 It's March the 16th, 2022. It's Wednesday o'clock. That can mean only one thing. Time for What Now, America? I'm Tim Appichell, your host. And today's title is USA and the World Could Do Much More for Ukraine. With me, my guests today are Jay Fidel, Karen Buzzard, and Cynthia Leeson-Clair. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Well, we've got a whole full agenda. So let's get to it. Jay, we just heard President Zelensky get before Congress and ask again and again for things that we're not giving him. One, he's asking for enforcement of a no-fly zone, and he's asking for fighter jets. First question is, is he hitting all the right notes in his ability to request Congress for something that President Biden and many people in Congress don't want to comply with? Yes. Yes, he is. I think what's really interesting, and it's a nuanced point, is if he asks for something that they're not inclined to give, what he's doing is setting the stage to have them give it once Putin goes further. For example, if Putin uses chemical weapons, bio weapons, then Putin's going further. And he is pushing Biden off that cliff. If Putin goes one step further, it offers Biden the opportunity of meeting Zelensky's request. So what he's doing is setting up a scenario that will, A, limit Putin from doing anything more horrendous, if that's possible, and B, if he does something more horrendous, then it gives Biden cover for meeting Zelensky's demands. So I think it's really a smart move. Let me ask you this. I thought this was a smart move, and he's done it before. But he really hits the note, in my opinion, right on very well by saying, hey, this is a matter of world democracy and the avoidance of autocracy, which has plagued Europe, obviously, for hundreds of years. And he seems to be making some great inroads into that. Is it striking a chord or a note within the American population audience? Well, it's certainly striking a note within the Foreign Affairs audience, because there was an article about this very thing called Pax Americana just a few days ago. And they talked about the battle of the great powers. And Russia wants to be a great power. And America is a great power. And China is a great power. Arguably, after being consolidated in this affair, Europe could be or is or will be a great power. But Putin wants to be a great power, and that's the bottom line. Yeah, sure, he wants the border to go further west. Yeah, sure, he wants the glory of the USSR. But more than that, he's participating in what is described in this article a few days ago in Foreign Affairs. And it's very instructive to think of it that way. It's a clash of great powers. And he wants to be there on the stage. What haven't we done for Ukraine as a nation? Now, President Biden just announced an additional $800 million, strictly for military, being anti-armor situations. Or I think that would be the Javelin weapons. And certainly about 7,000 for small arms and about 800 for anti-aircraft, which would mean stinger missiles. What have we done and what aren't we doing enough of? Oh, there's another kind of anti-aircraft missile. Forget the name right now, but it's more powerful than the Javelin or the stinger. And it's a battery of weapons that you can deploy. I'm not sure it's all that mobile, but it will bring these migs right out of the sky. And we have not provided that yet, although we've talked about providing it. So if you ask me what else they can do short of delivering fighter planes into the skies for what do you call it? No fly. No fly zone. That's what the US could do, these batteries of anti-aircraft weapons. Do you agree with President Biden that there should not be a no fly zone? I'll tell you the truth. I go back and forth. It depends on what I'm reading today, what you're sending me, all these people sending me. And for every article that says yes, there's an article that says no. And I keep listening to Karen and she tells me no. I would agree with Karen. How do you know I was going to say that? But I think we're going to get there, Tim. There's a very interesting front line movie. I should have sent all you guys a link that just appeared on PBS last night. It's the history of Putin. It's how he got here, the road to war, I think. It is most interesting. And it talks about him and his war strategies and tactics over the years. He's been in power 22 years now. And he's done this sort of thing a lot. He's killed a lot of people. He's a monster. And his M.O. is all the same. I mean, for example, when he was first taking power, he set up a fake attack on a school in Russia. I mean, it was a real attack. And he blamed the Chechnians for it. And then he went and he blasted the Chechnians. So a lot of school kids, young school kids died. It was really awful, horrible war crime. And it was him. And then using that as a starter, he killed a lot of Chechnians. He bombed them the way he's bombing. Well, he also went into that theater and just slaughtered them. Yeah, so that's what he does. That's his M.O. And how he approached that. Yeah, that's what he does. He's done it over and over again. And I don't know if the Russian people understand what a monster he is. But his M.O. is always the same. And so his M.O. now is going to be through slaughter people. He's a slaughterer. And when that word gets out on the streets of Moscow, I mean, people really figure it out, they're not going to want them in office. I'm not sure how much power they have