Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm here with Mick Molroy. I'm Dmitri con tacos uh
Speaker 1: a little bit of housekeeping. Nick's got a new podcast
Speaker 1: called The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. It's about
Speaker 1: all about stoicism. Has got a great co host to
Speaker 1: Adam Pearcy. I listen to that pod every week. Check
Speaker 1: it out. It comes out on Mondays right Yes, videos
Speaker 1: comer soon as well. You can grab it anywhere Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. I'll have a
Speaker 1: link in the description as well, so check it out there.
Speaker 1: What's going on? Make a lot happening. It looks like
Speaker 1: we're about to attack inside Venezuela. I'm still trying to
Speaker 1: understand why we're doing this. I don't know if I
Speaker 1: don't know if the American people are really interesting in
Speaker 1: like another war. Just a little bit of a context.
Speaker 1: Russia voice support for Venezuela. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: that means, Like, what can they even do? Maduro ask
Speaker 1: for help from allies quote unquote China, Russia and Iran
Speaker 1: requested defensive radars, aircraft repairs and possibly missiles and parenthesiz
Speaker 1: is too little, too late. Probably should have asked for
Speaker 1: this a couple of months ago. A lot of US
Speaker 1: hardware in the Caribbean. I'm gonna put in like a
Speaker 1: little graphic. I think that Reuters did that like shows
Speaker 1: like everything that's going on down there, and it's a ton.
Speaker 1: Trump was asked about it, I think on the way
Speaker 1: back from the China summit or the Asia, you know,
Speaker 1: his Asia tour. Trump denied it as a fake story.
Speaker 1: Sets the same thing before we hit the Iranian nuclear sites.
Speaker 1: So you know, take that for what it's worth. And
Speaker 1: a little fun fact, this is the largest build up
Speaker 1: unrelated to the disaster release since nineteen ninety four, when
Speaker 1: we had two aircraft carriers and twenty thousand troops deployed
Speaker 1: to Haiti for Operation Uphold Democracy. So, Mick, you like
Speaker 1: that little fun fact. It's not really a fun fact,
Speaker 1: to be honest, but it's kind of shitty fact. But
Speaker 1: what do you make of this?
Speaker 2: So d I mean, we've been talking about this a
Speaker 2: couple of times. One thing I think most analysts would
Speaker 2: say is this is obviously far more than what's needed
Speaker 2: to just strike boat, taking elicit narcotics in the United
Speaker 2: States right, not that they can't do that, but they
Speaker 2: certainly don't need They were at eight warships now, which
Speaker 2: includes several destroyers, cruisers, an amphibious ready group with a
Speaker 2: marine expeditionary unit, several squadrons being pushed to Puerto Rico,
Speaker 2: our strategic bombers doing flights by Venezuela. We have the
Speaker 2: USS Gerald R.
Speaker 3: Ford.
Speaker 2: I think it's probably leaving the Mediterranean right now.
Speaker 3: It will be.
Speaker 2: On station in the Caribbean with its three or four
Speaker 2: escort vessels, which are all significant by the birthday of
Speaker 2: my beloved cored is what I'm told October, I mean
Speaker 2: November tenth, it's supposed to be on station in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2: That would bring it up to twelve thirteen and a
Speaker 2: considerable portion over naval essence.
Speaker 1: I'm putting up a thing on the screen right now.
Speaker 1: I'm sharing the screen where it shows a ton of
Speaker 1: like the action as of I think thirty first so
Speaker 1: as of Friday night, and it's a ton of shit.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's more stuff than I think is probably needed.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we don't even know what's what the
Speaker 1: plan is, to be honest.
Speaker 2: Right the gerald Lot four is d D will tell
Speaker 2: you is the most sophisticated naval weapons system in the world, right, so, which.
Speaker 3: Is good that we have it.
Speaker 2: So that's what's happening. People can speculate. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of speculation on Friday that you know something's going to happen.
Speaker 2: There was notice to Airman the nottams blocking off restricted airspaces.
