There will always be stooges in any movement
Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.
Meanwhile, I noticed, that every post I make here gets marked as "Troll" within minutes and I'm getting tired of it. So I'm not posting again — you aren't going to admit it and the anonymous collective with too many mod-points are too cowardly to speak-up.
As it turns out it was actually a very well informed protest movement as the invasion of Iraq was by any metric a disaster.
The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable, and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.
but I doubt many [Russians] are actually backing the invasion
Yes, unfortunately, many are. Though Putin's support is nowhere near he enjoys in Russia (86%), plenty in the diaspora approve of him or outright like him.
Fringe opinion-makers whom I'd never heard of. I don't think they're really affecting anything.
Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.
It should be noted that the West's hands aren't completely clean in this. NATO was started as an anti-Russia alliance
There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.
expanding into former Warsaw pact countries after the end of the Cold War was absolutely moronic. Without that expansion there's a decent chance that everyone is still on relatively good terms.
Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.
But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!
Again remember many grew up in the USSR, people are going to naturally defend their side.
I grew up in the USSR too, you insensitive clod.
But in a fight between Russia and Ukraine many will be drawn to defend the entity they identify more with from their youth.
Point is, their propaganda works — Obama's lukewarm response to Putin's bona-fide textbook evil is evidence of it. It took him months to authorize "non-lethal" supplies (blankets, tents, rations) for Ukraine's defendants. And even today things like helmets and body-armor are still not authorized.
Because he and his people aren't paying attention. Either that, or — which is the same thing — they know, their electoral base is not paying attention.