# Is the U.S. Actually Going to Attack Venezuela? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

An episode of [The Team House](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1492797340), 27 Oct 2025, 1 h 05 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/clrtpod.com/m/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/68290427/eyes_on_venezuela_audio.mp3

In this episode of Eyes On Geopolitics, Dee, Andy, Mick, and Jack discuss the current geopolitical landscape, focusing on Venezuela's military situation, U.S. foreign policy, and the implications of military actions. They explore the complexities of regime change, the legal and ethical considerations of military engagement, and the public's perception of foreign interventions. The conversation also touches on the ongoing situation in Ukraine and Gaza, highlighting the challenges and strategies involved in these conflicts. Support the show on Patreon:⬇️ https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse Subscribe to our new newsletter!!!! https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/join New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️ https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.com Jack:⬇️ https://thehighside.substack.com/ Check out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQ Find Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️ https://fogbow.com/ Lobo Institute ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/ Twitter ⬇️ https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCA LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/ Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.social Mick’s publications ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/ Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️ https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8 LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023 Substack ⬇️ https://amilburn.substack.com/ Andy’s book ⬇️ https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operations Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.social Find Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?u Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social "Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio" 00:00 Start 00:57 Venezuela: Military Presence and Drug Trafficking 05:29 Regime Change: The Case for Action 08:31 The Complexity of U.S. Foreign Policy 10:40 Military Strategy and Covert Operations 12:13 Legal and Ethical Implications of Military Action 14:51 Economic Factors and U.S. Interests in Venezuela 16:53 The Role of Congress in Military Decisions 18:54 Public Perception of Military Engagements 20:31 The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy 23:43 Ukraine: Military Support and Strategy 56:38 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Ion Geopolitics. Today
[0:14] Speaker 1: we have Andy Millburn, Mick Moulroy, Jack Murphy, and myself.
[0:18] Speaker 1: A lot happening as usual. Kick things off first and foremost,
[0:23] Speaker 1: do us a favor. Its a little bit of house cleaning,
[0:25] Speaker 1: like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio,
[0:28] Speaker 1: give us five stars. Subscribe there too. That's important as well.
[0:31] Speaker 1: And if you want ad free episodes of both eyes
[0:34] Speaker 1: On and The Teamhouse from go to patreon dot com
[0:36] Speaker 1: slash a Teamhouse all these guys. If you want to
[0:40] Speaker 1: find out what Jack's working on, what Mick's working on,
[0:42] Speaker 1: what Andy's working on. The links are in the description
[0:45] Speaker 1: as well. Anything and everything you need to find is
[0:47] Speaker 1: in the link down in the description. Mick has a
[0:49] Speaker 1: new podcast called The Pub in the Porch Applied Stoicism.
[0:52] Speaker 1: It comes out every Monday. Link is in the description
[0:55] Speaker 1: there as well. Videos coming very soon. It's a great podcast.
[0:59] Speaker 1: Check it out. Please thank you all. Right now, the
[1:03] Speaker 1: shit show that is the World Venezuela. We have a
[1:07] Speaker 1: uss Gerald R. Ford steaming in Andy's favorite weapons system,
[1:12] Speaker 1: of course, the Carrier. Around fourteen percent of the Navy's
[1:16] Speaker 1: assets are in the Caribbean the most in decades. Continued
[1:22] Speaker 1: strikes going on on boats drug traffickers. This time it
[1:27] Speaker 1: wasn't just Venezuelan. They hit on the hit on the Pacific,
[1:30] Speaker 1: and they also hit Colombian drug traffickers as well. That
[1:34] Speaker 1: also kicked up a little bit of a firestorm between
[1:36] Speaker 1: Colombia's president and President Trump. Right now, let's just focus
[1:40] Speaker 1: on Venezuela. It looks more and more like we're ready
[1:43] Speaker 1: to go for it, or at least we're pushing for
[1:45] Speaker 1: a razine change where you guys at you guys, can
[1:48] Speaker 1: you know paper rock scissor to see who goes first?
[1:52] Speaker 1: Think you go first?
[1:52] Speaker 2: I paid okay, So some of the some of the
[1:54] Speaker 2: facts before we get into the analysis the drug issue.
[2:00] Speaker 2: There's more drugs that are produced in Peru, Colombia and Mexico,
[2:03] Speaker 2: especially fentanyl. I think Mexico's like ninety percent of fentanyl
[2:06] Speaker 2: production in Venezuela. I'm not saying that Venezuela doesn't produce
[2:10] Speaker 2: a lot of drugs. I'm just playing it out there.
[2:12] Speaker 2: Right you mentioned it. Fourteen percent of the naval assets
[2:18] Speaker 2: are now in the Caribbean. That's not necessary to interdict
[2:22] Speaker 2: drug boats. I think it's fair to say that is
[2:24] Speaker 2: either an intimidation factor for getting Maduro to potentially flee themselves,
[2:31] Speaker 2: maybe at Noriega type operation to go in and get him,
[2:37] Speaker 2: certainly not enough to occupy ven as well, or not
[2:39] Speaker 2: that there'd be any political will do that. They have
[2:43] Speaker 2: an amphibious group with a view that's not enough that
[2:48] Speaker 2: they could potentially see the port city or something like that.
[2:52] Speaker 2: The issues, of course, are is this about regime change?
[2:56] Speaker 2: Is this about stemming the flow of illegal narcotics? The
[3:01] Speaker 2: United States is killing America people both some of the
[3:05] Speaker 2: legal issues if we start doing strikes internal to Venezuela,
[3:12] Speaker 2: that's sovereign country that seems to violate several of the
[3:16] Speaker 2: international laws, including Article two of the UN Charter that
[3:20] Speaker 2: craded the UN. The United States is going to say,
[3:23] Speaker 2: at least, if you're talking international law, are fifty one,
[3:26] Speaker 2: which is a heer right of self defense up a country,
[3:30] Speaker 2: but it has to be to oppose an armed attack
[3:34] Speaker 2: or an imminent threat. Right, So the White House is
[3:39] Speaker 2: going to say, yeah, that one eminet threat. They bring drugs,
[3:41] Speaker 2: people take drugs, people die. It's up to you, guys,
[3:46] Speaker 2: everybody to determine whether that would lead to the definition
[3:49] Speaker 2: of anent threat. You know, a drug boat that's off
[3:53] Speaker 2: the coast of Venezuela. It's about one three hundred miles
[3:56] Speaker 2: from the United States, to take about twenty refueling of
[4:01] Speaker 2: those type of boats to get the United States. And then,
[4:05] Speaker 2: of course, with all this major military activity, including B
[4:10] Speaker 2: one bombers flying around the outskirts of Venezuela, we have
[4:15] Speaker 2: the president acknowledging and a rare event, the President acknowledging
[4:22] Speaker 2: that he's authorized cover actions, not just intelligence collection and
[4:25] Speaker 2: support military operations. But he doesn't have the authorized The
[4:28] Speaker 2: CIA does it all the time, but actually to take
[4:31] Speaker 2: some form of action. We don't know what it is
[4:33] Speaker 2: because we don't know the finding. But that finding could
[4:36] Speaker 2: be lethal, it could be influence, it could be be
[4:39] Speaker 2: whatever the President essentially wrote it to be. And that's
[4:43] Speaker 2: all going on at the same time as this major
[4:45] Speaker 2: military build up. So I guess I'll stop there, but
[4:49] Speaker 2: hopefully that kind of later. Oh. Then the last two
[4:52] Speaker 2: parts internal to the United States to use the military.
[4:57] Speaker 2: Then then you have the War Power SID. It's the
[5:00] Speaker 2: War Powers Act, although no president has acknowledged its constitutionality,
[5:04] Speaker 2: says that if the president uses the military. They have
[5:07] Speaker 2: sixty days to do so before either Congress declares a
[5:13] Speaker 2: war or he has to withdraw. He has three days
[5:16] Speaker 2: to do so, So we're gonna hit that clock here
[5:20] Speaker 2: and then hopefully I don't know why it's taken this long.
[5:23] Speaker 2: The Supreme courts actually can decide whether that act it's constitutional.
[5:28] Speaker 2: Congress says one, we're the ones that declare war. President
[5:32] Speaker 2: is the commander in chief have to we declare, But
[5:34] Speaker 2: that's never been resolved. So I think that kind of
[5:37] Speaker 2: lays up a lot of the issues.
[5:38] Speaker 1: Boys.
[5:40] Speaker 3: Andy, Yeah, you know, I was waiting for Jack the
[5:44] Speaker 3: Visiting Star to jump in, but Jack is a very
[5:47] Speaker 3: circumspect on these things and waits for us to talk
[5:50] Speaker 3: and then tears us up. I will, you know what,
[5:55] Speaker 3: I'm kind of getting the same feeling that I didn't
[5:59] Speaker 3: get should have had before our road to war in
[6:03] Speaker 3: Iraq right where, although I mean in retrospective, of course,
[6:09] Speaker 3: that was a dreadful disaster at the time because we
[6:12] Speaker 3: were still in posting ninet eleven Shark, it seemed like
[6:16] Speaker 3: a lot of the arguments were rational, but nevertheless it
[6:20] Speaker 3: was kind of the same shoehorning of intelligence and public
[6:25] Speaker 3: statements into a you know, one particular country, as it
[6:30] Speaker 3: turns out that that was largely irrelevant in the war
[6:34] Speaker 3: on terror, and in this case, as Mech points out, Venezuela,
[6:38] Speaker 3: I won't say that country's irrelevant, but it's certainly not
[6:42] Speaker 3: the main actor as far as propagation of the drug trade.
[6:46] Speaker 3: You know through in the United States, we've talked about this.