Speaker 2: Apparently that was public, and then of course the White
Speaker 2: House denied it, and then of course the people who
Speaker 2: were speculating said, well, that's what they did before we
Speaker 2: did the air strinths on Iran. So it obviously didn't happen,
Speaker 2: or we'd be talking about it right now. But it's
Speaker 2: clear that to me, at least, we're one or two things.
Speaker 2: We're trying to set up so much force that it's
Speaker 2: it's not the terrence, right, I mean, Venezuela wasn't going
Speaker 2: to attack the United States. Perhaps it is de terrence
Speaker 2: for these associated ARCO terrorists bring drugs the United States.
Speaker 2: Maybe if Maduro has direct control of them, he might
Speaker 2: say knock it off entirely. I don't know if we'd
Speaker 2: be willing to keep this level of force there if
Speaker 2: that's what would cause it. And it is important to
Speaker 2: point out that if it's truly about narcotics, which is
Speaker 2: a very worthy cause to go after, it would also
Speaker 2: include Peru, Columbia, and obviously Mexico. Way, so this seems
Speaker 2: to be more about either forcing Morduro to leave, go
Speaker 2: to Cuba or somewhere, or actually set up for a
Speaker 2: Noriega style operation which would apprehend him. And he's already
Speaker 2: indicted in the United States and we looked it up
Speaker 2: last time. I think he was indicted coming only back
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty, so that could happen or full man
Speaker 2: a regime change organically. The problem is it's it's there's
Speaker 2: not a lot of historical references. If we do start
Speaker 2: bombing that air capacity.
Speaker 3: Alone could force change.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You tend to when you attack the country. The problem
Speaker 2: is that even those who are disenfranchised with the government
Speaker 2: tend to rally around the flag, you see what I mean,
Speaker 2: because it's our country, right. So yeah, So I don't know,
Speaker 2: I don't know. It just seems to be well beyond
Speaker 2: anything necessary for counter knock or conducts operation. The rumor
Speaker 2: around the street is this, this military presence is going
Speaker 2: to expand to the Pacific, so I know we already
Speaker 2: do them strikes there, but like this, this force is
Speaker 2: also going to expand to the Pacific. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of a lot of issues that come with it.
Speaker 2: I think we're on our fifteenth they won last night.
Speaker 2: I remember, Yeah, so fifteen strikes, there's a fifty killed.
Speaker 2: So there's there is the issue of whether we should
Speaker 2: be pushing for a regime change. There's the issue of
Speaker 2: whether we should be using lethal whether it's legal right,
Speaker 2: whether it's legal. Yeah, there's the other issue of the
Speaker 2: constitutionality of Congress having no set and I think the
Speaker 2: White House just came out and said, we don't think
Speaker 2: the War Powers Act applies there for sixty days, which
Speaker 2: is in the War Powers Act nineteen seventy three.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how that doesn't apply.
Speaker 2: Well, that's I mean, if the White House can simply
Speaker 2: decide on its own whether you know, laws apply or
Speaker 2: Article one of the Constitution should be triggered or And
Speaker 2: this is another thing that even Republicans, and as you know,
Speaker 2: I'm a person, but Republicans are pushing back against. They
Speaker 2: give a briefing and they excluded Democrats, the and the
Speaker 2: Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 3: Like that.
Speaker 1: Wait, wait, come again and say that it one more time. Sorry.
Speaker 2: So they gave a briefing on the intelligence that's obviously
Speaker 2: going into leading to these lethal strikes, and they excluded
Speaker 2: the Democratic side of the committee.
Speaker 1: Jesus. So they gave a breathing to the committee.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Senate Select Committee of.
Speaker 1: The Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 3: Correct, yikes, I.
Speaker 2: Mean that's not hmember this. I mean, whether you can
Speaker 2: see yourself one side or the other all this sentence standard.
Speaker 2: So if you're going to be outraged, if it's if
Speaker 2: you consider yourself along side of the other, if the
Speaker 2: other side doesn't, then be outraged. Now yeah, yeah, because
Speaker 2: I mean, or your outreach is just hypocrisies. You know,
Speaker 2: in high supply in DC, they come out right to
Speaker 2: start with the constitutionality of it. No president, whether it's Trump,
Speaker 2: President bulla, Bush, President Biden, has ever acknowledged that the
Speaker 2: War Powers Acts constitution.