because he's really finesse the ability to stay in power. He's good at that. So I guess to answer your question, I think we know him well enough to know that he is going to continue to do this. And if he continues to do this, he's going to step it up. That's what he always does. In each one of those examples, those instances over the past 22 years, he's stepped it up. He's a monster. And if he does that, as I said at the very beginning of the show, it's going to cross the red line for NATO, for the EU, for the US, for Congress, for Biden. And I think all of a sudden, Karen and I will agree. Karen, you're listening. Karen and I will agree that what we need to do is put a lot of weapons in there, including jets and fighter planes. Okay. Well, for now, Karen, to you, President Zelensky saying, hey, I need fighter jets. And the United States has nixed the deal that there would be 20, I think it was 28 MiG jets to be delivered to Ukraine. And the United States kind of doesn't want that. The President Biden said, that's direct involvement. Aren't there some innovative ways, Ukraine, some MiG jets? Let me just throw them out for you. Let me have you react to it. What's to prevent a neutral country that has an air force that has MiG jets? And this country happens not to be a NATO country, but an independent country with an independent sovereign right to give arms to another country or sell arms to another country. What's to prevent a hypothetically in Argentina? To say, hey, we got 28 MiG jets and we'll prevent the pilots from Ukraine, from flying over there, getting in those MiG jets and flying them to Ukraine. Well, I guess it could, if it would even fly from Venezuela with jets over there. Sure, or vice versa. Just how the pilots fly into the country a non-NATO country and fly over and pick up the jets and fly them back. In that way, NATO's not involved. Well, it would still be an attack from one country on another country if, you know, even if it was flown by a different country, they would be. No, not flown by a different country, flown by Ukrainian pilots. Oh, so they were going against jets. These are MiG jets. That's what they want to fly is MiG jets. And there's plenty of countries after that are non-NATO countries that have plenty of MiG jets. Why are we not thinking out of the box on this? What's timing the administration on this one? I'm good. I make a counter-argument. I think we're going in the wrong direction. I think we should de-escalate the military involvement and try to work on the diplomatic side because I think just... Tim, did I say that I was going to agree with Karen about anything? Yeah, but you're gonna have to hold that for me. I'm gonna do a follow-up question, Karen. Get ready. Now, you made quite a bold statement there and I respect all claims. Then we try that before Putin just said, I don't care, I'm going in and began the atrocities. We tried it in 1938. Okay, Karen, you have the floor. If you look at the history of NATO, I think that whole history has been erased by the media, including in the documentary, which I thought was very biased, Jay, last night. They haven't looked at the history of NATO aggression in Eastern Europe and provoking Putin. So I think, unless both sides can look at the truth of what's really happening, there can be no negotiation. Okay, I'm gonna interrupt you. Let's find the other side on the table, just because... Karen, I respect you as a guest, but I'm gonna interrupt you for a second because we make statements that we should expect follow-up questions. And one's gonna be all the things that Jay mentioned and that Putin has been guilty of how he's invaded Russia, how he's invaded Crimea. Doesn't that count for the counterargument that you're trying to present? Well, I think there was a... You know, it's not like Putin has no reason behind what he's doing. He's interested in his national security. Crimea, there was a Russian naval base there that his theory was he was protecting the naval base from U.S. But also, if you kind of research the history of it, this same situation arose during Obama's administration, but Obama refused to send military weapons. He sent, quote, support, but not military weapons, including these missiles that are being sent now. So there was no escalation, but I think that escalating, you know, particularly now with what's become a kind of local conflict into a not a worldwide conflict, could lead to a World War III, which is, you know, nuclear... No, I understood that, understood that concern. I get that. And that's why maybe the no-fly zone is off limits. And I agree with you on that point, but to de-escalate the military approach here, when he's aggressively slaughtering innocents. I think I've... Oh, sorry. Well, I'm just saying that, you know, what's the next step? Okay, so here's the follow-up question. What if Putin uses chemical or biological weapons? What's your response then? Well, as I say, I don't think we should... That's why I don't think we should escalate it, because it's just gonna escalate into who can use the worst weapons, who can wipe out the most people, who can destroy the most buildings. It sort of becomes a war of... Do you think that negotiating with Putin he's gonna capitulate and back off? Is that your belief? He would if, you know, the right things were on the table. Right now, the U.S. has refused to put the neutrality of Ukraine on the table. That was the key point of the negotiation that Anthony Blinken