[6:49] Speaker 3: You know, if you want to go to the origins fentanyl,
[6:52] Speaker 3: of course you have to go to China. And if
[6:53] Speaker 3: you want to go to midway points for drugs across
[6:58] Speaker 3: the spectrum from bent to north through cocaine, then you
[7:04] Speaker 3: go to other countries such as Colombia and even in Mexico,
[7:08] Speaker 3: but not Venezuela. So it's it's it's curious. And then
[7:18] Speaker 3: you have the South Calm commander resigning, and you know,
[7:25] Speaker 3: I've written about under what circumstances should you resign or
[7:29] Speaker 3: refuse to obey orders, et cetera, et cetera. And so
[7:32] Speaker 3: I was hoping for some kind of public statement afterwards
[7:37] Speaker 3: to to explain why why that had happened, because I
[7:42] Speaker 3: would assume that within the US military there are those
[7:47] Speaker 3: who don't think this is a particularly good idea who
[7:49] Speaker 3: regard who regard you know, other countries as provide as
[7:55] Speaker 3: posing a greater threat to US national interests. The last,
[8:00] Speaker 3: the last thing I'll say is, you know, the administration's
[8:04] Speaker 3: policy during the campaign and repeated often since then, is hey,
[8:11] Speaker 3: no more foreign wars, right, And I suppose they mean
[8:15] Speaker 3: they just meant no more foreign wars in the relist
[8:18] Speaker 3: or no more foreign wars and the defense of NATO,
[8:24] Speaker 3: but nearer the homeland. It seems as though perhaps we
[8:29] Speaker 3: have a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bottom
[8:32] Speaker 3: line is Venezuela has not It's certainly not an existential
[8:38] Speaker 3: the United States.
[8:39] Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, I think that you know, like Mick said
[8:43] Speaker 4: early on that you know, what's the goal here?
[8:46] Speaker 5: Is it counter narcotics?
[8:48] Speaker 4: Is it regime change against the dictatorship or a communist
[8:51] Speaker 4: regime that we don't particularly like. I'm like, what are
[8:54] Speaker 4: we trying to accomplish? And like what is the actual
[8:57] Speaker 4: threat to the United States? But I think like the
[9:00] Speaker 4: questions are almost like asking too much at this point,
[9:03] Speaker 4: because the foreign policy is just so incoherent and it
[9:07] Speaker 4: doesn't make any sense. And at the end of the day,
[9:11] Speaker 4: I mean, I'm just going to editorialize.
[9:13] Speaker 5: I mean, is it really.
[9:14] Speaker 4: About Venezuela or is it about the Epstein files, Like
[9:18] Speaker 4: what's going on here?
[9:20] Speaker 5: Why are we doing this?
[9:22] Speaker 4: And you know, but it is a serious military build
[9:26] Speaker 4: up that's happening down there. Jaysak is doing exercises right
[9:29] Speaker 4: off the coast around some of these oil platforms, and
[9:32] Speaker 4: those exercises could be flipped live at any time. I'm
[9:37] Speaker 4: sure that they deployed with an actual combat package and
[9:40] Speaker 4: live ammunition for something like that. Something similar happened. This
[9:47] Speaker 4: is kind of a bit of a segue, but in
[9:52] Speaker 4: two thousand and four, Jaysak did a big training exercise
[9:56] Speaker 4: in Thailand and that was a to be able to
[10:01] Speaker 4: be flipped live to go after al Qaeda high value target.
[10:05] Speaker 4: I believe the guy's name was Humbali. He was a
[10:08] Speaker 4: pretty high level AQ guy at the time. And actually
[10:11] Speaker 4: the CIA liaison went and picked the guy up and
[10:14] Speaker 4: they got him that way, so they didn't need to
[10:15] Speaker 4: do some big heroic jasock raid. But the point is
[10:18] Speaker 4: there were like rangers with live ammunition sitting next to
[10:21] Speaker 4: the helicopters, like ready to roll for that.
[10:23] Speaker 5: If it was needed.
[10:26] Speaker 4: And then of course the aircraft carrier is you know,
[10:30] Speaker 4: is you know, depending on what argument you want to make,
[10:33] Speaker 4: it's either a deterrent or it's a massive provocation. I
[10:36] Speaker 4: I don't know which you you would think, Yeah, so
[10:41] Speaker 4: I have all sorts of questions of you know, just
[10:44] Speaker 4: sanity tests, like what are we doing here?
[10:49] Speaker 2: Yeah, and if that's if it is a case like
[10:52] Speaker 2: Noriega type effort. You know, obviously the CIA is going
[10:56] Speaker 2: to be and we're not trying to just kill them
[10:58] Speaker 2: because it's easier to kill them somebody to capture them.
[11:00] Speaker 2: So everybody knows all this, but if it is to
[11:03] Speaker 2: capture them, to put them on trial, just like Noriega,
[11:08] Speaker 2: essentially then having Jasauc do these it's almost like conditioning
[11:15] Speaker 2: type runs where they get used to seeing it. It's
[11:18] Speaker 2: a training exercise, as Jack said, and then one day
[11:21] Speaker 2: they know where they know where he is, and he's
[11:24] Speaker 2: in the best position. It looks like a training again exercise,
[11:27] Speaker 2: and all of a sudden, it's not right, that's pretty risky.
[11:31] Speaker 2: I mean moving you know, obviously the most elite force
[11:35] Speaker 2: in the world, but everybody's vulnerable, especially during the movement too,
[11:40] Speaker 2: right there is I mean Maduro he's even openly talking
[11:44] Speaker 2: about it. I was spreading surface to air missile systems
[11:47] Speaker 2: all over the country, and so I mean, you're gonna
[11:51] Speaker 2: have shit being shot at you from every direction as
[11:53] Speaker 2: you come in. So it's super risky. Even with the
[11:55] Speaker 2: amount of firepower we have, we certainly won't want to
[11:58] Speaker 2: see anything like that happened. So it's a it's a
[12:03] Speaker 2: big decision. And I think you all said, like, we
[12:06] Speaker 2: haven't actually made the case to the American people of
[12:09] Speaker 2: why that would be worth the risk, you know, Nor
[12:12] Speaker 2: do I think Listen, I'm wrong, wrong. I don't think
[12:15] Speaker 2: the guy's indicted in the United States. Is Maduro even died?
[12:18] Speaker 2: I mean, why wouldn't you take those initial steps, right if,
[12:24] Speaker 2: as we did, in some legitimacy of action toward you know, apprehending.
[12:31] Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm trying to remember in just cause we indicted Noriega, right,
[12:37] Speaker 3: and I mean there's there's some parallels, I suppose, right,
[12:43] Speaker 3: but the but but the level of provocation coming from
[12:48] Speaker 3: arguably you know. I mean, I'm just saying just cause
[12:50] Speaker 3: was a piggy a good idea, but the level of
[12:52] Speaker 3: provocation of the time.
[12:53] Speaker 2: So let me correct myself. He is indicted in the
[12:56] Speaker 2: United States, So uh, yeah, so that's important. That's an
[13:02] Speaker 2: important point at it since twenty so.
[13:07] Speaker 1: They also and they also bumped the reward to fifty mili,
[13:11] Speaker 1: which I don't know.
[13:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's their trump that's at least justification potentially
[13:16] Speaker 2: for military action.
[13:18] Speaker 1: Japman. What's interesting to me about the whole thing is, like,
[13:23] Speaker 1: because the Maduro government signaled that they're willing to cut
[13:28] Speaker 1: ties and contracts with China and Russia and you know,
[13:33] Speaker 1: do deals with US, and you would think with this
[13:36] Speaker 1: administration they'd be more open to you know, they see
[13:39] Speaker 1: dollar signs and that seems to be something that makes
[13:42] Speaker 1: them more makes a move a little bit. And since
[13:47] Speaker 1: that's been floated out there, it's been it's been said
[13:50] Speaker 1: that like the US has said no to you know that,
[13:54] Speaker 1: and like the whole I remember leading up to, like
[13:56] Speaker 1: Evenezuela has always been bad news. And like we've always
[13:58] Speaker 1: heard that China has its claws in there and Russia
[14:01] Speaker 1: has its claws in there, and wouldn't it make sense
[14:04] Speaker 1: to like if they if they decoupled with those countries,
[14:09] Speaker 1: And right, that's what I'm saying. Right, he said he
[14:14] Speaker 1: offered everything to the United States, but he wanted to
[14:17] Speaker 1: stay in power.
[14:18] Speaker 2: And maybe the maybe they hope that he just flees
[14:21] Speaker 2: the country and goes to Cuba or something. Maybe that's
[14:24] Speaker 2: part of the the kind of like the terrents or
[14:28] Speaker 2: provocation putting this much firepower in there.
[14:31] Speaker 5: You go play Xbox with Bashiro al Assad in Moscow.
[14:36] Speaker 1: Yeah, go have high soup tester.
[14:42] Speaker 5: That beout.
[14:43] Speaker 2: It used to be one of the wealthiest countries in
[14:46] Speaker 2: Latin America and it has three hundred billion barrels of
[14:49] Speaker 2: proven oil reserves. It's like worth fourteen trillion dollars I
[14:52] Speaker 2: think are read and yet they have seven million people
[14:55] Speaker 2: fleeing the country because they it's it's a collapsed economy, right,
[15:00] Speaker 2: it's it's it's if you if you really want to
[15:02] Speaker 2: see socialism and it's pure form, there you go. It's
[15:07] Speaker 2: not working too well. So keep that in mind. Not
[15:10] Speaker 2: that we're talking politics here, but uh, there's a reason
[15:14] Speaker 2: that the country who should be doing very well and
[15:17] Speaker 2: is incredible, but it's it's got more proven older reserves
[15:19] Speaker 2: in Saudi Arabia. Think about, and yet it's economy is
[15:24] Speaker 2: essentially collapsed.
[15:27] Speaker 1: I was gonna say something mean, but I'm not going
[15:28] Speaker 1: to do it not to I mean, I guess Saudi
[15:31] Speaker 1: Arabia is the dictators we do like, sorry, Andy.
