<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">[Unfortunately, there is no anti-war wing of the Democratic party. --CGE]<div><br></div><h2><a href="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/april/16/im-confused,-can-anyone-help-me.aspx" title="I'm Confused, Can Anyone Help Me?">I'm Confused, Can Anyone Help Me?</a></h2>
<div class="post-attributes">
<div class="post-authors uBlogsy_font_style40">
<div class="uBlogsy_author uBlogsy_font_style30" style="margin:0;">
Written by
<span class="uBlogsy_author_name">
<a href="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles.aspx?author=Neil+Clark" title="Neil Clark">Neil Clark</a> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-date uBlogsy_font_style40">Wednesday April 16, 2014<a><img class="printer-icon" src="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/images/icons/printer.png"></a></div>
<br style="clear:both;">
</div>
<section class="uBlogsy_post_body">
<img src="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/media/119086/Lukansk_240x180.jpg" alt="Lukansk" height="180" width="240"><br><br>I'm
confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people
occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These
people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media
commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.<br> <br> The US
government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against
these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we
saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and
other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to
buildings.<br> <br> Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people
occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy
protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'. <br> <br> Why was the
occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in
January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force
by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in
January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br>
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received
visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator
John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who
handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government
protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have
received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western
media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from
officials at the US State Department.<br> <br> Surely if they were so
keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as
the truest form of 'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also be showing
solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm
confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br> A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who <a href="http://rt.com/news/kerry-russia-us-pretext-494/">said</a>, “You
just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert
your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more
than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.<br> <br> Have I
misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and
early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to
tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat
posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in
Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal,
murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of
up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br> We
were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and
media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was
held under “military occupation.” But I've just been watching coverage
of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have
been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26908464">hailed</a> by
leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as
a “historic moment for Afghanistan”and a great success
for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan
vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br> Syria too is
rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror
groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our 'way of
life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be
destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless 'War on Terror' against
them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical
groups in their war against a secular government which respects the
rights of religious minorities, including Christians.<br> <br> When the
bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent
people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only
condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting
radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators
are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br>
Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and
backward country because it has passed a law against promoting
homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter
Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where
homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the
rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.<br> <br>
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a
law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are
genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and
not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I'm confused. Can
anyone help me?<br> <br> We are told in lots of newspaper articles that
the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its
rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the
government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do
hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in
the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played
a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected
government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are
ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very
acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?<br> <br> We
are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's
concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the
map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and
bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military
alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the
last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were
part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or
missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet
Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I'm confused. Can anyone
help me?<br> <br></section><div><em>Reprinted with permission from <a href="http://rt.com/op-edge/west-leaders-ukraine-democracy-600/">RT</a>.</em> <div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>