Speaker 3: I gotcha, right.
Speaker 2: So they say Article two, I'm the commander in chief,
Speaker 2: you can't you can't restrict me.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Congress obviously says, well, we're the ones that declare war.
Speaker 2: Says we're right in a constitution oracle one, we're the
Speaker 2: ones that raise, raise armies and navies and a constitution
Speaker 2: and set the rules. The issue I have is, okay,
Speaker 2: that's a clear not a conflict, but a clear issue
Speaker 2: in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, I don't know what
Speaker 2: else they have better to do than decide what is
Speaker 2: the core function of any federal government, especially ours, is
Speaker 2: a decision to go to war? Now, So if they
Speaker 2: pass this act, and I think I'm correct in fact
Speaker 2: checking listeners, I think it's in the seventy seventy three,
Speaker 2: so we're talking like fifty years, this Supreme Court should
Speaker 2: and I know they've they've they've they have ruled on
Speaker 2: part of it, but they just need to rule on
Speaker 2: the constitutional period. Right, So is the law constitutional based
Speaker 2: on Oura one of the Constitution and their right to
Speaker 2: declare war?
Speaker 3: Yes or no?
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be it should If.
Speaker 2: You don't decide, then it's irrelevant. And right now that
Speaker 2: makes Congress irrelevant because if the executive branch can say
Speaker 2: we don't care what you have to say, then they
Speaker 2: can launch wars without any authorization any president, not just
Speaker 2: President Trump indefinitely. Coos should cut off the money, but
Speaker 2: they're not going to cut off the money. For the
Speaker 2: entire Defense Department. It's only does the National Defense Authorization.
Speaker 2: So anyway, that's that's my plug for today is this
Speaker 2: should be decided.
Speaker 3: In a way that it's not.
Speaker 2: About it, right sure, and then the Supreme Court to decide,
Speaker 2: you know, and if they take away the War Powers Act,
Speaker 2: then we have the unitary executive when it comes to
Speaker 2: the power to wage war, which doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: what the you know, the far right the political spectrum
Speaker 2: has been saying for several years now should be the case.
Speaker 2: So they're going to be promoting something that they were
Speaker 2: saying that they were saying the opposite. But that's their issue.
Speaker 2: The issue that I think for Americans is what is
Speaker 2: the actual constitutionality of the US going to war not
Speaker 2: going to war? Limitations on that? When do they have
Speaker 2: to have authorization? And that's a part from the legality
Speaker 2: of these strikes, right Like, what if I'm not saying
Speaker 2: we're going to do this, I think it's very unlikely.
Speaker 2: But what if we're going to have made full on
Speaker 2: the even change like we did in Iraq?
Speaker 1: Can you just just do it? Just raise you know,
Speaker 1: a quarter million plus troops and then you know, sustain
Speaker 1: military operations for years at a time without approval of Congress,
Speaker 1: Like at least the Iraq War was approved by Congress, right, like.
Speaker 2: Right, And what I'm what I would be, Well, I'll
Speaker 2: just pose it to the audience. You say, well, you know,
Speaker 2: Congress can cut it off, okay, but if the president,
Speaker 2: any president can launch it, yeah, put out troops there, yeah,
Speaker 2: until it runs out of money, and then go to
Speaker 2: Congress and say, hey, you're gonna cut off the troops
Speaker 2: in the field they're fighting right now. Right, that's a
Speaker 2: different that's a different conversation, right, What if you're Congress
Speaker 2: is going to like, no, we shouldn't be there, but
Speaker 2: the hell if I'm going right, So it's uh.
Speaker 1: It's they're easily tagged, Like you can tag Congress people
Speaker 1: who are not going to fund like an ongoing military
Speaker 1: operation as like anti troops and stuff like that. You know,
Speaker 1: that's the last thing, Yeah, one of the last things
Speaker 1: of congressman would want or a senator.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I think that's that's that's what the issues are,
Speaker 2: at least as I see it. The legality now, I
Speaker 2: personally think although they don't know, so I'll cavirate with that.