[15:39] Speaker 2: Don't say anything, Andy, Yeah, yeah, keep.
[15:41] Speaker 1: Your mouth shut. Sorry. Also, there isn't there is an
[15:49] Speaker 1: argument to like where you could say, because of all
[15:52] Speaker 1: the sanctions over the years and stuff like that, that's why, uh,
[15:56] Speaker 1: they weren't allowed to be in the world economy like
[15:58] Speaker 1: any other country or most other countries. Is why their
[16:03] Speaker 1: economy is trash. There's an argument there. I'm not saying
[16:05] Speaker 1: it's total, you know, black and white like that obviously,
[16:07] Speaker 1: and then Maduro is not a good guy. Neither was
[16:09] Speaker 1: Higo Shabaz, So right.
[16:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, it's connected, right, Like if we weren't charged, then
[16:15] Speaker 2: they would be. Yeah, and maybe that's part of the
[16:21] Speaker 2: I mean, they probably should spend more time talking about
[16:23] Speaker 2: that if that's the intent, talking about how well Venezuela
[16:26] Speaker 2: could be doing if it had a legitimately elected Machado
[16:33] Speaker 2: essentially was going to win, so he declared that she
[16:36] Speaker 2: was ineligible to run. You know, that's that's like the
[16:38] Speaker 2: oldest you know, autocratic trick in the in the deck.
[16:44] Speaker 2: And then she picked somebody to run, who most international
[16:47] Speaker 2: watchers or polls believe won seventy percent of the vote,
[16:51] Speaker 2: and then you know, maduall just declared himself the victor,
[16:54] Speaker 2: and that's that's where we are now. So he's completely illegitimate.
[16:59] Speaker 2: And yeah, I think the US, if it is a
[17:06] Speaker 2: regime change, ought to just be really open about it.
[17:09] Speaker 2: And there's a lot of reasons why that would be
[17:10] Speaker 2: not only beneficial for the United States because of the
[17:13] Speaker 2: flow of legal immigrants coming from Venezuela, but also the
[17:16] Speaker 2: people of Venezuela. I mean, why not just make the case.
[17:19] Speaker 2: You don't need to do it co.
[17:20] Speaker 3: Early what the US Poles say, you know, surprisingly enough,
[17:28] Speaker 3: I mean just couse supposedly was supported by eighty percent
[17:31] Speaker 3: of US population. There was a catalyst, right, I mean,
[17:39] Speaker 3: it was the killing of an off duty marine, but
[17:43] Speaker 3: clear the US was prepared to do it beforehand.
[17:47] Speaker 5: And you know, I'm just I'm wonder I doubt it.
[17:52] Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I'm sorry to be a skeptic.
[17:56] Speaker 3: To agree with you. Yeah, I mean, and because my
[18:02] Speaker 3: point is this that I think the appetite of US
[18:05] Speaker 3: public for foreign adventures, even those on our doorstep, is
[18:10] Speaker 3: pretty low, and I think I would have thought that
[18:13] Speaker 3: would be a significant obstacle to a decision by not
[18:17] Speaker 3: any legal obstacles, but certainly that.
[18:22] Speaker 4: I think it's pretty incredible how inoculated the American public
[18:26] Speaker 4: has become to the point that they don't really see
[18:29] Speaker 4: air strikes or special operations as being war. And we've
[18:33] Speaker 4: seen that with these strikes in the boats in the
[18:36] Speaker 4: Caribbean and now the Pacific. I mean, there are people
[18:40] Speaker 4: raising concerns about the legalities of it, of course, particularly
[18:43] Speaker 4: people like in our circles, but like John Q, public
[18:46] Speaker 4: doesn't really seem particularly bothered by these types of strikes,
[18:51] Speaker 4: and I think that unless you have marines coming home
[18:54] Speaker 4: in body bags, I don't think the American public's really
[18:56] Speaker 4: going to raise too big an eyebrow about it. It's
[18:59] Speaker 4: just something we've been condition to accept for you know,
[19:02] Speaker 4: decades now.
[19:04] Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's the the idea I think to your point,
[19:07] Speaker 2: I mean, we saw this for twenty years and still
[19:09] Speaker 2: see it with strikes you know, in Syria and stuff
[19:12] Speaker 2: with the military just doing what they do based on
[19:15] Speaker 2: AOMF that was you know, decades ago.
[19:18] Speaker 1: Right.
[19:19] Speaker 2: Al Kai affiliates now we declare another group that does
[19:22] Speaker 2: obviously obviously not support of narco terrorists, but they don't
[19:26] Speaker 2: have anything to do with Al kaya, right, So now
[19:28] Speaker 2: we just declare them a foreign terrorist organization, and I
[19:31] Speaker 2: think the public just says, okay, well, I guess we
[19:33] Speaker 2: do the same thing. It's not but there's no there's
[19:36] Speaker 2: no au M a u M equivalent for military action
[19:41] Speaker 2: against you know, narco terrorists. So I guess the question
[19:46] Speaker 2: would be whether you're support it or not. I mean,
[19:49] Speaker 2: the system is supposed to have Congress give and continuous operations,
[19:55] Speaker 2: lethal operations give the military authority to do so. If not,
[20:00] Speaker 2: then what's the authority? And I think that's the legal question.
[20:03] Speaker 2: Even if all these people are you know, smuggling drugs
[20:08] Speaker 2: that are getting killed, and I would assume that the
[20:10] Speaker 2: targeters are not presenting targets that aren't valid. But even
[20:15] Speaker 2: if it's if we're presuming they are, which is fine,
[20:17] Speaker 2: Like doesn't executive branch needs some authority from Congress to
[20:23] Speaker 2: continue this, you know, or if not it they can just.
[20:26] Speaker 1: Do it.
[20:29] Speaker 2: In perpetuity. We could strike every boat that we think
[20:32] Speaker 2: is carrying drugs going north.
[20:36] Speaker 3: I am so a couple of points in that I agree.
[20:40] Speaker 3: I think Jack brought up in the legalities Congress's role
[20:46] Speaker 3: both in authorizing military force, the you know the War
[20:54] Speaker 3: Powers Act, all these things. I think the American public
[20:57] Speaker 3: just doesn't understand. Uh. They it's one thing, not understanding
[21:01] Speaker 3: the the you know, the path that got us to
[21:06] Speaker 3: where we are now, with the War Powers Act, with
[21:08] Speaker 3: the AOMF. But they don't understand in principle, the role
[21:13] Speaker 3: that Congress should be playing as a check on the
[21:16] Speaker 3: executive right when it comes to too foreign policy. And
[21:21] Speaker 3: I'm not sure they even care, you know, I think
[21:24] Speaker 3: there's a lot of Americans who are just here the
[21:27] Speaker 3: bad guys getting killed, and you guys are i mean
[21:30] Speaker 3: make your points absolutely well, taking strikes overseas whatever, whether
[21:35] Speaker 3: it's Afghanistan or whether it's against drug boats. They don't
[21:38] Speaker 3: they don't understand that that there's good reasons why we
[21:43] Speaker 3: adhere to these legal niceties both domestically and internationally. I mean,
[21:49] Speaker 3: they're you know, they represent norms, right. And the concern,
[21:57] Speaker 3: of course, you know we talked about it here on
[21:59] Speaker 3: the show before, is if we if we're going if
[22:03] Speaker 3: we think that lethal force is okay to exercise automatically
[22:09] Speaker 3: without any kind of approval against people who are violating
[22:12] Speaker 3: US law overseas or intending to violate US law overseas.
[22:18] Speaker 3: Then legally and ethically, we've opened the door for any
[22:22] Speaker 3: country that wants to take out their own citizens in
[22:24] Speaker 3: the United States, or anyone in the United States who
[22:28] Speaker 3: was violating the laws of their country. You know, think
[22:31] Speaker 3: about think about what India did and supposedly did in
[22:34] Speaker 3: Canada against SEAK activists, and everyone made such a big
[22:38] Speaker 3: deal of that, although no one really cares about what
[22:40] Speaker 3: the Canadians you know, think, and of course they are
[22:44] Speaker 3: our enemy now anyway. But you know, I mean, my
[22:46] Speaker 3: point is, my point is a I think it's a
[22:49] Speaker 3: serious one. It's the same thing when we talk about
[22:53] Speaker 3: killing killing people with drones in another sovereign country without
[22:57] Speaker 3: that without the government of that country agreeing, we we
[23:00] Speaker 3: are implicitly opening our doors or ourselves to other foreign
[23:05] Speaker 3: powers doing the same. And so I the and the
[23:11] Speaker 3: last thing I'll say is, I'm not even sure Congress understands,
[23:16] Speaker 3: all right. I mean, you you expect the Senior Chamber,
[23:20] Speaker 3: the Senate there to be greater concern, but I but certainly,
[23:26] Speaker 3: you know, across the board, there's some dithering around, there's
[23:29] Speaker 3: some hey, I'm not sure this is exactly right. There
[23:31] Speaker 3: are discussions, but there isn't a coherent questioning, serious questioning
[23:39] Speaker 3: of of these of these acts, you know, I mean
[23:42] Speaker 3: another another drug boat gets struggle. We think it's a
[23:45] Speaker 3: drug boat. You know, who knows. I mean, there's more.
[23:49] Speaker 3: There's no serious opposition.
[23:53] Speaker 1: Yeah, and you would think there'd be a robust debate
[23:55] Speaker 1: going on in Congress.
[23:57] Speaker 3: One would hope.
[23:57] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[23:58] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[23:59] Speaker 2: I mean there's an overside committees, right for both armed
[24:02] Speaker 2: services and Intel. They should be able to see the
[24:04] Speaker 2: intel that they're using based the basis for the strikes, right,
[24:09] Speaker 2: so they should be able to make their own assessment
[24:10] Speaker 2: or whether they're accurate. And then they're supposed to have
[24:14] Speaker 2: an authority under the constitution. I mean ARCA one is Congress.
