We tried that in GW1, it took us 3 years to recover from that mistake. If someone is already determined to dominate/kill no amount of touchy feely will change that, the only way to deal with such is harshly. If an alliance will not reform of their own initiative you take away their ability to threaten you.
This has been revisited again and again over the years, but I thought I'd point out again for the sake of posterity that the conditions under which the GPW came to a close were born of practicality, rather than morality. I would go into it, but Im frankly no historian.
That being said, I do agree with the rest of the quoted comment. My question is, however, how do you determine what constitutes a sufficient reformation? At what point does it stop being a legitimate criteria, and become just an excuse to find a convenient target?
The reason I ask is not a slight against my good friend (as soon as he adds me) Typoninja, but rather because, as a former Pacifican, that very reasoning was the internal justification used for a lot of Pacifica's curbstomps after the Second Great War. Specifically the War of Retribution and VietFAN.
I think this is a fascinating parallel, and only hope that the new leaders of the world do not fall into the old habits of hegemony. That being said, where do you, the audience, draw the previously mentioned line of reformation?