[Bubba Ho-Tep]

unfortunately, in a "moral" sense of sacred, the ends NEVER justify the means. the only reason the phrase is invoked is to defend morally evil actions to defend subjectively, morally "good" results.

Which is basically saying that nothing is worth actually fighting for.

Here's the sequence of events:

You might want to look at that sequence again. Maybe you can figure out what you got wrong in your own (slanted) chronology. (Hint: something you have as an early item actually came after everything else you list).

[phi11yguy19]

wow, so after nearly 72 hours of digesting all of the posts and formulating a response, we get this from bubba.

Which is basically saying that nothing is worth actually fighting for.

The depth of your wisdom has no bounds. I believe what you call "nothing" would include self-defense or stopping a greater evil (of which there are few when it comes to war) to the rest of us. I don't believe political boundaries (i.e. "preserving the union") or other such wars of agression falls under those exceptions, but at least we know where you stand.

Thanks for "correcting" my chronology by not correcting anything at all. Instead of hiding in or beating around the bushes, why not try saying whatever it is you want to say. That's how "scholarly" discussions work, as you know.

wait, were you trying to be clever with the chronology of secession (as in they began seceding after lincoln's election, but under buchanan)? in all your learning, did you not realize that presidents get inaugurated months after the election results, during which time the predecessor retains the seat? or is there some other "gotcha" you were going for? It's so difficult to know since you're so smart and cryptic with your hints.