That depends on how you view history. It's written by the victors after all, and that means there is always a slant towards one side over the other. History requires villains after all. [He raised his eyebrows, waiting to see if she would contest his reasoning, letting their little power play continue with his favourite element: logic and reasoning.] For instance, take Soviet-Russia. American history paints their people as hardy, aloof and ruled over by mass-murdering dictators. Is that all Russia is? Do we discount all of their contributions simply to make them a villain?

[That he was opening up the possibility of two sides to every story shouldn't be too hard to understand. It was the long-game that he was playing in that regard. There were certain story lines that had a particular play to them, a way to break someone down to their way of thinking when someone went looking for the truth of it.

He nodded his head, praising her in his own silent way that she had jumped on that train so quickly and easily. She was clearly well trained, but she hadn't the years of experience just yet. Those would come with time.]

I completely agree with you. Peace comes with a cost, yes, and those who are innocent deserve protection. If we can protect them by removing the people that would harm them, don't we have an obligation to do so?