[24:18] Speaker 2: It's not presidency. So they if we're going to get
[24:22] Speaker 2: away and this isn't a political statement, if we're going
[24:24] Speaker 2: to get away from Congress having any play in the
[24:28] Speaker 2: use of the military and foreign conflicts, which one can
[24:32] Speaker 2: say this is, then it's simply like the unitarian executive
[24:37] Speaker 2: theory or whatever the folks that wanted basically a more
[24:43] Speaker 2: robust presidency. He doesn't even need to go there and
[24:48] Speaker 2: talk to them. That's not how the system was set
[24:51] Speaker 2: up under the constitution.
[24:53] Speaker 5: It's a balance.
[24:53] Speaker 4: That's the point that people have made in recent days
[24:57] Speaker 4: about you know what, the government shut down and this
[25:00] Speaker 4: guy who's a private donor giving one hundred and some
[25:03] Speaker 4: odd million dollars security mellon the administration. Yeah, is a
[25:07] Speaker 4: guy melon who's this like reclusive billionaire sort of air
[25:11] Speaker 4: to an empire of railroaders, I guess. But anyway, he
[25:15] Speaker 4: donates this money to keep the troops paid. It as
[25:19] Speaker 4: I understand that it comes out to like one hundred
[25:22] Speaker 4: dollars per troop, so it's not really paying their paychecks.
[25:26] Speaker 4: But nonetheless, the point being is that if the soldiers
[25:30] Speaker 4: are being paid our soldiers, American soldiers are being paid
[25:34] Speaker 4: with private funds, then do we really have a republic anymore?
[25:38] Speaker 5: Is that what this is? Or have we become something
[25:41] Speaker 5: else at that?
[25:45] Speaker 3: Yeah, it gets back to I know I'm sounding like
[25:51] Speaker 3: an old fogy, but what is being told in our schools,
[25:54] Speaker 3: you know what is being Ironically, immigrants who have to
[25:59] Speaker 3: go through the green card process and get citizenship have
[26:02] Speaker 3: a better understanding of the fundamentals off you know, the
[26:07] Speaker 3: what what us? What the institution has founded on, you know,
[26:11] Speaker 3: and and the fact that one of the founding Father's
[26:14] Speaker 3: biggest fears was an untrammeled executive, right, you know. I mean,
[26:18] Speaker 3: that's why that's why the US system was supposed to
[26:22] Speaker 3: be so messy, because they didn't want a king. You know,
[26:25] Speaker 3: I don't I don't mean to go down that road again,
[26:27] Speaker 3: you know, but but it intentionally. But then I think
[26:32] Speaker 3: we've probably in the last you'd have to go back
[26:36] Speaker 3: to this, to Vietnam and the seventies really to look
[26:41] Speaker 3: for a serious debate right within government about the role
[26:46] Speaker 3: of Congress and foreign policy. I mean, the war powers
[26:49] Speaker 3: act arose in the aftermath of Vietnam because of Vietnam,
[26:55] Speaker 3: but even then, Congress, even even then, Congress many argued,
[26:59] Speaker 3: was slow to act. And that was when all Americans
[27:03] Speaker 3: had skin in the game because we had the draft.
[27:05] Speaker 3: But then we went through twenty years of wars in
[27:08] Speaker 3: Iraq and Afghanistan. We're only a tiny percentage of the
[27:10] Speaker 3: US population was paying the price. Congress certainly didn't provide
[27:16] Speaker 3: very for a number of reasons, didn't provide rigorous oversight
[27:23] Speaker 3: of those wars. And one of the reasons may have
[27:26] Speaker 3: just been after marth at ninety eleven. But one reason,
[27:28] Speaker 3: undoubtedly was they had no reason to do so because
[27:32] Speaker 3: their constituents were not They didn't have skin in the game.
[27:36] Speaker 3: You know, domestic policy was all important. What happened in
[27:39] Speaker 3: enough Afghanistan, in Iraq didn't even make the top fold
[27:43] Speaker 3: of the paper. And so I think everyone kind of
[27:46] Speaker 3: got used to this somnolent attitude of Congress to foreign policy.
[27:52] Speaker 3: And now you have certainly a group of our population
[27:58] Speaker 3: now who who seem all in on just increasingly strengthening
[28:03] Speaker 3: the powers of the executive. Uh and see any attempts
[28:07] Speaker 3: to restrain the powers of the executive as being close
[28:11] Speaker 3: to treason. You know, it's it's an extraordinary slate of affairs.
[28:15] Speaker 3: And I can only say that it's it does stem
[28:19] Speaker 3: from a huge collective national lack of education that help
[28:24] Speaker 3: what this nation was founded on.
[28:27] Speaker 1: I mean, I've done the citizens tests with my friends
[28:31] Speaker 1: who are American citizens, And you did them.
[28:33] Speaker 3: You did them for your friends, did you say it?
[28:35] Speaker 1: No? I used to do a podcast, like a comedy podcast,
[28:37] Speaker 1: and I thought it'd be funny to test my friend's
[28:39] Speaker 1: knowledge and like US history and stuff like that, and uh,
[28:42] Speaker 1: it was pretty bad. These are full grown adult men
[28:46] Speaker 1: citizens of the United States. They had no fucking idea
[28:48] Speaker 1: what was going on. So I think there's a there's
[28:53] Speaker 1: something there to that threat you just said about education.
[28:57] Speaker 3: Yeah, well you're not. I mean you're not far off.
[29:00] Speaker 3: You know your your father was the first generation imbornmant.
[29:02] Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, yeah, he came away from Greece all the.
[29:08] Speaker 2: So another aspect of this is the national defense strategy,
[29:11] Speaker 2: which hasn't came out yet, right, there's reportedly this shifts
[29:16] Speaker 2: from all traditional strategies in the past we focused on China,
[29:20] Speaker 2: Russia and North Korea Iran to both the western hemisphere,
[29:25] Speaker 2: which I think we can see playing out, and homeland defense,
[29:29] Speaker 2: which has got a lot of people raising their eyebrow
[29:32] Speaker 2: because we obviously up in North Calm, the US is
[29:36] Speaker 2: going to defend its it's homeland, of course, but to
[29:39] Speaker 2: have that as like the principle is a kind of
[29:44] Speaker 2: turned toward isolationism, right, that you're going to focus your
[29:48] Speaker 2: military efforts on homeland defense. Not again, not that that's
[29:53] Speaker 2: obviously something they're going to do, but withdrawing from the
[29:56] Speaker 2: world is what people are that oppose this, and this
[30:00] Speaker 2: is completely counter the first through administration, right, I mean,
[30:03] Speaker 2: it was part of that the national security strategy, the
[30:06] Speaker 2: defense strategy, and the military strategy. It all flows from
[30:09] Speaker 2: each other, but it's based on essentially the prioritization of
[30:13] Speaker 2: the White House and if if, if the priority now
[30:16] Speaker 2: is the Western hemisphere and our home rand, that's going
[30:22] Speaker 2: to be a shift from every president that I can
[30:26] Speaker 2: think of, at least in Martin. Yeah, yes, those are good,
[30:30] Speaker 2: good points. It's Windrow Wilson. But this this might be
[30:35] Speaker 2: the we're seeing the activity before we see the strategy,
[30:40] Speaker 2: is I guess my point. Yeah, we're seeing them focus
[30:43] Speaker 2: on the Western hemisphere.
[30:45] Speaker 1: So we're just gonna let China eat our launch. That's it.
[30:48] Speaker 1: That's the move. That's the national defense strategy.
[30:51] Speaker 2: It's a big concern with cutting foreign assistance around the
[30:54] Speaker 2: world and withdrawing because if if the military strategy right,
[30:57] Speaker 2: so that's when they that's when the rubber hits the road.
[31:00] Speaker 2: So the national spirity defense strategy is just what it
[31:03] Speaker 2: sounds like. It's more strategic. The military strategy EVNS is Okay,
[31:07] Speaker 2: you're saying that homeland defenses, so I don't need to
[31:10] Speaker 2: have this many of our forces in the Indo Pacific
[31:14] Speaker 2: or Europe all the other places that you've now set
[31:18] Speaker 2: as a lower priority. So if it was consistent with
[31:22] Speaker 2: the way strategy and implementation works, you would see a
[31:25] Speaker 2: shift of forces, I guess, back to the United States,
[31:28] Speaker 2: or at least in South Kobe.
[31:32] Speaker 4: It's interesting to see these articles that keep getting published
[31:35] Speaker 4: in The Atlantic or Foreign Affairs, which I unsubscribe to
[31:39] Speaker 4: actually this year because of kind of what I'm about
[31:41] Speaker 4: to say, publishing these articles about a new Pacific strategy,
[31:47] Speaker 4: a new American Grand strategy, and all this sort of stuff.
[31:50] Speaker 4: And it's these academics are kind of stuck in vapor
[31:53] Speaker 4: lock here and they just don't realize the current conditions
[31:57] Speaker 4: and the current world and country we live in right now,
[32:00] Speaker 4: that those things are relics of the past. They're dead now,
[32:03] Speaker 4: Like that's not a thing. Like like this country has
[32:07] Speaker 4: made it clear, I think at this point, like we're
[32:09] Speaker 4: putting that prior strategy aside and we're going to something else.
[32:16] Speaker 4: And I don't know if I want to put a
[32:18] Speaker 4: name on what it is we're going to just yet,
[32:20] Speaker 4: but you know, are you know sort of like foreign
[32:25] Speaker 4: policy experts and elites have not wrapped their mind around
[32:29] Speaker 4: this fact yet at all.
[32:30] Speaker 5: In my opinion, Yes.
