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., against using violence to solve problems. These arguments were about who you become when you use violence to solve your problems, even if violence is an effective solution to the problem. They make a very strong argument. But their argument doesn't cover all of life's complicated situations.
There is always a way to solve every problem without the use of violence. This is still a huge issue, even if you say it is the case. The big issue for me or the single largest point of contention with that statement is the use of the word always. That damn word always means more than anything else in the statement.
Frantz Fanon made a different statement than Gandhi and King when it came to this issue. Just like you I wish there would be no fighting but think about what he said. I'll quote that.
Violence is not just a strategic choice, but a psychological and historical necessity for those living under colonial rule.
So where does that leave us? Do you believe in non violent resistance to oppression? Affectionately you do. But now another scenario presents itself that challenges that rationale, did it not? Did the original premise hold up when you considered colonial rule?
The statement is true, but the world however, is not a place that is ideal or perfect, not right now.