> If the war on terror is to be won swiftly, Mr. Bush must not lose sight of the war's twin imperatives: a decisive counterattack and a total unwillingness to appease our enemies.
> Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal -- total defeat of terrorism -- is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up.
> Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope.
With a funny quote:
> In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe" -- the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45.
Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y.
Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.
That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson.
he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything?
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013)
https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015)
He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov"
At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.
No, that you have to judge on his track record. What do you think of it?
Back to the Curt Schilling example, if he were to tweet 10 things he hates about Biden, whether or not they are legit criticism would be lost on the audience due to his known biases.
So to be clear, of Mr Kasparov's track record, his 2015 book "Winter Is Coming", was basically proven correct about Mr Putin by recent events, but ... never mind the track record, bias or something?
Moreover, let's be honest: you wrote your comment just because you believed the parent that Kasparov wanted to use nuclear weapons. What he proposes is completely different, and several of these points have already been implemented, at least to some degree.
His point is that price will always go up. If today nuclear is out of the question, in a year it may be.
Also, spillover is on the menu:
The SCMP reports: State Department counselor Derek Chollet warned Beijing -
If China tries to help Russia evade sanctions in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, it will face countermeasures, a senior US State Department official said on Thursday, without providing details.
State Department counsellor Derek Chollet said the allied nations that have joined in sanctioning Russia represent a combined 50 per cent of the global economy; China accounts for around 15 per cent.
"China, if it were to seek to evade the sanctions, or somehow dividing the sanctions, they would be vulnerable," he said. "Any country that tries to evade these sanctions will also face the consequences of its actions. I don’t want to speculate with that would be."