No. Winning is not all that matters. If you have to kill civilians, even some of those you purport to be ‘defending’, then you do not have a legitimate victory, even though you may have a temporal one. It is short sighted to ‘win at all costs’.
I, too, am glad that slavery was abolished, but i fear that much damage was done by Lincoln’s usurpation. That is the gist of my arguments.
Please don’t try to shut me down by throwing epithets such as ‘slaver’. We can have a discourse without invective. The excerpts i have posted contain properly sourced and attributed information. There is nothing fabricated. They do, however contain some editorial, but nowhere have i, nor any of the authors, supported slavery or tyranny.
That's not what I said. I said that winning inning was all that mattered to the slavers. You don't think they killed civilians as well?
Was our victory in WWII legitimate? Was it short sighted to use every means available to defeat German or Japan. Maybe we should have used the rules of engagement in effect for Vietnam, or Afghanistan, you know, no bomb zone, safe havens, no collateral at any cost . Reread the previous posts, I was not the one to use the term slaver, nor employ any invectives.
“No. Winning is not all that matters. If you have to kill civilians, even some of those you purport to be ‘defending’, then you do not have a legitimate victory, ...”
There may indeed be more stuff that matters, beyond winning. Some of the other significant factors: who we happen to be fighting, and what’s at stake.
It might be said that the sequence of things matters too: if we don’t win, nothing else matters.
The imperative is plain: worry about winning first, then worry about morality. If we lose, all talk of morality stops.
I agree Lincoln is The Godfather of Big Government.