Speaker 2: That there's no targeter in Defense Department or the CIA
Speaker 2: that's going to promote striking a target if they didn't
Speaker 2: have solid charlenge. I just don't see that to be
Speaker 2: the case. I don't see the military agreeing like we
Speaker 2: have no idea who these people are and then just
Speaker 2: pulling the trigger on a hill fire missile killing her.
Speaker 1: Oh I listen, I totally agree with you, Like they're
Speaker 1: absolutely like good at their job and what they do,
Speaker 1: targeting and carrying it out. But you know, even when
Speaker 1: you know we had a ton of our bandwidth focused
Speaker 1: on Afghanistan or Iraq with targeting and stuff, mistakes were made,
Speaker 1: right and at least Afghanistan in Iraq and even the
Speaker 1: drone strikes like in the tribal regions of Pakistan are
Speaker 1: Yeaming or wherever, like going after a Q guys like
Speaker 1: that was approved by law as COVID operations for the
Speaker 1: CIA and probably JAYSK to do right. So and but
Speaker 1: I'm saying, just mistakes are made, and like this isn't
Speaker 1: like the I know they're bad guys and they're drug runners,
Speaker 1: but like the cartel boss isn't in those boats, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Like it's not you're not really
Speaker 1: doing anything to stem the flow anyway. Like we've talked
Speaker 1: about it before, FENTONYL. Everyone talks about how Fentinel like
Speaker 1: this scary thing, and it absolutely is. It's deadly. That's
Speaker 1: made in China, right, I just had a China summit,
Speaker 1: you know, where Trump met Jijingping. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to call that a win, they're all calling it
Speaker 1: a win. Literally nothing happened like at all. He rolled
Speaker 1: back some of the stuff he imposed. So it's like
Speaker 1: he created a problem then fixed it the problem that
Speaker 1: he created. It's like we're kind of back at square
Speaker 1: one more or less. So I just don't see the
Speaker 1: I don't see the value in doing this at all.
Speaker 1: Shoot to nuts with Venezuela.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if I guess if they you know,
Speaker 2: looking at it from the White House perspective, obviously, Maduro's
Speaker 2: a dictator, anti democratic, taking a country that you know,
Speaker 2: has fourteen trillion dollars with a proven oil and gas
Speaker 2: somehow brought it into the collapse where seven million people
Speaker 2: had to flee the country because they couldn't find food
Speaker 2: in company the United States, Right, at least a lot
Speaker 2: of them if they could show a force that it
Speaker 2: just gets this guy to flee, and like, who's his
Speaker 2: likely success, Machada who just won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's like a made for Hollywood, right.
Speaker 2: If it worked, I'm not saying she's going to come
Speaker 2: in and you know, be perfect, although podcaster, we gave
Speaker 2: her the rufus, which is it's exemplified stoicism, even if
Speaker 2: she doesn't consider self a stoic, because she is super impressive,
Speaker 2: and it wasn't not just because she won the I
Speaker 2: won't be pressed. But so I mean, to their to
Speaker 2: their way of thinking, they show a force. If they
Speaker 2: could do it without even like launching an operation and
Speaker 2: this guy departs, it's gonna be messy. We all know
Speaker 2: that it's not just going to be They're gonna lift
Speaker 2: Machado up and take her down right streets of Caracas
Speaker 2: and you know we've got world democracy.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, it's not gonna everybody.
Speaker 2: I'm sure everybody listening knows that the case. But if
Speaker 2: if it does happen in any semblance of that, I
Speaker 2: think they would say, okay, so we we show a
Speaker 2: force and it worked, So whether we're actually gonna be
Speaker 2: willing to send in there's a special operations vessel. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't say it if it wasn't all out of the
Speaker 2: public Ocean Trader that's down there, right. So their reports
Speaker 2: of the Marines on the on the mew doing a
Speaker 2: lot of live fire practice, So that could all just
Speaker 2: be part of the show.
Speaker 3: It could be could.