[32:34] Speaker 2: And there's a lot in the administration who were very
[32:38] Speaker 2: consistent with the you know, the old way of thinking
[32:41] Speaker 2: and prioritizing. I mean, there's plenty of real chinah Hawks
[32:46] Speaker 2: in this administration, and I guess they're just being needed.
[32:50] Speaker 2: They've decided that they're no longer sahawks. Grubio, well, yeah,
[32:56] Speaker 2: I mean Rubio, at least in my experience, was a
[32:59] Speaker 2: pretty traditional.
[33:02] Speaker 1: Every time I see him on video, looks like a
[33:04] Speaker 1: hostage video, like he's just you know, what does he do? Mick,
[33:08] Speaker 1: you tell me you were in the NSC. What does
[33:10] Speaker 1: he do? I know he's a Secretary of State supposedly,
[33:13] Speaker 1: but Wick Golf and Derrick kuschen Sheet they've taken that job.
[33:17] Speaker 2: Well, I mean I would say this. I mean he's
[33:19] Speaker 2: also the National Security Advisor, which doesn't really work. I mean,
[33:22] Speaker 2: that's no slam on Rubio, but you can't really do
[33:25] Speaker 2: both jobs. I mean, Secretary of State jobs outside of
[33:27] Speaker 2: the country, right, the National Security Advisor is supposed to
[33:30] Speaker 2: be at the White House around the president at all times.
[33:32] Speaker 5: Right, That's so.
[33:33] Speaker 2: It just doesn't I know they've the Kissinger did it too,
[33:36] Speaker 2: but I just I just don't see how as a
[33:39] Speaker 2: practical way that would work. I think Rubio his voice
[33:44] Speaker 2: is good in the sense, at least from my perspective,
[33:46] Speaker 2: because he does have a long term experience and intelligence
[33:50] Speaker 2: for a policy and the military, at least from the
[33:52] Speaker 2: legislative side. And he has a more traditional view of
[33:56] Speaker 2: the world, which is not I mean, you can look
[33:58] Speaker 2: at the past statements he's at about us AID for example,
[34:03] Speaker 2: or why we need soft power. But you know, part
[34:07] Speaker 2: of taking the job is you're not the one ultimately
[34:11] Speaker 2: setting all the policy. So you know that's not we
[34:13] Speaker 2: had had to.
[34:15] Speaker 3: Decide Andy, Yeah, I mean I wonder who what's rhetoric question?
[34:25] Speaker 3: But I mean the power behind the throne, you know,
[34:28] Speaker 3: we did the It's really interesting if you look back
[34:34] Speaker 3: in the last twenty thirty actually you know, back to
[34:37] Speaker 3: the eighties, well, the seventies even next I mean nexton
[34:41] Speaker 3: this a great example. I mean, you know it's very
[34:43] Speaker 3: obvious the next and that Kissinger was the power behind
[34:45] Speaker 3: the throne, right, and we talk about the guys Secretary
[34:49] Speaker 3: of State and National Security advisor, you know, hay him
[34:53] Speaker 3: or worship him. Kissinger was a personality who could do that, right.
[34:58] Speaker 3: I mean, he had the grab a task, he had
[35:00] Speaker 3: the knowledge, he had ruthlessness. I mean, he knew how
[35:05] Speaker 3: to orchestrate power, and he knew how to make that work.
[35:09] Speaker 3: But my point is that a national security advisor is
[35:13] Speaker 3: a strange position, and it's unusual that Kissinger made Secretary
[35:16] Speaker 3: of statement being the position it was. Where I'm heading
[35:18] Speaker 3: on this, I'm not simply waffling. I'm just saying that
[35:21] Speaker 3: every president you know, has one or two guys who
[35:23] Speaker 3: had the real power behind the throne, right and they
[35:26] Speaker 3: and it's not it's not position dependent. In some cases
[35:29] Speaker 3: it's the White House Chief of Staff. In some cases
[35:31] Speaker 3: it's a national security advisor. In some cases it's been
[35:35] Speaker 3: the Secretary of Defense in in this in this particular administration,
[35:41] Speaker 3: you know, it could potentially be the vice president. But
[35:46] Speaker 3: it's it's hard to divine. Next to your point, the
[35:49] Speaker 3: fact that people who have the credentials and the background
[35:54] Speaker 3: in foreign policy are not the ones with the voice.
[35:57] Speaker 3: And I think that is that that's a little bit,
[36:00] Speaker 3: whether we call them China Hawks or not, the guys
[36:03] Speaker 3: who are China Hawks at least have some have some
[36:09] Speaker 3: track record right in dealing in dealing with these issues.
[36:14] Speaker 3: And a lot of these people came out of you know, Traditionally,
[36:16] Speaker 3: when they weren't in the administration, they were in a
[36:19] Speaker 3: think tank, whether it was a Republican or Democrats, So
[36:22] Speaker 3: they built out this this collective knowledge, and you just
[36:27] Speaker 3: don't see that in this administration. I think perhaps that
[36:30] Speaker 3: is why, Jack, to your point, you were seeing a
[36:32] Speaker 3: lot of these a lot of these I don't want
[36:37] Speaker 3: to say traditional, but the concept, the perspective of foreign
[36:43] Speaker 3: policy that has worked for the United States since nineteen
[36:47] Speaker 3: forty six being cast aside, and we don't know yet
[36:51] Speaker 3: what is there in its place. It seems right now, frankly,
[36:55] Speaker 3: to be incoherent, right Venezuela. Venezuela is a threat, there
[37:00] Speaker 3: is you know, Canada's potential enemy, Russia's off friend. We
[37:08] Speaker 3: seem to be all over the place.
[37:10] Speaker 4: To me, it seems like, you know, reading these pieces
[37:13] Speaker 4: and Foreign Affairs and so on. The way I take
[37:16] Speaker 4: it is that these experts are really in mourning for
[37:19] Speaker 4: the death of America's foreign policy, like they're going through
[37:22] Speaker 4: the stages of grief. There's like denihilism, there's coping mechanisms,
[37:26] Speaker 4: there's all these different things, and it's like, hey, guys,
[37:29] Speaker 4: I need you to skip right to the end where
[37:31] Speaker 4: you get to acceptance and understand what's really happening here
[37:35] Speaker 4: because time is going by, you know, history is taking
[37:38] Speaker 4: place very quickly these days.
[37:42] Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean think tanks and traditionally when your
[37:46] Speaker 2: side isn't in office, if you will, they go go
[37:51] Speaker 2: back to think tanks. Right, But you still want to
[37:53] Speaker 2: influence the policy, and that's been cut pretty substantially. And
[37:58] Speaker 2: I mean I'm in it's ephal but like the Defense Department,
[38:01] Speaker 2: I think still they're not allowed to engage with thinkings
[38:04] Speaker 2: at least at what works for a while, which is
[38:06] Speaker 2: very odd because that's always been advantageous to the Defense
[38:12] Speaker 2: Department to be able to talk to people who have
[38:16] Speaker 2: really detailed knowledge, like spend all day worrying about in
[38:20] Speaker 2: some cases specific sectors of foreign policy and have that.
[38:25] Speaker 2: It's kind of like CIA analysts in the sense that
[38:27] Speaker 2: they just they live it, breathe it, travel there and
[38:32] Speaker 2: they're just incredibly knowledgeable about it. And that's that's a
[38:36] Speaker 2: big advantage for the Defense. The last least I know
[38:41] Speaker 2: that they in addition to the cutnam media out, they
[38:45] Speaker 2: haven't been allowing active forces to have these engagements. Usually
[38:49] Speaker 2: there's fellows, like you go to a think tank. I
[38:52] Speaker 2: don't know, I don't know, I don't know if they
[38:55] Speaker 2: just I don't know. Actually, I can't even think of
[38:58] Speaker 2: why they've done.
[38:59] Speaker 4: That, because power comes from the White House down and
[39:03] Speaker 4: there's gonna be no other advisors or courtiers that are
[39:08] Speaker 4: going to come in and influence the decision making process.
[39:13] Speaker 1: I mean, but it's not even like descent, right, Like
[39:15] Speaker 1: it's just analysis on like what's going on in a
[39:17] Speaker 1: specific region. Right, It's not even like I'm against what
[39:21] Speaker 1: you're going for, Like that's what I don't.
[39:25] Speaker 4: Well, that would be like a mature way to think
[39:27] Speaker 4: of it by like if you're a giant toddler, it
[39:31] Speaker 4: comes across its descent and you get angry because you're
[39:34] Speaker 4: hearing things you don't want to hear.
[39:37] Speaker 1: Just to be who's a giant toddler.
[39:40] Speaker 5: It would be the president in this case, right, Yeah.
[39:44] Speaker 1: And I think the real power behind the throne is
[39:46] Speaker 1: the sure I honestly, I think the real power, or
[39:51] Speaker 1: like a big faction of power that's in the White
[39:54] Speaker 1: House is the uh Deputy chief of Staff. I think
[39:58] Speaker 1: he's pushing a pretty big agenda, not gonna lie. Steven
[40:03] Speaker 1: Miller is his name. Yeah, Yeah, So this is interesting
[40:08] Speaker 1: talk about waffling and a little bit of bipolar foreign policy.
[40:12] Speaker 1: So we uh, we had the meeting with between Zelenski
[40:17] Speaker 1: and Donald Trump at the White House last week. Before that,
[40:21] Speaker 1: he had a phone call with President Putin from Russia
[40:24] Speaker 1: and tomahawks got taken off the table. It seems reports
[40:30] Speaker 1: have said that that meeting was not a great one
[40:34] Speaker 1: between Zelenski and Donald Trump and the deministration that was shouting.
[40:38] Speaker 1: There was reports of like they pushed the push the maps.
