Where will he take us?

That is not what I stated, I do not have to read it because I have already studied the the theory of "just war"
by people like Aquinas and Augustine and their reasoning.

I am pretty sure I mentioned diplomacy and good faith together, and appeasement is only one approach and diplomacy is more than appeasement.

No he doesn't. No one ever accused him of being a fake architect.

The theory of that has evolved. Bear in mind the Bible is not anti-war. "...a time for war and a time for peace." Eccl. 3:8

And when one partner does not negotiate in good faith, is the party who did so in good faith morally wrong for fighting when the other country attacks?

In such a case, war is inevitable unless the offended party submits to their aggressors.

I could cite the example of Hamas and Israel. Hamas' charter states that they want Israel GONE. There is no room for negotiation, and regardless, Israel has done so in good faith. We know this because cease-fires are usually broken by Hamas. Is Israel immoral for fighting Hamas? Is Ukraine immoral for fighting Russia? Would Taiwan be immoral for fighting China?

Well, my eschatology is not dispensational I dropped that when I found it did not hold up to the light of scrutiny.

Well we could easily argue that Christ Jesus was against war and there are better ways when He told Peter to put down his sword.

The world has changed and war in the ancient times cannot compare to how war would be fought in this nuclear age.

If you are for war I feel very sad you, war in the modern age has mostly come about because of evil people creating a lot of deception.

You dismiss diplomacy thinking it means appeasement and yet some level of diplomacy has resolved many disputes over the years and anyone one who wants to engage in a discussion about Geo-politics and international relations should know this, sorry but that is true.

I also mentioned diplomacy, diplomacy always takes into account that one or more parties will not act in good faith.
Acting in good faith is the ideal that must be set even if not adhered.

Unless you are willing to start at the beginning of these conflicts and understanding them at deeper level there is no point discussing them.

Your questions show me that no discussion is going to be meaningful.

I never said that diplomacy should be shunned or that it didn't have a place. I only said that it often fails because one party is not honorable, and that will lead to a conflict, or one side submitting to the brutality of another. If the latter is the Christian way for you, good luck with that. WWII is our most vivid, though not our only, example to prove this.

God is a warrior. He also told His disciples to carry swords. You neatly avoided that. Violence was certainly not His first choice of response, but it apparently was an option at some point. Also, God's character does not change. If he said that there is a time to kill and a time to heal,
 a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to love and a time to hate,
 and a time for war and a time for peace, that all holds true throughout time, at least until the new Jerusalem appears.

You sound almost as if you don't believe in the sin nature, and that war is avoidable because people are ultimately reasonable. People are not reasonable because people are corrupted by the sin nature. This is why sometimes conflict is necessary. Kind of like radical surgery. It is not your first choice, but it is sometimes the only way to deal with a problem. That is reality, that is life in this sinful order.

As for not being able to have a meaningful conversation, I was beginning to think the same of your comments. You never answered my hypotheticals, which tells me that you cannot. That you said you'd never consider a Christian perspective outside the one you currently embrace, also makes the conversation less than "meaningful".

He was not an architect so rather than accusing him of being a fake architect they would simply tell him he's no architect at all.

No, it's more asking her to give an answer on following a president "no matter what". If someone says they'll follow a man "no matter what", it implies they will reject God's commands if they conflicted with said man. And that should be a scary road for a Christian to travel.

A true Christians would follow the Lord first, and CIC send as long as the CIC did not give orders that opposes God's Word.

I dont know what it could include.
My point is we shouldn't follow a man "no matter what".

That is why non-specific hypotheticals cannot be answered. And hypotheticals can never include any and all extenuating circumstances.

People don't know the future. It's a simple fact of life.

True.
But we CAN know in our soul we won't be loyal to a president or government, etc "no matter what".

I have to disagree....
Jesus told his disciples at one point to arm themselves for protection (presumably).

"35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [j]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [k]whoever has no sword is to sell his [l]cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was counted with wrongdoers’; for that which refers to Me has its [m]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He told Peter to put his sword away because Peter was trying to fight a battle that was not meant to be fought. Jesus had to be taken into custody to fulfil prophecy and his destiny. Jesus stopped Peter from disrupting those events.

I do believe that Jesus did not want war... his message was of peace.... but Jesus was no shrinking violet when it came to defensive actions... which would extend to war as a means of protection.

I have to disagree, self -defense is different than nations/regions/continents going to war.

I think best to not conflate the two, I do agree that a law abiding person has a right to defend themselves and their family.

A larger context requires more nuance, all nations are guilty, all have done their share of provoking, therefore most wars have not been and are not justifiable. We do have theories on diplomacy and what works and what does not.
What is obvious to me is war makes money for some and destroys the lives of others.

The Lord did knock some of the centurions back onto their girdles of truth when they thought to manhandle Him. And when He returns, it is to "take" peace from the earth. I've never took the time to consider before how the making of peace might well require a 'taking' of it.

They are not honorable because they want war, it is not the failure of diplomacy, it is because of corrupt, stupid leaders who are bought off.
So no I do not believe humans are always acting good, I believe humans have the capacity for good and evil.
If war were off the table I bet solutions could be found.

Again there is an historical context on the causes of WW II and it not simply good versus evil like how the Americans like to view everything.

Conflict is made necessary.

Sorry but hypothetical situations are a waste of time.
Hypothetical questions that focus on a point without a distinction but ignore all the factors that would be included in a real-life decision can seem pointless.

No God is not a warrior, that is the God of the Muslim faith.

My overall point in this age of deception and the military industrial complex there is no just war.
No country is innocent so which country can be justified in killing the people of another country.

My contention is diplomacy has failed not because we do not know how to employ diplomacy but because war and human suffering is preferred by those who really do not care about human suffering if it furthers their agenda, the starvation is Gaza being a prime example.

Well, it is good to be idealistic. You live in a Pollyanna-type world of no shades of gray.
Do you think that the US was "wrong" to go to war after Japan attacked us in 1941? Should the US simply cowed down and begged them "please don't invade us, now that you know we won't fight back" ??

Keep living in dreamland... it's very un-realistic. Idealistic usually is.