Speaker 2: Be just to scare the Jesus out of Maduro and
Speaker 2: his henchman. It could be to try to get, you know,
Speaker 2: the people around him to say, you know what, this
Speaker 2: guy is a big reward on his head. Let's just
Speaker 2: catch him, turn over the US. He's diet he'll get prosecuted,
Speaker 2: and you know they'll be rich. We'll avoid the actual
Speaker 2: conflict they think it's happening. It could be that too.
Speaker 2: It could be all the above. There's even a report.
Speaker 2: I have no idea what this jew, but I think
Speaker 2: it was. If it is, it's kind of cool that
Speaker 2: the agency was trying to recruit the pilot for Maduro.
Speaker 1: I did see that, Yeah, to just drop them off.
Speaker 3: Say hey, this is not you know correct.
Speaker 1: I think they did that with the FBI did that
Speaker 1: with one of al Mayo, the guy from the Sineloa cartel.
Speaker 1: Like El Chappo's like partner for a long time. Either
Speaker 1: they I don't know if they like got to the
Speaker 1: pot there his own pilot or like he just charted
Speaker 1: a jet. But they charted a jet in Mexico and
Speaker 1: they ended up in Elpaso, Texas. That's where they landed
Speaker 1: and that's where they arrested them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's just fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean man.
Speaker 3: Miami instead of correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean, listen, I get it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure. But here's another fact, like support, but it's
Speaker 1: been reported that like Maduro's regime has offered Trump an
Speaker 1: America and the America America are their oil like deals
Speaker 1: with them to get and stopping deals with China and Russia,
Speaker 1: you know, everything that you think that Trump would go for.
Speaker 1: And again, like I don't think all this bandwidth, Like
Speaker 1: you know, I guess it's good for the troops and stuff,
Speaker 1: and like our jaysack to like spin up and like
Speaker 1: get some practice, But I don't see the value in
Speaker 1: this whatsoever. And like, yeah, Machado got screwed over like
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. But you know, take a map out
Speaker 1: and point at a country, and you know, authoritarianism's rising
Speaker 1: everywhere right, it's becoming load, you know. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just don't. I don't see the real value in this,
Speaker 1: at least me as a regular American citizen, like I
Speaker 1: don't want to see guys die like for this ship.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a very valid concern, right, I mean, any
Speaker 2: kind of military operations got risk, and this has sixstancial risks.
Speaker 2: So I mean that's why I think the agency. I
Speaker 2: don't know what we're what my old group's doing or not,
Speaker 2: but if they could do something that reduces or removes
Speaker 2: or risk to military that's one of the best things
Speaker 2: that the agency could do.
Speaker 3: I just don't. Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: We'll have to see, and I think, you know, according
Speaker 2: to a lot of reporting, we might see this week.
Speaker 3: Yeah it's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It looks like it's about to happen. And once you
Speaker 1: hear at least when I hear or Trump saying no
Speaker 1: it's fake news, it's like, Okay, it's probably happening. I
Speaker 1: do have this circled and underlined. The word is distraction
Speaker 1: question mark? Like is this we had Jack Murphy on
Speaker 1: and Jack Murphy's obviously more of a cynic like I am,
Speaker 1: is it a distraction, you know, because we can you know,
Speaker 1: we can get the Florida National Guard together and the
Speaker 1: probably take over and fuck up Venezuela militarily. Like why
Speaker 1: are we picking on a smaller country that it's just
Speaker 1: like it seems like an exercise in something like I
Speaker 1: just don't there's no clear path to me, Like I
Speaker 1: don't buy like I'm going back. I'm saying the same
Speaker 1: thing I said, but I don't see a clear path
Speaker 1: as to why we're doing this.
Speaker 2: Why absolutely distraction and what other political stuff?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Epstein, you know, I mean if you look.
Speaker 2: Back, I mean at the history in the first Trump administration,
Speaker 2: there was a lot of discussion on this discussion, so
Speaker 2: this isn't new, so that that would be my argument again,
Speaker 2: just be an a distraction to current other stuff. Right,
Speaker 2: this is very consistent with the way the first Trump
Speaker 2: administration was going, and then several you know, different personalities
Speaker 2: in the first Trump administration, I think persuaded President Trump
Speaker 2: the first away from them, all right, so those personalist
Speaker 2: don't aren't in this.