[40:41] Speaker 1: There was a table and there was a lot of
[40:42] Speaker 1: cursing from the President. And then a few days later
[40:47] Speaker 1: now there's talk about the Sanctions Act coming back to life. Uh,
[40:52] Speaker 1: if you guys can explain to me the layman, what
[40:55] Speaker 1: the fuck the policy is regard to Ukraine, that would
[40:58] Speaker 1: be awesome.
[41:03] Speaker 2: And I guess start with the positive. The sanctions that
[41:08] Speaker 2: we'll put on the two largest Russian oil gas companies.
[41:13] Speaker 2: That's a postive. Putin's came out and said it's not
[41:15] Speaker 2: going to make a difference, which to me means it's
[41:18] Speaker 2: going to make a difference, or we wouldn't say it right.
[41:21] Speaker 2: The secondary sanctions are what everybody's looking at. That's the bill.
[41:25] Speaker 2: You referenced in the Senate the sanctioning Russia's at Russia
[41:28] Speaker 2: Hacked has at least eighty five senators signed on. That's
[41:32] Speaker 2: unheard of nowadays, but apparently Fune won't push it forward
[41:36] Speaker 2: until the President gives them the green light. I'm not
[41:39] Speaker 2: sure why we're waiting on that. That we need to
[41:41] Speaker 2: cut off the spickett of the of the funding even
[41:44] Speaker 2: at China. China buys I think forty seven percent of
[41:48] Speaker 2: Russian oil crude oil that might factorate, so that would
[41:52] Speaker 2: be significant to cut off their ability to fund this
[41:58] Speaker 2: on tomahawks. Yes, it takes a little while to be trained,
[42:01] Speaker 2: but you know, the best data planet trees twenty years ago.
[42:05] Speaker 2: The second best day is today, right, Why aren't we training?
[42:10] Speaker 1: You know?
[42:10] Speaker 2: And the Ukrainians are smart as hell and they've got
[42:12] Speaker 2: all the motivation in the world to be able to
[42:14] Speaker 2: learn and stuff. So when I know, they got to
[42:16] Speaker 2: figure the configure it so you can launch it from
[42:18] Speaker 2: land and all that, but they can do it. They
[42:19] Speaker 2: can do it. A positive that I think the White
[42:22] Speaker 2: House denied but I think actually happened is they have
[42:25] Speaker 2: approved the use of storm Shadow, which uses US data.
[42:30] Speaker 2: So we're participant in it to go to have no
[42:33] Speaker 2: limits inside Rush. So that's kind of a backdoor way
[42:38] Speaker 2: of doing this. But I think we're going to have
[42:40] Speaker 2: to give Ukraine not only the ability to defend itself
[42:43] Speaker 2: but to win and then they start winning if we
[42:46] Speaker 2: want to see who actually come to a summit with
[42:50] Speaker 2: any intention of a ceasing. And then of course you
[42:52] Speaker 2: also have the frozen Russian assets that could be being
[42:55] Speaker 2: released to Ukraine so they can buy you know, patriots
[42:59] Speaker 2: stuff like that. Right now. Oh, there's the other thing
[43:03] Speaker 2: i'd say on that. There's a lot of chatter amongst
[43:05] Speaker 2: the think tanks. It's like, maybe you should take over
[43:07] Speaker 2: the negotiation because we're not. We're just not getting very
[43:12] Speaker 2: far with convincing putinens and as interests to have a
[43:16] Speaker 2: ceaspier in this.
[43:17] Speaker 3: Cop mack, did you say they so that that part
[43:22] Speaker 3: confuses me about storm Shadows, because storm Shadows exclusively European.
[43:28] Speaker 3: It's what's the m D M b d A. It's
[43:31] Speaker 3: a European consortium defense companies that put it together.
[43:35] Speaker 2: Apparently they use it uses our targeting data. That that's
[43:42] Speaker 2: the issue that's being reported that the US the only
[43:46] Speaker 2: approved like you can still use our targeting data and
[43:50] Speaker 2: shoot things inside. And they've they've reduced the authority to
[43:55] Speaker 2: make these decisions to the Yukon commander bypassing or not
[44:00] Speaker 2: by by a passing. But so the second Deaf and
[44:03] Speaker 2: his staff are no longer making the decision. He's given
[44:06] Speaker 2: it to the what's the idea is that he's going
[44:10] Speaker 2: to improve more.
[44:11] Speaker 3: So we we are going to provide our intelligence four
[44:15] Speaker 3: storm Shadow hits.
[44:17] Speaker 2: Yes, that's what's important. I think the White House denied it,
[44:21] Speaker 2: but I think that's political part of the negotiations not
[44:26] Speaker 2: to acknowledge.
[44:27] Speaker 3: That we So, I mean storm Shadows formidable weapon. It's like, no,
[44:32] Speaker 3: I forget, It's like it's I believe. I mean it's
[44:35] Speaker 3: a it's another subsonic cruise missile. And I don't have
[44:39] Speaker 3: the data to hand, but.
[44:41] Speaker 1: I five hundred and fifty kilometers.
[44:44] Speaker 3: What's that?
[44:44] Speaker 1: Five short range?
[44:46] Speaker 3: It's pretty short range, and it's got it's got a
[44:48] Speaker 3: bigger warhead.
[44:49] Speaker 1: I believe four hundred and fifty.
[44:53] Speaker 5: Gets you to Moscow, doesn't it.
[44:56] Speaker 1: I think so.
[45:00] Speaker 2: This tom Ark, the block too of tom Hawk is
[45:03] Speaker 2: fifteen hundred miles.
[45:04] Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a huge difference in range. So according to
[45:08] Speaker 3: the data, you just read out much the same payload.
[45:11] Speaker 3: I think the advantage with storm Shadow is it's it's
[45:14] Speaker 3: more accurate and it's got I mean, both of them
[45:17] Speaker 3: have cruise missile. You can look at subde but cruse
[45:23] Speaker 3: missile's got it's got like in addition to GPS, it's
[45:26] Speaker 3: got an infrared IRNS. I R yeah, so it's a
[45:31] Speaker 3: it's an infrared navigation. So in other words, it can't
[45:33] Speaker 3: be jampy. You and the same thing with storm Shadow,
[45:35] Speaker 3: but it's a different system. It's terrain terrain profiling systems,
[45:40] Speaker 3: so that both they both bypass Russian EW jamming. But
[45:45] Speaker 3: I believe the storm Shadow is even more accurate than
[45:48] Speaker 3: the Tomahawk. But that's not necessarily what you what you?
[45:52] Speaker 3: I mean, the Tomahawk's accurate enough, and that range is
[45:56] Speaker 3: really the significant thing. I would I don't you know,
[46:01] Speaker 3: that's an interesting point. I should know, but I don't
[46:03] Speaker 3: know if what was ranged again, it's like two, it's.
[46:07] Speaker 1: Like five hundred and fifty kometers three hundred and forty two.
[46:13] Speaker 3: I'm not sure that does reach Moscow, but I don't know.
[46:16] Speaker 4: Pretty I'm pretty sure. I'll not keep talking. I'll try
[46:19] Speaker 4: to do some of my Matthew, that's going to look
[46:22] Speaker 4: it up. But the real the key issues were is,
[46:26] Speaker 4: you know, Russian refineries, right, That's what the the Ukrainians
[46:29] Speaker 4: are going after now with considerable success. And they've depending
[46:34] Speaker 4: on who you read and what media outlet, even the
[46:37] Speaker 4: most conservative are saying that they've they they've slowed Russian
[46:42] Speaker 4: oil production, final production by you know, by a third.
[46:49] Speaker 4: Some go as high as almost a half. So that's
[46:52] Speaker 4: that's significant. And given the Tomahawk, they could they could
[46:56] Speaker 4: certainly do greater damage. And they can go off to
[47:00] Speaker 4: the of course, the Shahead factories and wherever they are
[47:04] Speaker 4: Kyrgyzstan and all these other things.
[47:06] Speaker 1: It is a massive one in Russia. That's like out there,
[47:09] Speaker 1: it's probably one thousand miles.
[47:10] Speaker 5: In Yeah, so yes, it definitely gets you to Moscow.
[47:16] Speaker 1: I have a question, like, you know, storm shadows made
[47:18] Speaker 1: by a European company conglomerate, you know, all right, and
[47:22] Speaker 1: we you know, the Ukrainians have been using the US
[47:24] Speaker 1: intelligence for since the beginning of the war, even before it,
[47:28] Speaker 1: so I don't know what the hold up would be
[47:30] Speaker 1: like you can't use our intelligence that were already given
[47:33] Speaker 1: you to use a European weapon to shoot into military
[47:37] Speaker 1: and uh, you know oil refinery targets in Russia. Like,
[47:40] Speaker 1: I don't know why that's a stop, Like why do
[47:42] Speaker 1: we need like why do we need to okay that?
[47:45] Speaker 1: It's just we've been okaying them to do covert stuff, Like.
[47:50] Speaker 2: Well, to me, we should have said right from the
[47:52] Speaker 2: beginning when we knew they were going to invade, that
[47:54] Speaker 2: it's if they invaded, that we're going to prove everything
[47:56] Speaker 2: that they needed to win.
[47:58] Speaker 5: Right, and we keep doing this what.
[47:59] Speaker 2: We we publicly debate whether we should give an F
[48:02] Speaker 2: the F sixteens or the the hey Mars, and then
[48:06] Speaker 2: we wring our hands and cluster the pearls and all
[48:08] Speaker 2: that stuff, and then it gives putin the chance to
[48:10] Speaker 2: say what we're always going to say, Well, it's complete
[48:13] Speaker 2: escalation of we're going to new kid. Just we should
[48:15] Speaker 2: just approve these things. And I know it's easier said
[48:17] Speaker 2: than done without the debate publicly.
[48:21] Speaker 5: It's interesting.