would not consider. And also I wanted to point out, if you read a lot about the history of Ukraine, that actually some people consider that in 2014, there was a coup led by Victoria Newland, who was now kind of head of what's going on now. And she was appointed by Obama to overthrow the legitimate election. And there's tapes of them you can find online ticking the new administration that would be anti-Russian. That was their key goal. So they put in place... So it's not like we have been... We haven't been sitting by neutral. We've been involved in Ukraine for a long time. And we've been... Well, Ukraine's a breakaway state from the Soviet Union. Yes, I would expect they want a non-Russian partisan to be part of the government. That makes sense. Yeah, but we have been underhandedly... We haven't been honest about our involvement in Ukraine. It's not like we had no involvement. We had a major involvement in there. And actually a lot of people feel... Have you ever heard of the Wolfowitz policy that's a neo-Conservant? Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz of Iraq fame. Yes. Yeah, basically that some people feel that Biden is following this now. And Victoria Newland was one of the neo-Conservatives who thought this up. Was that the US should be the dominant superpower and they should prevent any other power from gaining any kind of standing. So basically right now the two powers they're most concerned about are Russia and China. So the expansion of NATO, I think into Eastern Europe, actually it was promised it would not expand. And Bill Clinton was the first president to start expanding it. Was a clear threat to Russian from the beginning. And I think the continuation of that policy was provocative to Russia and particularly bringing it up right to their back door staff. It was very provocative. All right, I gotta go to Cynthia but I will say that provocative begets provocative and his aggressive moves in the world stage has been provocative. So it's not a surprise that nations near Russia said, hey, NATO, bring me in, please. So again, provocative begets provocative. Cynthia, going to you. Before I forget, Tim, I'd like to say that I disagree with everything that Karen has said. One. I know, but you already agreed with her. So you get to do both. I agree that we shouldn't put fighter planes there now, but that's the only thing. Okay, I just wanna punctuate that. Well, let me clarify that. Fighter planes or the no-fly zone, there's a difference. Same. You think the same, okay. Cynthia, going to you. I know you have a list of things we've done thus far and things we're gonna do. Why don't you hit that list? Hey, first, I'd like to say that Biden today called Putin a war criminal. He did it. So it's been established that Putin is a bad guy, not just because we instigated it or he was threatened. Should you have said that? Let me break into that. Should you have said that? Is that gonna hamper future negotiations with Russia, be it nuclear arms reductions or any other kind of negotiations? Was that a bridge too far or was it appropriate for him to say it? I think it was appropriate, but it was done in a really odd way. It was sort of a question of a Fox News reporter and he didn't hear it quite right. And he said, no, the first time. And then, because she said, do you consider Vladimir Putin a war criminal? And he said, no. And then he stopped and turned around and said, wait a minute, did you say if he is a war criminal? Cause yes, I think he is a war criminal. He said those words and I- So he further clarified it and defined it. All right. I don't think it makes a difference in any kind of negotiations with Russia. Anything that Russia does right now is a lie. We have to just look at everything he does as projection. He's either accusing someone else of doing it and is about to do it or has already done it or he just designed to try to keep his people in Russia under his thumb, like Jay said, right? When they really know the truth about what's happening, I can't imagine that they are not gonna just write. Maybe you answered my question and maybe I didn't hear it. Was it appropriate for the President of the United States to call the leader of Russia a war criminal and how will that, if at all, hamper future interaction with Russia? I don't think it will hamper it. And I think he was right to call him that. He's not the first leader to do that. There's quite a few other leaders that have done the same thing. And so I think it's important that we label him that so that we can label what he's doing as criminal and not instigated, sorry, Karen, but definitely- But I have to say, to go back, we're war criminals too. If you look what we did to Afghanistan and Ukraine, it's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. What if we killed over a million people in those countries but they don't seem to count somehow, I don't know, but Ukrainians all of a sudden count. So I think- Yeah, I like your, I'd like to check your fact on that. Okay, well, I don't, okay. So I'm gonna go back to what you asked me first instead of going off on a tangent about him calling Putin a war criminal. And that is the exact things that are in this next tranche of things that are going over to Ukraine. 