Speaker 1: That so yeah, that's what I was gonna ask, Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I could totally see like the General Kelly's year old
Speaker 1: boss Jamadis maybe I think he's more like squared away though,
Speaker 1: John Bolton, you know, the neo Khan, the prototypical neo
Speaker 1: cons who are like, yeah, let's do it, like you know,
Speaker 1: the Lindsay Grahams who are like, you know, get so
Speaker 1: excited when there's an opportunity to bomb a country. Those
Speaker 1: guys aren't dar any. I mean John Bolton's under indictment. Like,
Speaker 1: those guys are not there anymore, right, like the you
Speaker 1: know the quote unquote and I'll give it. Like, you know,
Speaker 1: guys like Je Madis obviously the adults and the general
Speaker 1: Kelly too. You know, those guys are not there anymore. Mick,
Speaker 1: you were there, right, You guys were like the stage
Speaker 1: like guys who have been doing this your whole career,
Speaker 1: right and have an understanding of what really goes on.
Speaker 1: It feels a little bit more like just kind of
Speaker 1: ready fire aim to me, dude, I'm gonna be honest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I and I know that there was discussions
Speaker 2: about changing the regime the first administration, but I was
Speaker 2: the Middle East guy. Sure, But I do think that
Speaker 2: there was personalitye of time. You mentioned some and I
Speaker 2: think it's important to point out that, you know, when
Speaker 2: it comes to generals, uh like General Kelly and General Maddie,
Speaker 2: at least in my experience, or.
Speaker 3: Just military people in general.
Speaker 2: You know, people think, oh, they're just gonna be a
Speaker 2: a hawk, they're generally not. It's got like the Spartans,
Speaker 2: you know, the Splays actually very hesitant to go to war.
Speaker 2: Why because they were all very familiar with war, right,
Speaker 2: So it's easier to be a chicken hawk than than
Speaker 2: a hawk that's actually been on the battlefield.
Speaker 3: So I don't I am.
Speaker 2: Talking about them too when I'm talking in general, sure,
Speaker 2: but I don't know what their position was at the time.
Speaker 2: So I'm just saying that to counter the idea that
Speaker 2: there's some kind of distraction that the administration's making up now.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's been around for a while, That's
Speaker 2: what I'm saying, So I don't. I think it's actually
Speaker 2: something they really or whatever they're doing is something that
Speaker 2: they generally want to do, not for the sake of distraction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, I mean following the logic right of going
Speaker 1: after Venezuela because they're narco terrorists and that, and they're socialists.
Speaker 1: I mean, you don't really you hear that a little bit,
Speaker 1: but you're not really hearing more about like the drug stuff.
Speaker 1: That same logic should be applied to Mexico, frankly, because
Speaker 1: Mexico is like the biggest hub of like drugs into
Speaker 1: the United States. There's a reason why they have the
Speaker 1: biggest cartels Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and you know, every single
Speaker 1: drug producing state and specifically trying it to it just
Speaker 1: seems like we're picking on the smallest guy on the block. Bro,
Speaker 1: That's what it seems like. And I understand it's like, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: Medor's a piece of shit totally, and there's so many,
Speaker 1: so many pieces of shit in this world, like authoritative dudes,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: So that would go to the argument that this is
Speaker 2: more about regime change, right, Yeah, Mexico elected their president,
Speaker 2: Yes they do. I think ninety percent of fenhow comes
Speaker 2: to Mexico. So it's certainly a big, big deal and
Speaker 2: we should and I think we have designated a lot
Speaker 2: of the drug cartels their Mexican base as fnter'sorganization. But
Speaker 2: the idea of regime change and the country next to us,
Speaker 2: in the country that elected and you know, I don't know,
Speaker 2: but I think she's pretty confident, but that's not our choice,
Speaker 2: right as well as you know, like Colombia, obviously we
Speaker 2: disagree with the president, but it's a different status than
Speaker 2: the guy who basically wanted his opposition to in Machado
Speaker 2: and then her protege he did run against, who won,
Speaker 2: and then still said escort. I'm still totally So it's
Speaker 2: that that would make the argument that this is more
Speaker 2: about regime change for Venezuela than the overall issue of
Speaker 2: drugs coming in at the United States, right, so that
Speaker 2: both are not important.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, I just I just don't like it.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of this at all. I get
Speaker 1: like CIA get to work right covertly with some Jay
Speaker 1: sock help and stuff like that. You see an opportunity,
Speaker 1: take it, right, I'm totally fine with. I just don't
Speaker 1: just bombing fucking Venezuela. Just I don't know to scare
Speaker 1: this guy too saying I'm done? Is I wishful thinking?