[48:22] Speaker 4: It's you know a lot of my friends, you know,
[48:25] Speaker 4: would probably make the argument. I know they have made
[48:28] Speaker 4: the argument that this is the same criticism they have
[48:30] Speaker 4: about the Vietnam War, that it was like this seesaw effect,
[48:34] Speaker 4: there'd be a pause in fighting because of the Paris
[48:36] Speaker 4: peace negotiations, and it would just kind of go back
[48:39] Speaker 4: and forth forever. We're doing that in Ukraine right now.
[48:43] Speaker 4: It's like, why do we keep doing this little drips
[48:45] Speaker 4: and drabs, little baby steps getting towards something. I realized
[48:49] Speaker 4: there's like this escalation matrix that you have to think
[48:52] Speaker 4: about a little bit. But so many of those norms,
[48:55] Speaker 4: so many of those fears we had have now been destroyed.
[48:58] Speaker 4: I mean, we've seen all kinds of things that were
[49:01] Speaker 4: unimaginable previously. And it seems that unless we have like
[49:05] Speaker 4: NATO troops storming towards Moscow, Putin's not going to use
[49:08] Speaker 4: nuclear weapons. So to your point, Mick, I agree, like,
[49:12] Speaker 4: just give them everything they need to win the war. Like,
[49:15] Speaker 4: let's stop dragging this thing out.
[49:18] Speaker 3: We were either we're either supporting the Ukraine or not,
[49:21] Speaker 3: and we've never understood that it's we're providing lethal weight.
[49:25] Speaker 3: That is that is the that is the redline decision, right,
[49:29] Speaker 3: It's not the range of weapons systems or the number
[49:32] Speaker 3: of range weapons systems. And we've dripped fed weapons and
[49:36] Speaker 3: allowed Russia to adapt as they indeed they have done,
[49:40] Speaker 3: and they've done pretty well. I mean, you know, Hi
[49:43] Speaker 3: Mars was effective for about two or three months, and
[49:46] Speaker 3: then the Russians learned how to jam it.
[49:48] Speaker 4: And we let we let Putin run this psyops on
[49:51] Speaker 4: us that like, he pretends he's negotiating for peace and
[49:55] Speaker 4: we humor it.
[49:56] Speaker 5: That's not what he's doing. Come on, he's just fighting
[49:59] Speaker 5: for time.
[50:01] Speaker 3: Yeah, same thing with the attacks. I mean we gave them.
[50:05] Speaker 3: We gave the Ukrainians twelve high marks. You know we didn't.
[50:09] Speaker 3: I mean, we didn't even give them enough for I
[50:13] Speaker 3: mean barely enough for one per division, and the Russians
[50:17] Speaker 3: easily easily learned how to counter that same thing with attackms.
[50:22] Speaker 3: I don't think I don't think that. I don't think
[50:28] Speaker 3: we've really ever I mean two things too mixed. To
[50:32] Speaker 3: Jack's point, we've never understood poutin and secondly, we don't
[50:36] Speaker 3: understand the just the dynamics of providing military aid that
[50:41] Speaker 3: you know, the country's adapt in war very very quickly.
[50:45] Speaker 3: And Russia's always been strong at electronic warfare. They have
[50:49] Speaker 3: massive systems every ten kilometers along the line. The Ukrainians saluted,
[50:55] Speaker 3: I mean you can look this up. The look up
[50:57] Speaker 3: how many drones the Ukrainians are losing month. I think
[51:01] Speaker 3: we'll see it's something astounding. It's in the thousands right
[51:04] Speaker 3: just to EW.
[51:07] Speaker 1: And you know it's the.
[51:10] Speaker 3: Methods of warfare there are are beyond anything that our
[51:16] Speaker 3: own defense industry can adapt to in a hurry.
[51:19] Speaker 1: Estimated monthly loss is ten thousand drones per month.
[51:23] Speaker 3: Thousand drones a month, ten thousand to EW, you know
[51:27] Speaker 3: what I mean. And yet they keep churning them out.
[51:30] Speaker 3: Can you imagine if that was being done to us.
[51:32] Speaker 3: You know, we've got like a handful of MQ one' s,
[51:36] Speaker 3: MQ nine's at thirty million bucks apiece. We'd lose those
[51:40] Speaker 3: right off the bat in the first couple of hours.
[51:43] Speaker 3: That's what I mean by the fact that we're all prepared.
[51:45] Speaker 3: We don't have we don't have the ability to generate
[51:48] Speaker 3: ten thousand drones a month.
[51:50] Speaker 1: I guarantee you that. What's interesting about that is you
[51:55] Speaker 1: see so many, like in the startup space, there's so
[51:57] Speaker 1: many drone companies that are popping up, you know, like
[52:00] Speaker 1: for the particularly for the US.
[52:03] Speaker 3: And the differences in Ukraine. They're all tied into the
[52:07] Speaker 3: industrial defense establishment. You know, high tech and defense are
[52:14] Speaker 3: are together and the Ukrainians. I think we talked about
[52:17] Speaker 3: this on the show, but they've just developed a unmanned
[52:22] Speaker 3: tank because armored vehicles are proving to be absolute, they're
[52:27] Speaker 3: proving to be a liability. Okay, and tanks was still
[52:30] Speaker 3: you know, armored personnel carriers, infantry, fighting vehicles. No one
[52:33] Speaker 3: uses that those things anymore. There are you know, they
[52:37] Speaker 3: see the Russians on dirt bikes and absolute death traps. Yeah, yeah,
[52:41] Speaker 3: every you know, every single Bradley that we provided to
[52:44] Speaker 3: the Ukraine, it's it's been blown away. What are they using.
[52:47] Speaker 3: They're using motorcycles and they're using you know, and and
[52:52] Speaker 3: foot mobile infantry well dispersed to do infiltration. And so
[52:59] Speaker 3: what the Ukrainians done? Because you because as much as
[53:02] Speaker 3: I laugh at marine tankers and I still think they're
[53:05] Speaker 3: absurd in the opposition to us getting rid of now,
[53:08] Speaker 3: I don't know, it's like I don't want to open myself.
[53:11] Speaker 5: Up to that.
[53:12] Speaker 3: But the point is you still need a rolling gun platform,
[53:16] Speaker 3: a rolling gun platform, direct far capability reaching out to
[53:21] Speaker 3: two to three clicks, you know, or even form in
[53:24] Speaker 3: case whatever sort of terrain you're in, whether you're fighting
[53:28] Speaker 3: a mount or you're fighting an open terrain that is
[53:30] Speaker 3: an incredibly useful weapon to have. The problem is that
[53:33] Speaker 3: once you put human beings inside becomes it becomes larger, slower,
[53:39] Speaker 3: less maneuverable, and more vulnerable. Whether Ukrainians now have an
[53:45] Speaker 3: unman tank that uses SO I mean, it's you can
[53:50] Speaker 3: look it up and forget what it's called, but it
[53:52] Speaker 3: uses A one A one AI. So I it uses
[53:59] Speaker 3: a I for target acquisition A and uh. And you
[54:07] Speaker 3: know my point with that is you don't even need
[54:10] Speaker 3: and operate it to be with a narrow field of view.
[54:13] Speaker 3: You've got to I mean, obviously there's some disadvantages of
[54:17] Speaker 3: using AI for target acquisition within in a tank, but
[54:22] Speaker 3: the point is they've developed it and and I guarantee
[54:25] Speaker 3: you within a few months they're going to mass produce
[54:28] Speaker 3: these things.
[54:31] Speaker 1: At a decent price too.
[54:33] Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, because they are essentially expendable if
[54:38] Speaker 3: they don't have human beings inside.
[54:41] Speaker 2: Mostly is based on trying to protect the humans inside, right.
[54:45] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean you can heavy and so expensive do
[54:48] Speaker 3: you can generate if you can have hundreds of these
[54:51] Speaker 3: things on the battlefield? Can you imagine hundreds of these
[54:55] Speaker 3: things rolling in on you being able to target human
[54:59] Speaker 3: being automatically covered by drunes.
[55:03] Speaker 2: It's called the phantom UGV two our cyber over words,
[55:11] Speaker 2: that's what it's. By the way, do you are you
[55:15] Speaker 2: polite when you ask him? You talk to the cheap
[55:17] Speaker 2: chat GPT.
[55:19] Speaker 4: I am.
[55:21] Speaker 1: I'm relatively polite until it starts fucking around and I
[55:24] Speaker 1: get kind of upset with it and I'm like, you
[55:26] Speaker 1: gotta look at this before you fucking send me, and
[55:28] Speaker 1: I'll drop an F bomb in there, and he's like,
[55:30] Speaker 1: I'm so sorry.
[55:31] Speaker 5: Yeah, that's the same thing I tell you D when
[55:33] Speaker 5: you send me stuff you use AI to generate.
[55:36] Speaker 3: Yeah, well listen, D talks thirty to Siri. So I
[55:40] Speaker 3: think you're asking the wrong guy.
[55:43] Speaker 1: Sorry, I missed that. I don't know what you guys
[55:45] Speaker 1: were saying. Better off, probably all right. Also a bit
[55:50] Speaker 1: of news, uh, there was an agreement between Sweden and
[55:54] Speaker 1: WALSAAB and Ukraine to sell Ukraine one hundred to one
[55:58] Speaker 1: hundred and fifty Grip and Ease, which is a fourth
[56:02] Speaker 1: plug generation fighter, which is probably perfect for Ukraine too,
[56:05] Speaker 1: because like they're able to like land and take off
[56:09] Speaker 1: on like a fucking highway and stuff like that. I
[56:11] Speaker 1: feel like that's probably apps for what they need. So
[56:15] Speaker 1: Europe is stepping up for sure, I think, right. So,
[56:18] Speaker 1: and this is definitely not a cheap package. I think
[56:20] Speaker 1: it's like one hundred and fifty million unit per per
[56:24] Speaker 1: per plane. But that's with like the weapons and stuff
[56:26] Speaker 1: like that.
