I’m always careful, more careful than most, but I won’t compromise my morality.
I’m also a student of history, and that knowledge tells me where that part of the world stands historically. Only fools involve themselves with their stupid is as stupid does.

And I also stand besidebmy comment on Ukrainian refugees. This our own country, is in the midst of a housing crisis which is being dealt with by the landed political classes with their ideology of silence.

There is a critical housing shortage which has driven real estate values to unprecedented heights, forcing an exclusionary nightmare on swathes of our local population.
Adding unreliable bludging refugees into this mix is unwise and uncaring actually.

Dan

I know people like to let off steam, but really now?
Can we not express opinions without being overly personal?
Can we not 'focus on the matter at hand', without meandering away?
However, I do remember a government spokesperson saying that 'robust debate' in parliament is a good thing.
Perhaps we can view these variations as 'robustness', and applaud them?

The article like most of the waffle from the lame stream "meeja" sticks to a deceptive narrative that some, including mox have unmasked: such articles mostly in the NYT, WashPost, Fairfax Media etc (a) think the concept of war is history (when the means by which we prosecuted wars should be history); (b) claim that if NATO takes the fight to Putin, then a greater conflict will ensue (with more loss of lives) and (c) assert that only NATO members will be defended by NATO.

These assumptions are so asinine as they barely justify a reply. But here goes:

1. The "war criminal" in this case, the person whose actions have led to the slaughter of countless Ukrainians, the devastation of their homeland and should be hauled by the scruff of his expensive collared shirt to The Hague is of course Joe Biden. He and he alone could have prevented this awful conflict by telling Vlad early on that "under no circumstances will Ukraine join NATO". But he failed to do so. Once again the clown (Biden) has no shame. No surprise really. His mentor, Barrack Obama after all ceded Syria to Putin;

2. Those that argue that taking the war to Putin (eg Fairfax) obviously never learned the lessons Winston Churchill imparted on a Britain drugged by the toxin of appeasement. Never forget that but for Winny and Comrade Stalin both infusing their peoples with courage, grit and understanding their decisions will change the course of history, Europe would now be enslaved and toiling under the Nazi yoke. We here would be little more than the largest island in the Japanese empire.

continued

3. The fact that a nation whose geography would add significantly to the depth of NATO's strategic posture and that desperately wanted to join NATO, was poorly served by Bruxelles: pre-invasion and post;

4.The great fiction of course is that NATO will defend, only defend, its members if attacked. Really? Does anyone think the chaps in Vilnius or Tallin are deluded to think that Portuguese, Spanish, French and Greek mothers will willingly allow their sons and daughters to fight and perhaps die for some Baltic nation that Russia could overcome between the ad breaks on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" broadcasted on Channel One Russia?

Agree with you again, Dan. No refugees. That we can look after and defend ourselves is increasingly doubtful. Paying for arms for Ukraine when we are not arming ourselves. How bloody stupid is our government. Australia is no world policeman. Even the U.S has retired from that role.

I am reasonably sure that a thread of truth runs through all the news we hear about Ukraine.
I don't think news outlets are making it all up to enhance sales.
I am equally sure they are ready to embellish the truth with a glossy coating, to enhance its appeal to readers.
That being said, I think there is unconscionable mischief being done to the Ukraine.
The children especially are being subjected to appalling episodes of unwarranted violence.
When we become aware of this, surely it is normal to want to stop the fighting by any reasonable means?
Many from the west have gone there to be supportive, and give what help they can.
Although it is not necessarily the duty of other countries to intervene, it can certainly be in their long term interest to do so.
I hate the thought that when someone starts a 'commotion' like this, many 'innocent' persons will be drawn in, and suffer as a result.
Ever has it been thus with human behaviour?
Somehow, somewhere, someone loses track of reality, and gets a bee in his bonnet about something.
And then adds violence to the mix to achieve his desired goal.
I still think the remedy will come from 'within'.
Alarmed by where it is all going, influential persons will draw the line, and curtail the aggression?