Massively, there are times I wonder how much difference there is between your galaxy and Xil's. You choose to elevate humanity instead of the Asari (the portion that wasn't pre-emptively exterminated during the war, anyway) and are a bit quieter about what you do (no seeker swarms to pacify demonstrations or indoctrinating dissenters). I'm curious how you'd define the distinction beyond that.
In my eyes, Sanctuary had justifiable utility.
Nowhere near enough to account for the cost, as I see it.
As for diplomacy, the whole point of it is the exact same as violence. You use it to get what you want and/or need. Doesn't matter how you do it.
Agreed. Violence is an escalation of the same. To borrow from Heinlein:
“If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?”
“Why . . . no, sir!”
“Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people -- ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say -- supply the control. Which is as it should be. That’s the best answer I can give you. If it doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can’t convince you—then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
~Robert A. Heinlein, “Starship Troopers.”