War - Does the End Justify the Means?

I spent few hours on discourses this year and wanted to share basic discourse guidelines I use from now on.

* we have to formulate why we enter the dialogue, otherwise it can last forever
* when exploring a topic, seek expert's opinion
* there exist people who pursue the discourse, not specific knowledge; they tend to be closed
* we have to set up a concrete limit of resources that we can devote to each question
* sometimes we can not help, and should peacefully let go - there is other job to do
* only when people are open, there exists a window of opportunity for help
* people open up when there is trust and high levels of trust are difficult to establish from online-only contact
* people who start threads tend to be open, in my experience

Please, anybody, don't take any of this personally. I am not an expert and right now am not interested in theorizing on wars.

I will not immerse in this thread further. I just wanted to share with brothers my guidelines for discourse to help it remain soft.

If ones ethics dictate the end result of an act be the priority for that act then one set of beliefs come into play. If the act itself is of importance then the ends are the result of it and the result is secondary. What this means is, do you believe that you should be ethically allowed to “do” whatever you like to accomplish your goals? Or, is how we get there more important?

For me, all of life is a journey and the telling of my life and my time existing. Do I want my legacy to be a lifetime of valiant effort and noble acts where I might not accomplish all that I hope; or, one end result that is possibly tainted by immoral or unethical choices along the way?

For sports enthusiast, this idea is easiest identified in Baseball where we count everything that every player does. They may never be a part of a “winning” team but they can still be a great and admired player because of personal effort put in over the years.