[56:27] Speaker 3: So I mean, talking about that for a while, I'm glad, Yeah,
[56:30] Speaker 3: it's finally gone through.
[56:34] Speaker 1: Anything else, I mean, we could touch on Gaza and
[56:36] Speaker 1: like the precarious situation there, the piece is still kind
[56:39] Speaker 1: of I guess holding a little bit, even though Israel
[56:41] Speaker 1: seems to be bombing the shit out of Gaza. Still,
[56:46] Speaker 1: I mean, we could touch on that.
[56:48] Speaker 2: I mean, the h with the trip of Vice President Advance,
[56:53] Speaker 2: I think it's pretty clear that the US wants to
[56:56] Speaker 2: see the entirety of the twenty point plan happen. While
[57:00] Speaker 2: he was there, that Knessant voted on annexing part of
[57:04] Speaker 2: the West Bank and you saw his pretty direct reaction,
[57:07] Speaker 2: and then President Trump basically saying the US would cut
[57:10] Speaker 2: off all support to Israel if they did that. I mean,
[57:13] Speaker 2: I don't know if you can get any more direct
[57:15] Speaker 2: than that. So it the ceasfire is holding, You're gonna
[57:19] Speaker 2: see scarmishes because that's gonna happen the age coming in,
[57:24] Speaker 2: which is great. Obviously my group spends a lot.
[57:27] Speaker 5: Of time on that.
[57:28] Speaker 2: And well, the biggest, the biggest issue is a loss disarming, right,
[57:34] Speaker 2: They're they're going to have an issue disarming because they're
[57:36] Speaker 2: very vulnerable, even though on the planet gives them the
[57:38] Speaker 2: sanctuary and potentially safe passage. I don't know the country
[57:42] Speaker 2: they would take. I don't know five thousand moss people.
[57:48] Speaker 2: And then then this International Stabilization Force, which Secretary of
[57:52] Speaker 2: Ruby has said recently I think and during his visit
[57:57] Speaker 2: is being established. Right, So I had and seen really
[58:01] Speaker 2: in the Indonesia while Indonesia volunteered, Egypt, Turkey, but Turkey
[58:07] Speaker 2: is a big issue for Israel. Israel said they don't
[58:11] Speaker 2: want Turkey in there. The US came back and said tough. So,
[58:14] Speaker 2: I mean, it's clear that US is being a little tougher.
[58:17] Speaker 5: On Israel than in the past.
[58:20] Speaker 2: So whether they'll have an effect or long term effect,
[58:23] Speaker 2: we'll have to see. But the big issue is what
[58:26] Speaker 2: are we going to do with the Moss collectible? Are
[58:30] Speaker 2: they going to be allowed to stay in Gaza? Are
[58:33] Speaker 2: they going to be confined to a certain like loss section?
[58:36] Speaker 2: Are they going to be forcibly disarmed, which means to
[58:39] Speaker 2: age's combat. So that the big, the long pol A
[58:44] Speaker 2: tent is the disarming and demilitarization.
[58:47] Speaker 1: Of anybody boys, Andy Jack.
[58:52] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I not most of what I've what
[58:59] Speaker 3: I'm about to say, I've said before some shape or form.
[59:05] Speaker 3: The bottom line is, and I always preface this discussion
[59:08] Speaker 3: with this comment that at least it's an agreement. At
[59:11] Speaker 3: least it's something that was hard to imagine three months ago.
[59:15] Speaker 3: But the devil was in the details. And there are
[59:17] Speaker 3: so many details that are potentially problematic, and met just
[59:21] Speaker 3: hit on a couple of them, along with the nature
[59:24] Speaker 3: of the security force and the government itself. You know,
[59:26] Speaker 3: who's going to administer Gaza and while Palestinian authority supposedly
[59:33] Speaker 3: meets certain criteria that enable it to do so, you
[59:36] Speaker 3: know what I mean, And is the PA even capable
[59:40] Speaker 3: of doing that? And then you've got you've got some
[59:44] Speaker 3: interesting dynamics among the local the neighboring Arab countries or
[59:51] Speaker 3: just countries in the region. Mick commented about Turkey and
[59:56] Speaker 3: Turkey being the Turkish contribution into the Gaza security force
[1:00:01] Speaker 3: being something that the Israelis opposed. But you know, the
[1:00:05] Speaker 3: Arab government and the Egyptians I think are probably the
[1:00:08] Speaker 3: only the only potential donor of security forces that are
[1:00:13] Speaker 3: credible right now as far as the country that has
[1:00:16] Speaker 3: agreed to do that easier to deploy. Egypt has a
[1:00:21] Speaker 3: history in Gaza. In fact, Egypt owned Gaza until nineteen
[1:00:25] Speaker 3: sixty seven. They weren't particularly popular occupiers there either, but
[1:00:29] Speaker 3: more popular than the Israelis, and of course there's a
[1:00:33] Speaker 3: you know, cultural affiliation, but that's not but her masks
[1:00:38] Speaker 3: always going to remain a problem. I mean, the Egyptian
[1:00:42] Speaker 3: government has no love of her Maas. In fact, that's
[1:00:46] Speaker 3: one of CCI's biggest concerns is that during all of
[1:00:50] Speaker 3: this that her Mask was going to get increasing support
[1:00:52] Speaker 3: within Egypt. All of which is to say, yeah, it's
[1:00:59] Speaker 3: great that the killing has stop for now, most of
[1:01:01] Speaker 3: the killing has stopped for now. It's great that some
[1:01:03] Speaker 3: aid is getting in and that there is at least
[1:01:06] Speaker 3: in the US has its weight behind a piece plan,
[1:01:09] Speaker 3: but there's no more clarity on the details. Well one
[1:01:13] Speaker 3: month ago and time is ticking.
[1:01:15] Speaker 1: All right, so we'll keep track of this, Jack, what
[1:01:17] Speaker 1: you got?
[1:01:19] Speaker 5: Not much?
[1:01:19] Speaker 1: That's about it, Okay, I want you guys to do
[1:01:23] Speaker 1: me a favor before we go. Check out mixed new
[1:01:25] Speaker 1: podcasts Pup on the Porch. The applied stoicism link is
[1:01:28] Speaker 1: in the description. It's a great pod. Andy Milburn's got
[1:01:31] Speaker 1: a great book, When the Tempest Gathers link is in
[1:01:33] Speaker 1: the description as well. Jack Murphy's wrote a plethora of books.
[1:01:38] Speaker 1: Some would say he's writing too many books. Now I'm joking.
[1:01:41] Speaker 1: He's got a great book, We Defy the Secret History
[1:01:43] Speaker 1: of Special Forces History special Forces. That link will be
[1:01:47] Speaker 1: in the description. High Side his outlet with Sean Naylor,
[1:01:51] Speaker 1: the guy who wrote the book on Jaysock, where they
[1:01:55] Speaker 1: do deep dive investigative stuff. They have some crazy shit
[1:01:58] Speaker 1: cooking up. I can't mention, and I won't mention publicly.
[1:02:02] Speaker 1: It's awesome. Check that out the high Side Substack. It's
[1:02:05] Speaker 1: down in the description as well. And where can you
[1:02:08] Speaker 1: support the show? I'll tell you where. Think great question
[1:02:12] Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse
[1:02:15] Speaker 1: and Eyes On episodes ad free early, and you help
[1:02:19] Speaker 1: support the show. We keep doing this guys, as always,
[1:02:23] Speaker 1: it's a pleasure if you If you do, you guys,
[1:02:25] Speaker 1: have anything else you want? To say, you want to
[1:02:26] Speaker 1: plug something else.
[1:02:27] Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to plug a suggestion that the Team
[1:02:29] Speaker 3: House have an off site party this year, maybe in Dubai.
[1:02:34] Speaker 1: Is that in the Is that in the the budget? Jack?
[1:02:39] Speaker 5: Yeah, I think we're gonna like everyone out there.
[1:02:44] Speaker 1: Well, Andy's kind of close, so he'll be cheap to
[1:02:47] Speaker 1: get there.
[1:02:47] Speaker 3: You only need you guys out there. I mean a
[1:02:50] Speaker 3: lot of people can attend remotely. M and I attends.
[1:02:56] Speaker 1: We'll take that under advisement. Yeah, alright, guys, always a pleasure.
[1:03:02] Speaker 1: Thank you, Thanks, all right, thanks everyone, discussion. Hey, guys,
[1:03:08] Speaker 1: how's it going. It's d I want to thank you
[1:03:10] Speaker 1: for watching the show. I really appreciate it, and I
[1:03:12] Speaker 1: love for you guys to check out our Patreon. It's
[1:03:16] Speaker 1: at patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. The link is
[1:03:20] Speaker 1: in the description. Super easy to find if you're listening.
[1:03:22] Speaker 1: It's in the show notes as well. You can find
[1:03:24] Speaker 1: it right there. What do you get? You get AD
[1:03:27] Speaker 1: free audio, AD free video for both Eyes on Geopolitics
[1:03:30] Speaker 1: and the Team House podcast, so two podcasts, AD free
[1:03:34] Speaker 1: for the Prisal one. You also get the shows a
[1:03:37] Speaker 1: couple of days early on both video and audio, and
[1:03:41] Speaker 1: you have the opportunity to shoot us some message, ask
[1:03:44] Speaker 1: questions whether it's Teamhouse or iz on. We could cover
[1:03:47] Speaker 1: topics and stuff like that. It really really helps support
[1:03:51] Speaker 1: the show. We really appreciate the patrens that are there now.
[1:03:56] Speaker 1: We couldn't do it without you guys, so consider support
[1:04:00] Speaker 1: the show. It's at patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse.
[1:04:02] Speaker 1: The link is in the description and in the show
[1:04:05] Speaker 1: notes if you're listening to some on audio. Really appreciate it, guys.
[1:04:08] Speaker 1: Thank you

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.