The Death of al-Zawahri

 I subscribe to the New York Times online edition and am a frequent replier to articles. I use my own name, Stephen, and indicate that I live in Indianapolis, I am not ashamed of my opinions, nor do I try to hide who or where I am. Recently, the past two submissions of mine have gone "unpublished" so I thought I would post them here. In response to an article about the death of the terrorist, al-Zawahri, I wrote:

He's dead. I'm glad. I just wish we had been able to do it by means other than a drone strike. I understand why it was done that way in this case, what with the possibility of collateral damage and all, but I still wish we had been able to do it in the same way we took out bin-Laden. I like knowing that the last thing bin-Laden saw before exiting this life was a pissed-off American with a rifle. It makes me smile every time I think about it. I'm thinking about it right now, and I'm smiling. I just wish we could have given al-Zawahri the same send-off. Still, he's dead, and I'm glad.

Men In Black At Your Door

So, yesterday, Sunday July 10th, I replied online to the opinion piece in the New York Times by Aquilino Gonell entitled "I was Betrayed by President Trump." In my reply I said, On January 6th Donald Trump fully intended to lead an armed insurrection against the government of the United States. He violated his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. He should be tried for High Treason, and, when found guilty, if I knew that it wouldn't make him a martyr to his sycophant supporters, he should be taken out back and shot. The reply was approved by whatever group approves or disapproves of posts.

It lasted about six minutes before being pulled down, likely flagged by some pussy uncomfortable with my calling for the law to be followed. U.S. Code, Title 18, plainly states the penalty for Treason is "Death, or, not less than five years in prison with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death." Seriously, a simple Google search will take you right there. 

As we watch the Select Senate Committee to Investigate January Sixth, it becomes more and more obvious that Donald Trump had every intention of leading the mass of people that he had called there, ("be there, it will be wild!") that he knew was armed, ("they're not here to harm me," and "fight like hell") to the Capitol to take over the government. All I called for in my reply was that Trump be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law. I was NOT calling for him to be murdered or assassinated. That would be reckless and illegal. I was just saying that the harshest punishment available under law, U.S. Code, Title 18, should be applied. I think that this would go a long way toward discouraging future presidents who had ideas of becoming President For Life. I have always said President Obama was wrong to not go after George W. Bush and his cronies for the war crimes they so obviously could have been charged with, and for lying us into a war with Iraq. If "W" had been prosecuted for lying us in to a war with Iraq, along with his black sites for torture and interrogation, we might not be where we are now with Trump.

Anyhoo, it has not been uncommon in the past for the F.B.I. guys in dark suits and sunglasses to investigate when people call for the death penalty to be applied to public figures. So, if the men in black show up at your door asking questions about me, now you'll know why.

Russia Must be Defeated

 So, I just finished reading Anne Applebaum's excellent piece The War Won't End Until Putin Loses in "The Atlantic," and I couldn't agree more. Continuing to offer Putin some sort of "off-ramp" should not be the goal because, a) Putin doesn't want an off-ramp, and, b) the type of appeasement that such a strategy represents would only serve to encourage Putin to try again at a later date when his army would have had the time to regroup and rearm.  Applebaum makes clear that, contrary to French President Emmanuel Macron's misguided urging, Putin should be, must be, humiliated. It continues to baffle me how Macron, someone whose country knows firsthand what happens when dictators are appeased, can continue to try to help Putin "save face." Again, something Putin isn't looking for in the first place. Perhaps Macron needs remedial training in his country's twentieth century history. 

Applebaum makes reference to comments made by President Biden in March of this year, "Putin cannot remain in power," and by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April, who wanted "to see Russia weakened to the degree it can't do the kinds of things it has done in invading Ukraine." She points out these comments were treated as misstatements when, in fact, they were "half-articulated acknowledgements of an ugly reality that no one wants to confront: Any cease fire that allows Putin to experience any kind of victory will be inherently unstable because it will encourage him to try again. Victory in Crimea did not satisfy the Kremlin. Victory in Kherson will not satisfy the Kremlin either."  

It seems like it should be blindingly obvious to the world, but more specifically to western powers who can actually do something, that the recession the world is facing will only continue to get worse, that the food shortages in Africa that will actually help Putin sell the grain looted from Ukraine, will continue to get worse; that these things will only stop when Vladimir Putin is defeated and humiliated in front of the world, and that that needs to happen much sooner rather than later. At this point, is there any good reason that the United States and/or NATO should not immediately commit all the military forces at their command to defeating Russia militarily and bringing all this nonsense to a total and quick end? The short answer, in my opinion, is 'No.' 

President Biden has repeatedly said that the U.S. would not become directly involved in fighting against Russia because of concerns about starting World War Three, and over concerns that Putin would employ nuclear weapons. But, as Applebaum points out, "the retreats from Kyiv and Kharkiv indicate that Putin is not irrational after all....They were perfectly capable of understanding that the price of Russia's early advances were too high. The price of using tactical nuclear weapons would be far higher: They would achieve no military impact but would destroy all of Russia's remaining relationships with India, China and the rest of the world. There is no indication right now that the nuclear threats so frequently mentioned by Russian propagandists, going back many years, are real." 

I say, even if Russia has half the nuclear weapons they say they have, the United States alone, not to mention NATO, has enough conventional weapons, let alone nukes, to bomb Russia back to the Stone Ages, and we shouldn't be afraid of rattling that sabre. As John McCain said in 2014, "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." Their total GDP is roughly the same as the state of Texas, and the amount of money they spend on their military, 65.9 billion dollars, is dwarfed by the United States' 753.5 billion. All that to say that there is no possible way Russia could maintain any serious military operations against the combined forces of the U.S. and NATO for any length of time. The only real help Russia might be able to call upon, China, will not come to Russia's aid for two reasons, a) China is wracked with COVID to the point where they would not be able to field a combat effective military force, and b) China's President, Xi Jinping, is trying very hard to position China as a world leader in the tech industry, and coming to the aid of Putin and his fevered dreams of a reunited Soviet Union, would only serve to set back those aims. Xi, who is evil, as communists are, is not stupid. He knows NATO is a defensive organization that didn't go looking for this fight. I'm betting he also knows Putin brought this on himself.

Russia must be defeated, and humiliated on the world stage, as quickly as possible. Putin and the people around him, his military leaders, and the Russian public as well, must come to the conclusion that the war was a mistake.  

Russian Athletes

 Russian athletes, particularly NHL players, who refuse to speak out publicly and loudly against President Putin and his war of choice against Ukraine, should be deported immediately. I am speaking directly to athletes like the NHL’s Alex Ovechkin whose mealy-mouthed “no war” comments are so milquetoast they are meaningless at best.

Quote from the Future

 Here is a quote from a history book yet to be written. "N.A.T.O. leadership continued to be concerned over what moves, if any, to make in order to help Ukraine. Put N.A.T.O. troops on the ground against the Russians? Help Poland get fighter jets to Ukraine?  The people of Europe and the United States had seen on TV what was happening to the civilian population of Ukraine and wanted something to be done. But, their leaders worried that any moves they made would give President Putin the conflict with N.A.T.O. that it seemed he really wanted, they were worried whatever they did would facilitate the start World War Three. They didn't realize at the time that World War Three had already started."