I think if Nietzsche doesn't understand why warrior morality is no more evil than a hawks killing nature and the morality associated with it then he should take into consideration that all hawks are indistinguishable moral wise, whereas human morals are almost never shared with one another yet we can accurately predict the morals (and even possible actions) of someone by the way that they talk and dress.

Also, if warrior morality is the true morality then why does every country that perfectly exemplifies this anarchist view fail miserably?

I feel like Nietzsche is going to be my best bet to argue with because all the other philosophers I've mentioned have either been proven wrong many times or have said things that make since, ya know? Would I be too far off If I tried arguing that the warrior morality and the priest morality are in fact experienced by everyone at certain point in life although your ego inside allows to make a choice? If I'm correct then Nietzsche says people possess one of two DIFFERENT kinds of morality. One is the herd priest morality, and the other is the warrior morality. I think if Nietzsche doesn't understand why warrior morality is no more evil than a hawks killing nature and the morality associated with it then he should take into consideration that all hawks are indistinguishable moral wise, whereas human morals are almost never shared with one another yet we can accurately predict the morals (and even possible actions) of someone by the way that they talk and dress. Also, if warrior morality is the true morality then why does every country that perfectly exemplifies this anarchist view fail miserably?