Does Putin have a soul?

[Alex157]

No, it isn't right to say such things. In her case we have to wonder if her

statement had any meaning other than political hyperbole. After all, do democrats and Hillary in particular have

religion? Sometimes I wonder.

Actually, in fact the Soviet morality didn’t deny existing of a soul.

Marx just stated that the material stuff is primary. So I am sure that both Putin and Hillary have souls

At the same time,

it isn't right for a citizen of one country to become involved in the politics of another.

Well, the problem is that nobody

obeys this rule and Putin with his guys first
Say, it is a civil war in a country

and there are good and bad guys there (well, from my point of view, of course) and I am able to help good guys. I

think it was a terrible mistake of the Western powers that they didn’t fulfill a full-scale intervention in Russia

in 1918.

[belgareth]

I never said anything about

Soviet morality, only Clinton's, something I doubt exists. It isn't even morality but spirituality but the

statement still applies.

Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right for us to disobey the

rule? Not in my opinion.

I also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now

and we would have ben wrong then. That is the very basic precept of the democracy we tout. Each has their right to

choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom to

choose.

[Alex157]

I never said anything about Soviet morality, only Clinton's

Yes, I commented on her statement

Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right

for us to disobey the rule? Not in my opinion.

Sure, sure, but it is difficult to obey rules when nobody doesn’t want

to do it

I

also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now and we would have ben wrong

then.

Well, however you had to interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible

then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.

Each has their

right to choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom

to choose.

But the Bolsheviks positively interfered with many other persons in

Russia and other places as well. If a government violates the rights of citizens is it interference with other

persons?

[Rbt]

Well, however you had to

interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.

If you are speaking of WWII, the US only entered the war formally after the attack on the US Navy

at Pearl Harbor. Not sure why the US didn't get more involved after the invasion of the Phillipines but I'm not

fully up on that part of history.

The US at the time had a policy of non-involvement (military) otherwise. There

was economic support of Britain and other countries before the formal declaration of war. If I recall the US only

got involved in the European theater due to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.

Politics is

strange... Even though the US was "friends" with France for example at that time, we did not get militarily involved

with the war even after France's colonies in Asia (eg Veitnam) were invaded by the Japanese. During/after WWII we

got roped into some sort of treaty with France about coming to their aid if they or one of their possessions was

invaded which is how we got mixed up with the communist "invasion" in Veitnam in the 60's-70's (thanks Mr.

Truman...).

[Alex157]

If you are speaking of WWII, the US only entered the war formally after the

attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. Not sure why the US didn't get more involved after the invasion of the

Phillipines but I'm not fully up on that part of history.
The US at the time had a policy of non-involvement

(military) otherwise. There was economic support of Britain and other countries before the formal declaration of

war.

Economic support of Britain included sending ships there and since the

Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it meant a direct war against German.

If I recall the US only got involved in the European theater due

to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.

Well, I don’t think that Germany was that much involved in war in Asia

to consider it. America had to decide whether it supported England (and it meant a direct war against Germany) or

not. Yes, I am sure that many citizens of the US would prefer not to be involved, but the politicians knew that

there was no choice.

Politics is strange... Even though the US was "friends" with

France for example at that time, we did not get militarily involved with the war even after France's colonies in

Asia (eg Veitnam) were invaded by the Japanese. During/after WWII we got roped into some sort of treaty with France

about coming to their aid if they or one of their possessions was invaded which is how we got mixed up with the

communist "invasion" in Veitnam in the 60's-70's (thanks Mr. Truman...).

Always, there is a politician who can be

thanked for a war. In Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq…



As for ‘friendship’ and getting roped now everything is simpler. An attack at any

member of NATO means an attack at all others according to the treaty.

[Rbt]

Economic support of Britain

included sending ships there and since the Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it

meant a direct war against German.

Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be

in a "direct" war. You would be if you were actively attacking *them*. Switzerland (which remained neutral) had

it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or the Axis powers.



At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including American ships) were guarded primarily by the British

Navy.

[Alex157]

Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be in a

"direct" war.

Yes, sure. But I don’t think it was the case in the WWII. As well

as in any wartime either. Say, Iran (or any other countries) would send convoys with weapons to anti-American troops

in Iraq. I doubt very much that it would be possible for them just ‘defend’ their ships without real

fighting against the American Navy.
If you support my enemy you are my

enemy too.

You would be if you were actively attacking *them*.

Without no doubt, I think, it will be so in most cases.

Switzerland (which

remained neutral) had it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or

the Axis powers.

There was not any reason for Hitler to attack Switzerland. Money and

gold are useless in a world war (your enemies woun’t sell you anything and your allies are figting too so are

not able to sell food and weapons), so he knew that he could do it after the victory. If Switzerland helped somebody

in the anti-Hitler coalition it would be crushed in a moment.

At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including

American ships) were guarded primarily by the British Navy.

I think it was so in the first perion of the war. Then logic of war

demanded for more and more wide interference.