Don’t the warmongers ever get tired of playing the same, worn-out record, over and over again since the early ’60s? Clearly not, while there’s still plenty of gullible rubes lining up to listen and hork along like so many witless seals.
In the ’60s, it was Ho Chi Minh and IndoChinese communists, in the ’80s it was first Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi, then Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who were the ‘new Hitlers’ bent on world conquest. Hussein got trotted out again in the 2000s, this time with Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Now, it’s Big Bad Vlad. If we don’t stop him over there, he’ll be over here next!
Oh, give it a rest.
I’m certainly not taking baloney lectures on WWII from lefties who busily ape the wrong side of that conflict, with their black shirts, incessant warmongering and vile anti-Semitism.
It’s not like the second world war though, is it? If Hitler had had nuclear weapons he would not have lost the war short of total world devastation. We’d have been happy to negotiate some sort of deal […] Churchill certainly played the cards he was dealt. And we know that Churchill cut unpalatable deals when he had to (think Yalta, think Eastern Europe). Nor is it remotely convincing to compare Zelensky to Churchill. For one thing, Churchill did not outlaw the main opposition party. He invited it into a wartime coalition.
Another fallacy is that Trump is some kind of inverse to FDR and the US in the first years of WWII. Well, only in that Trump isn’t rounding up tens of thousands of law-abiding American citizens into concentration camps, solely on the basis of their race.
President Franklin Roosevelt did not send anything remotely like what the US has provided to Ukraine in proportional terms. And back then what FDR managed to get through Congress for the Brits wasn’t free, remember. It was lend-lease. So despite the US lavishing Marshall Plan monies on Europe, after the war they made Britain pay back every single penny, the last payment taking place at the end of 2006.
Instead of leaving Germany to smoulder in ruins for what it did, Democrat-run America rewarded them by rebuilding their country for free and providing its defence for the rest of the century. Tell us again how it’s Trump who is rewarding the aggressor?
Then there’s the left’s favourite gambit: moral grandstanding on their so-called ‘principles’. These are, remember, the same people who marched in their millions to keep Saddam Hussein in power, and who ‘welcome’ tens of millions of violently homophobic, misogynistic, rapey religious zealots into the West. And who cheered on when the US and Britain and Europe and Nato ganged up to bomb Serbia and divide an existing country along ethnic lines.
But when ethnic Russians want to break away from the Ukraine? Is that not the same principle involved? And remember, not all that long ago, Ukraine had a pro-Russia elected government that was undermined, if not brought down, by Obama and the Europeans. Nor has the Ukraine under Zelensky been a model citizen as far as Russian language rights are concerned.
So, shove your ‘principled’ talk up your worn-out sphincters, you sanctimonious warmongers.
When the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam the US eventually lost the will to keep the struggle going. (By the way, this was mightily cheered on, indeed aided and abetted, by the left side of politics don’t forget.) And so we didn’t save any of South Vietnam. We allowed the whole of it to be swallowed up. Was that appeasement? Was it worse or better than cutting a deal to save most of Ukraine?
Then there’s the sanctimonious hypocrisy of demanding that Russia meekly swallow what we wouldn’t countenance for a second. Lefty hero JFK pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war over the Soviets stationing missiles next to the US (never mind that Kennedy had done the same to Russia, in Turkey). Does anyone think the freeloaders in Brussels wouldn’t squeal like stuck pigs if Russia struck up a deal with, say, Basque separatists in Spain?
Why did we have to push Nato membership right up to the Russian border? Yes, yes, yes from our perspective the Russians are paranoid. But if the Soviets had made Mexico an offer to become part of the Soviet bloc and the Mexicans had been inclined to accept I rather suspect the Americans would simply not have stood for it. Period.
But European hypocrisy is only just getting started.
This year, year three of the Ukraine war, European Union imports of Russian fossil fuels were more than Euro 18.7 billion, which is more than the amount of aid these countries sent to the Ukraine. Got that. The pontificating gasbags in the EU (and Britain) who condemn Putin are buying his oil to help keep his regime going and they are buying more of it than the military aid – actually, for the EU it’s loans – they are sending to Zelensky. And remember back in 2017 when then First Term President Trump warned Merkel and Germany and Europe to cut its dependence on Russian oil and all the assembled great and good of the European project laughed at Mr Trump? Well, they’re not laughing now. No, they’re still buying Russian oil. That level of hypocrisy is really rather stunning.
No, it’s just another day for the left.
But, hey, if they want to talk ‘historical parallels’, let’s try this one on: for the third time in just over a century, feckless Europe is pushing the world to the brink of global war and demanding that everyone else save them from themselves. This, from the continent that also gave the world communism, Nazism and fascism.
Seriously: fuck those guys.
