So, WWII was NOT a far of choice to the USSR.

But it was for the US. There was no immediate threat, no invasion on US soil, no enemy tanks firing at the capital. Nothing even remotely close.

The reason why US actually got involved into the war was same kind of reason it always got itself into the wars - to prevent POTENTIAL threat from the USSR, since otherwise it would be POSSIBLE that USSR would have to take control over the whole Europe, after defeating the Germany.

On the other hand, judging by total lack of evidence that USSR, headed by Stalin was interested in controlling the whole Europe. Actually, looking into the past realities of the middle-end 20th century - that bipolar construction (like any bipartisan system) was rather stable and desirable. The World is now straggling to regain that level of distribution of World Power, for human World can not function properly with only one center of power. Period.

British Empire, represented by the US now, representing the ill spirit of Roman Empire is again (like 2000 years ago) trying to establish World Domination, the WWII was a result of UK/US actions which created the conflict between USSR and Germany. In reality there is no basis for such conflict.

So not only that war was bona fide “war of choice” for the US, but it took active part in staging that very war. How disgusting - UK/US business - as usual.

I respect what you say most times but, DON’T KNOCK OUR VEGEMITE OK

JC

Henderson’s criticism would be stronger had Eland used “country” instead, which does connote geography to some extent. This is all a trivial point, but it was Henderson who brought it up as a point of clarification.

Yes, though nations need not be confined to a single geographic territory (Jews, Kurds), and some territories are home to many nations (Russia, China).

http://www.afactor.net/hcf/index.html

Many graphic sites, including a number of fly-by-nights, otherwise not known for their veneration of accuracy in posted text, have them in their comment boxes.

To say that there is no “choice” among horses in the stable is a different use of “choice” from that between renting what is available or not renting.

The latter has nothing necessarily to do with the particular horse next to the door.

To rent from Hobson, indeed, is not to rent a horse, but to accept Hobson’s functor, in which something that may or may not qualify, from the point of view of the renter, as a suitable “horse” is available.

It is a pity no has pursued the image in the larger economic context. It explains a lot about mass production, advertising, and American “market capitalism”, especially recently, wherein the menu is increasingly made available as the meal, while becoming, structurally and at the same time, all that is readily available.

The organizing image is cunning if also very banal.

Depending on the horse at the door, for example, one might quite sensibly ask whether it might not be better sense to make Hobson an offer he can’t refuse, to wit, half his horse–front or rear.

At any rate, it is instructive to see the sad state of logic and language among those so readily accorded the label “psychologist” nowadays.