Maybe we let uke find their own way through suggestion and encouragement. Does imposing our will on another resolve anything? ...
Of course one always hopes to find ways to resolve things peacefully. And to kindly guide. But in terms of imposing will and resolution, it all depends on what the other person is intent upon doing. If it is something truly bad then I may in fact have to impose my will to stop them from doing that.
My wife and I have trained dogs (and competed in obedience competitions at a very high level) for, well, decades now. We train trainers. I am a firm believer in positive reinforcement and finding ways to guide the animal towards the behavior you desire. Corrections are a thing that should be rare and only given in context of an animal doing something *they* already know they shouldn't be doing. But I'd like to point out something else as well -- if you convince someone to come over to "your side" even through gentle persuasion, are you not still "imposing" your will? Of course it is not forceful nor through intimidation, but you are still imposing your will if you succeed.
I think the basic misunderstanding here is that in a conflict one is trying to impose their will from the start. The question is how they go about it. I sincerely believe that you always start from a point of gentle persuasion and guidance. But sometimes that's not good enough. And if the situation is such that harm may come to you or someone else, well, maybe you need to do enough to prevent that harm. And that can include very serious things assuming you're capable of doing them. And I worry that focusing too much on either extreme (only warm fuzzies vs. kill them all and let god sort out the rest) blinds one to the options.