Salut !
By reading the text and having a thinking on the subject, we can clearly see the issue of the use of dialogue and wars between countries and states. Both dialogue and war have their good and bad points to solve problems.
First, problems can be solved by dialogues in the way that its easier to set, and it allows countries to talk about their issues and find an accord point without going far in violence. It also reinforces the oral power and more generally the soft power of the countries involved in problems. It also means no lives in danger, or any huge consequences like a mass destruction, like in Hiroshima or Nagasaki for example. War would also be very deadly today because of technology and atomic bombs developped by many countries.
But, dialogue isnt always effective and war is working in the way that if you destroy your ennemies or people you have issues with, you wont have problems anymore. Dialogue could also be a weak point for some people, indeed, by bad arguments or just no arguments, its difficult to be listened and express well. We can say that dialogues arent a way to solve problems by the fact that even if you win, you're not sure that the person in front of you will assume to lose, and do what he was meant to be, in other words, lie.
To conclude, I would say that dialogue is either a good and bad point to solve problems. But dialogue means a lot about people's inteligence when they have to face something.