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, 2,000 Javelins, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, 6,000 A24 anti-armor systems, 100 tactical unmanned aerial systems. So he's sending drones, that's a very new, that's a good thing. That is new. Okay, let me hit that point. That is new. How is that different than providing jets? It's not defensive, I mean, it's defensive, not offensive. Providing the jets, I think, or putting the jets up in the air for the anti- and for the no-fly zone, that's all. No, I didn't say no-fly zone. I just said giving them jets so they can meet Russia in the air over sovereign airspace. Well, I have been the same like you, just ship some of those Ukrainian pilots to Germany, have them pick up those migs that got sent there from Poland. Well, Germany's a NATO country, that doesn't look good. But this is the thing, Poland didn't want it to be on them. They wanted it to be on the United States. So that's why they sent them to Germany first. Well, I go to the point that Germany's a NATO country, sent them to a non-NATO country, sent them to Argentina, sent them to Venezuela. I agree with you, and I think that's a great idea. And I don't understand why they can't get creative, like you said, to get those planes to these guys. But I know that for what they're saying anyway, and what's being put out there, is that these are defensive weapons, and those, the no-fly zone or the jets would be a defense, I mean, an offensive. So they don't want to do anything that's offensive, just defensive, which I don't quite understand. Where are the... When I hear, and I'm not picking on you, Cynthia, but it seems that the United States has allowed Putin to define the playing field, to define what is offensive, what is defensive, what's allowable, what's going to prompt him into a nuclear warning and it's saber-rattling. If you're a jet and you're bombing over a sovereign country, civilian targets, putting a jet up in the air is not offensive. It's defensive. Yeah, it has offensive capability. If it goes into Russian airspace and bomb Russian civilian targets, but to take a jet out of the air with your own jet, to stop them from indiscriminately killing, I'm not sure that's offensive. Well, you know, I agree with you, Tim, completely. And I think that those migs should have already been there. That it's like ridiculous that... Okay, that's what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to figure out who thinks that the migs is inappropriate, appropriate. Who thinks the fly zone is appropriate or inappropriate? I got you on record. We don't get to tell them what to do or what to think, unfortunately. And so I'm just kind of saying what they think. I agree with you, Tim, completely. And let me finish this list because we got some more stuff on here. All right. 100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns. Over 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition. Grenade launchers and mortar rounds, 25,000 sets of body armor and 25,000 helmets. Okay, here's the question. Is that enough? I don't think so. And also my question is, why the heck did it take us so long to be doing this? Why wasn't this stuff already on the ground in Ukraine? How long has he been there? What, 19 days, I think? So what's taken us so long? We did the approval. I wish I knew what day it was, though. We really don't know what's been delivered and not delivered. I mean, I don't think the news, there's a blackout on what exactly, where they're getting it and what they're getting. And I think it's appropriate that the news not know what they're getting and where they're getting it. Right. My biggest thing that I wonder why we're not doing it, maybe we are because it would have to be covert. But why don't, all those independent actors that were working in Afghanistan and all those soldiers for fortune guys, right? Why can't they go up, go out there, dress like Ukrainians and fight? Why can't we sneak people in there, dress them up like Ukrainians so they got more soldiers? I can't we do... Believe it or not, you're not gonna like this answer. It's against the Geneva Convention. Okay. For warfare. Well, okay, we can't do that then. Well, you know, I mean, believe it or not, and as horrid as the idea is, there are rules of warfare. Right. And all civilized countries allegedly adhere to the Geneva Convention. Allegedly. That's many, many decades ago. We already know that Putin is not keeping those Geneva Convention tenants. He's not doing any of that. I agree. That's why he's been labeled and defined as a war criminal. Absolutely. Okay, thank you, Cynthia. JTU, we're giving quite a bit of military aid, maybe not enough. What's the next step if Putin uses a chemical or biological weapon? Oh, fighter planes for sure. Okay. To me, that's the red line. I don't know if Joe Biden feels the same way, but when he steps it up to weapons of mass destruction, it's time to really get serious. And we should not allow one day to go by without bringing in fighter planes, including our own. That's so outrageous and so in violation of all the norms and all the conventions that he cannot be permitted to tolerate that. We cannot tolerate that. And as I said before, he's a murderer. He's a mass murderer. He gets off on slaughtering people by the thousands. We cannot let him do that. It's a moral question. You've heard the conversation with all the paneling, or the panel guests here. What's your reaction thus far? I hate to say it, but we sound like a bunch of armchair generals. Not just us, but all the cable news networks, they don't know, we don't know. I mean, I got an email from a retired Air Force officer mechanic a few