So you're saying that realpolitik is the only way of seeing things [...]
No, I'm saying that most people in the modern world when speaking of international relations operate from assumptions which can be traced to Machiavelli. To persuade such a person of a particular policy, it may be more effective to understand their position and, rather than accusing them of sociopathy, show them that the policy you would promote works to their benefit.
[...] and that alternative approaches to international relations have no merit?
And I'm the one that's naive?
Notice the word "refreshing". The point there was that if more actually thought with the moral categories you were using, then it would be as a breath of fresh air. Your response to GP seemed to be innocent of the fact that others do not think in these categories. Take it as a compliment.
Also, please point out my "surprise" at this viewpoint.
A frequent use of rhetorical questions is an indicator of incredulity. (As in, "Do you really mean to say [...]?") You use a similarly incredulous tone in your response to me. Perhaps it's just your style. But in any case it's certainly an unusual response to GP's very standard answer.
[...] my opposition to your preferred school of thought [...]
And what school of thought is that, pray tell? I only mentioned two things approvingly: your apparent moralism and the ancient views of "saner men." The latter referred to a passage from de Officiis, where Cicero praises the agreement of Socrates, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics on the principle, "advantage can never conflict with right." Given the context, it looks like you believe I subscribe to Realpolitik, but this cannot be deduced from anything I said. If you followed the link to the Cicero passage (though I know that might be asking too much), you would realize that my preferences are for something rather different.
Of course, if you were in any way familiar with the idea of rational logic, you'd understand that questioning the very premises of an internally-consistent argument is the only way to demonstrate its lack of logical soundness despite logical validity.
I'm perfectly familiar with logic. You ought not so quickly to assume otherwise. But logic is not our subject; rhetoric is. I did not speak of how to undermine GP's argument logically, because your response was not itself a logical argument. Rather I spoke of how to persuade, and this is different art of which logical argumentation is only a component. I did this because your reply to GP was itself rhetorical and I was advising a more effective rhetorical approach.
I hope you do not bristle at my claim that your reply was rhetorical. This is no insult. It is good to persuade people, at least of the good. But that is what your reply was. If you do not recognize it, let's consider. Your first line is a rhetorical question, implying to the reader that GP's argument is not consistent but not showing how. Your second line, also a rhetorical question, is critical of GP based on standards to which he does not subscribe and for which you do not actually argue. Your third consists chiefly of authoritative maxims. While this is an effective rhetorical technique, it is not an argument. Your final line begins with a non-sequitur (GP may have a great deal of empathy, but also genuinely believe people are better off in the long run if all countries do what he advises). It then moves from that non-sequitur into a potentially insulting accusation.
This is not a logical argument, but a retort. Since I do not think asking a series of rhetorical questions and implying the interlocutor is a sociopath a very effective approach, from a rhetorical perspective, I advised a different one: i.e. to show the interlocutor that your preferred policy (not spying on foreigners) will fulfill his desire (the good of his people).
I think I'll suggest something else now. If you wish to talk of international relations, you might first learn to avoid friendly fire.