Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