days ago. And he said, you know, sending migs into Ukraine may not be the greatest thing because everybody assumes there's a lot of mig pilots in Ukraine, I'm not sure that's true. And they don't have ammunition. And what about fuel? And what about repair and maintenance? It's a pie in the sky kind of dream. It may not work. And have we thought, have we thought of the details? Not clear. So all of this is, and yes, it is provocative for sure. So that's really what drives me to say, let's do other things. Let's do those Patriot missiles. That's what I was trying to remember before. Patriot missiles, they're more powerful than stingers or javelins. And we only give the Ukrainians plenty of that. And as Cynthia said, drones are a good idea. But I would add to Cynthia's comments that drones can very easily be offensive weapons. They can act as spotters for artillery and for stingers and javelins and the like. And they can also be weapons. They can be loaded with explosives and fall down on a tank. There was something in the newspaper about this. What I'm saying though, is that we're not qualified. We're not qualified to say if it's too little, too much, what it is, what more should be. I'm satisfied that he's doing and spending what he needs to do and spend right now. And it's a fair approach. Let me go to you. We'll get Jay back here in a minute. Do you think the United States is doing an adequate job in this conflict? I know your position is to deescalate by cut back on military assistance. Other than military assistance, what can the United States do to aid the Ukrainians? Well, I think there needs to be a serious effort to go back to the bargaining table, including with the Ukrainian president and Putin and the US to try to resolve this in a way that doesn't just kill and escalate. OK, let me go there. What if Putin doesn't care about negotiations? He just shows up for the show and he continues to aggressively push forward. Then what? I guess you won't know unless you try, because calling him about what he's doing while they're at the negotiation table sees fires as a broken daily. And he continues to push forward while he's negotiating. What then? Because that's what's happening now. I think telling him a war criminal is a way to get him to the bargaining table. And I think the Biden's use of language against Putin all along, if he was seriously interested in resolving it diplomatically, has been atrocious. He started at the very beginning. I couldn't believe the things he would say about Russia if he seriously wanted to negotiate with them. I mean, you try to start at a neutral point with a competitor. You don't attack them and call them in. Yeah, that was the question I was trying to, I was asking Cynthia whether it was appropriate or not and was that a bridge too far? Why is that really inappropriate if his goal is to get to the bargaining table? If his goal is just to continue military operations following the Wolfowitz doctrine and dominate, then perfect thing to do. OK, thank you. Cynthia, same question. Well, I don't agree with Karen as far as the talks go. Negotiations don't mean anything if you're negotiating with somebody who is a known liar. And so I don't think that negotiations are working. I think that they're just a show and a distraction for what's really happening. The thing that I am the most worried about is here in America, what's going to happen if he starts using nuclear weapons? So are we ready for that? I don't hear any talk about getting us ready just in case because there's a big just in case sort of hanging out there. But I'm going to use Vladimir Zelensky's words instead of mine as far as what more could be done. This is what he said. Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not just our cities. It went on an offensive on our values, basic human values. It threw tanks and planes against our freedom, our right to live freely in our own country, choosing our own future. Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. And he says, and he makes a great example. This is all from his speech this morning. He says that he makes this explicit connection to the attacks on the United States at Pearl Harbor and 9-11. And he says, our country is experiencing those things every single day, which I thought was a really important point. So these are things that changed our world forever. And they only happened one time. These are happening every day to him, which I thought was really important. But he says, so he showed a video that shows the destruction of the cities. And anybody who saw it had to be crying. I was weeping. It was so powerful to see the visions, I mean, the visuals of what his country looked like before and what it looks like now. And it was just striking. And then he says it would bring, OK, Zalinsky noted that he's almost 44, 45 years old, but added, this is important. My age stopped when the heart of more than 100 children stopped beating. I see no sense in life if it cannot stop deaths. And he was referring to the children's hospital that got bombs that killed 100 children. All right. Thank you, Cynthia. Do anything and everything, that's my answer. Anything that we can do, we should do it now. We should have done it yesterday. OK, good. We've run out of time, so I'm going to go around the table for last comments or last thoughts. Jay, with you. It's sticking in my throat, Tim. I think Karen must be reading a different set of journals than I've been reading, because