While his various shills never tire of saying what he has done for us, here is an example of what Boris Johnson has done to us. Green policies galore, unstinting support for the most corrupt state in Europe, and further supply shocks brought on by his lockdowns.
Good riddance, bad rubbish. I hope he spends the rest of his miserable life moping over his undignified ejection from the office he had made his supreme object.
AN: If that is the lesson you draw from this Sean then you are truly lost.
SIG: I’m sure you are delighted with higher fuel bills.
AN: there are some things that are more important than money.
SIG: Only when it’s for a worthwhile cause. Sending money and weapons into the black hole of corruption that is the Ukraine is not a worthwhile cause. It is not worth defending in itself, and it is in the Russian sphere of influence. We have no business there.
AN: What is sad is that you actually seem to believe the garbage you spout about this.
SIG: Very well, instead of trading insults, let us exchange opinions about the nature of a legitimate foreign policy. I’ve been saying this since the Serbian War in 1999. I will say it again. The whole purpose of British foreign policy should be to protect the territory of the United Kingdom, and to protect various narrowly-defined overseas interests. In short, it is to behave rather like the State of Israel, which takes a close interest in its proximate neighbours, but ignores South America and most of Asia. What Russia does in Eastern Europe and in the territories of the former Soviet Union is none of our business. Indeed, Russia is our obvious ally for keeping Germany on terms of friendship with us. Announcing nebulous and therefore illimitable ends like protecting “democracy” and “human rights” is not a wise foreign policy. It is the first step to wars without end. If the Russians want to spray poison gas all over Kiev, or shoot everyone in Odessa with ginger hair, it is not a legitimate concern of our foreign policy. If you want to call that “garbage,” you are doing nothing to make an argument. Indeed, that is the foreign policy you see in the speeches and writings of a line of British politicians – the Tories from the 1690s to the 1790s; Lord Salisbury, Enoch Powell, et al. If you want to wave candles outside the Ukrainian Embassy while singing “Kum Ba Yah,” be my guest. But I think you should try for a reasoned argument if you want that to be made a policy of the British State.
AN: Russia is a direct threat to our interests and to our country. Putin is not interested just in Ukraine, he wants the reestablishment of the Cold War Russian Empire and will pursue that if he wins in Ukraine. You spout all this rubbish about Ukraine being a gangster state because it is the only way you can justify your sordid position. In terms you might understand given your classical bent, yours is the argument of giving ‘Earth and Water’ to Putin
SIG: You are obviously incapable of holding an argument without accusing your opponent of stupidity or dishonesty. There is no evidence that the Russians want to reestablish their Cold War Empire, nor any that they are capable – nor any that this would be harmful to our legitimate interests. For what it may be worth, the Cold War Russian Empire was arguably a threat to us because Moscow was both the capital of the Russian State and the headquarters of a conspiracy to spread Marxian Communism to all parts of the world. Take away this second, and the worst a strong Russia can do to us is flood England with Orthodox missionaries. But, since you are incapable of holding a rational argument about foreign policy, this will be my last response.
AN: when my opponent is being stupid or dishonest it is right and proper to point this out. Putin has said himself he wants the reestablishment of the Cold War European order with Central Europe back under Russian control. It is not me saying it, it is the Russians themselves.
SIG: I rest my case
AN: Conceding you have no valid arguments. Well done.