This is too old to be so relevant.

[jpgray]

Revenge was more important than self-preservation. And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who first seized it boldly, catching his enemy off his guard, enjoyed a revenge that was all the sweeter from having been taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, and at the same time a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-mindedness honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.

Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added the violent fanatacism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. <...> Thus neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action.

[Political_Junkie]

1. Yep, the more things change...

We humans are very slow learners.

[jpgray]

2. It took me a while to learn that

:P

[proteus_lives]

3. Well, we're only about 10,000 years out of the jungle.

Barely an eye-blink in the grand scheme of things.