what I've been reading is universal over and over again, article after article after article for The Times and The Post, movie after movie, documentary after documentary, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and of course, Foreign Affairs. And what I get is he's a psychopath. Can I say that three times? Psychopath, psychopath, psychopath, who likes to murder people as part of his MO and negotiating with a man like that is banging your head on a wall. We've already tried. I wouldn't try for one second more. And as Cynthia says, it's no more, no less than a distraction and a waste of time. And really, Karen, I think I'd like to send you some sources. Maybe you should look at the sources. I've read a lot of academic journals about this. And most of them, if you read the academic journals, they support what I'm saying. OK. I'd like to have a conversation with you offline, but right now it really sticks in my throat. Here's the good news. What now, America, is not a spoon-fed show. We don't necessarily need agreement. I don't want agreement. And I like the fact that Jay disagrees with you, Karen. And Karen, you may disagree with Jay. That's what this show is all about. Whatever you claim, bring evidence to the table. That's good. Thank you, Jay. No, I'm not finished. I want to say what I said at the beginning. We are involved in a much larger issue than just the slaughter of people in Ukraine. We are involved in the future of Europe, not only Ukraine, but Europe and the world, great powers of the world, the powers of the world, the morality of the world. And to the point that Cynthia made a little while ago is that the American people have to understand that. They're only an inch away. They're an inch away in terms of Russia's cyber attacks, its weapons against us, its influence, its effect on the global economy. We can't take this lightly. And that's why I'm a lot further into finding a way to stop him one way or the other. He's got to be stopped. We cannot, we as human beings on the planet, we cannot sit around and watch commercials on TV while he is destroying the people in a country by the thousands every day. This is not acceptable. We cannot tolerate it. Thank you, Jay. Karen, either a response or your last thoughts. Well, one factor I want to consider is just the price that we may have to pay the blowback of these sanctions on us as Americans because we're already seeing it at the tank, the rising gas prices. We're going to see increasing inflation. Some say that we're going to start seeing the conditions similar to what they were before World War I, where Western Europe gets a lot of its gas and oil from Ukraine and Russia. So what will be the long-term effects on them? What will be the long-term effects of a lot of minerals they get from Russia for making computers and other things? So I think there is some blowback we need to think about. And also, do our sanctions affect the right people? Are they affecting the populace or just the ruling elite in Russia? Because hurting the populace, just like we did in Afghanistan, is not really where we basically put them in a famine situation. It's not really, to me, a good tactic, really. Thank you, Karen. Cynthia, you get the last word for the show today. Cool. First off, I think it's important to realize and know that right-wing media is still pushing Russian talking points. OAN and even Fox News has sort of backed off a little bit. But Newsmax and OAN are still completely spouting Russian talking points. And we have to remember too that China also was spouting the Russian talking points about the chemical weapons being made by America and Ukrainians in Ukraine. This is just a lie and a ruse for him to be able to start using his own chemical weapons, which are considerable. They said they got rid of them. But we have a scientist that came to our country that I want to say evacuated, but that's not the right word. But anyway, he came and he told us. In 1996, he told us that there are still lots and lots of weapons, chemical weapons, that they have stockpiled that they did not get rid of. And they have one lab that's still making them. And we know because of the Novichok stuff that he used on Navalny and the other guy I can't remember the other guy's name. But anyway, so he still, I mean, that Navalny's poisoning was just in 2020. So he's still actively using chemical weapons. We are ready for that. We have somehow get all the stuff to the Ukrainians that they're going to need in the face of a chemical attack. We're helping them with all this military, anti-tank, what are they going to do when the chemicals hit? Okay, we're going to have to leave it there. I'm sorry, but we really are out of time. We're going to have to leave it there. Cynthia, thank you so much for your comments. Karen, Karen Buzzard, thank you for your comments. Jay Fidel, like it or not, we're in a proxy war. The United States once again finds itself in a proxy war. And there always will be sides in this country about whether our measure of force in that proxy war is adequate or not adequate. And I invite anyone who's viewing this show to write in and discuss their feelings, email us at thinktechhawaii.com. We'd like to hear your comments about this show and anything said on this show. And until then, join us next week on Wednesday at 11 o'clock for What Now America. I'm Tim Appichelle, your host, and we'll see you then. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.