That is a rather silly comment. You have accepted that violence is a normal and inevitable part of human nature that cultural progress will never overcome and at the same time you have restated my point by offering justification for violence. Sure if you call your enemies Nazis, paedoes or terrorists, you can always justify violence.Nonetheless, unlike NuLab, I do believe in the right to self-defence, but would never see momentary defensive action as a form of entertainment. Have you never heard of the truism that history is written by victors which is why the vanquished always seem the bad guys and the victorious, progressive freedom-fighters. It seems you seriously believe the UK colonised a quarter of the globe's land area, joined WW1, bombed Iraq (in 1924), and engaged in numerous post-imperial wars since 1945 (especially under Blair) for humanitarian reasons. They did not. They did it for solid geopolitical and economic reasons. WW2 may seem like an exception as the defeated Nazi regime was most certainly guilty of heinous crimes against tens of millions of human beings, but that wasn't why the UK govt entered the war. They entered to defend their dying empire and commercial interests and, dare I say, let the US take over the reign as the world's superpower. One of the biggest myths of pre-WW2 history is appeasement. The British ruling class didn't appease the Nazis, they positively encouraged them, goading them to invade Poland while simultaneously increasing arms expenditure more than than Nazi Germany between 1935-39. The statistics are available. Just read Gabriel Kolko's a Century of War. The truth is the Brits wanted war more than Nazi Germany and more important the US emerged as the global superpower after seeing France humiliated, Britain downsized, Germany firebombed and shamed, Russia destroyed, Eastern Europe ethnically cleansed and Japan nuked. Wars aint entertainment. Full stop..