Speaker 1: I would say.
Speaker 2: I've always been a not just because that's the world
Speaker 2: I come from. A proponent of the agency A first diplomacy, right,
Speaker 2: diplomacy should always leave the US foreign policy. But then
Speaker 2: the agency and in some cases jaysock doing everything we
Speaker 2: can to prevent it from being an actual war. Right.
Speaker 2: In fact, if we actually have to go to war
Speaker 2: in some cases, I think that means we fail our mission.
Speaker 3: I don't organization, it's not our choice.
Speaker 2: But I think there's a lot of goodness in what
Speaker 2: we do to prevent in all our conflict. Not only
Speaker 2: for in the case of our military, because a lot
Speaker 2: of people would die, but whenever we have, especially a
Speaker 2: conventional well, a lot of people die. A lot of
Speaker 2: people die, a lot of people they shouldn't die die.
Speaker 2: I mean civilians that you know are caught in the middle.
Speaker 2: So I think that is always something that we should
Speaker 2: be doing. I'm sure we are, and maybe maybe we
Speaker 2: haven't been successful, or maybe that's what they're waiting for.
Speaker 3: I don't know all there is.
Speaker 2: There's also a real question about whether, you know, the
Speaker 2: biggest democracy, not the biggest, but you know, the oldest
Speaker 2: democracy in the world should be going around top of
Speaker 2: the governments. I think you can make an argument either
Speaker 2: way is if it's an auto government. But the other
Speaker 2: the other part of the argument, whether you agree one
Speaker 2: way or the other, is shouldn't Congress have to say
Speaker 2: you know, the representative of all the people, right, because
Speaker 2: it's not that they individually or so boarant but they
Speaker 2: represent their whole country, right, every district, every state. They
Speaker 2: are on the committees whose constitutional duty it is to
Speaker 2: oversee the Defense Department, CIA, obviously State Department, the weigh
Speaker 2: in to fund things, to not fund things.
Speaker 1: I completely agree. I mean, we've seen more and more
Speaker 1: of the last see last year or so. This the
Speaker 1: oldest democracy in the world acting less and less like one,
Speaker 1: in my opinion. So yeah, we'll see what happens. Likely,
Speaker 1: if it does happen this week, at some point, we'll
Speaker 1: be talking about it next week and doing a lack
Speaker 1: for lack of a better term, a post mortem on it.
Speaker 1: All right, Moving on, Trump tweeted or truth social ah
Speaker 1: after when he was on his way back from South
Speaker 1: Korea with talks with tishinping about this is so funny
Speaker 1: calls for nuclear testing again, and I wrote, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna write what I wrote. I wrote, I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: what I wrote in a demented tweet after the summit
Speaker 1: meeting with Donald Trump some fun facts here. In his tweet,
Speaker 1: he wrote, other countries have been testing, have testing programs,
Speaker 1: they do not. The last confirmed nuclear test was North
Speaker 1: Korea in September twenty seventeen. The last US nuclear test
Speaker 1: was in nineteen ninety two, Russian nuclear tests in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety and Chinese tests was in nineteen ninety six six,
Speaker 1: So what the fuck is he talking about, Mick?
Speaker 2: So well, let's first look at the options he could
Speaker 2: be saying.
Speaker 3: He could be.
Speaker 2: This could be a response to you know, President Putin
Speaker 2: talking about testing this nuclear powered missile which NATO calls
Speaker 2: the Skyfall, that that can dropping, it can be a
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon as well. There's two points, right, So you
Speaker 2: got nuclear powered weapon systems and you have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: In the case with Russia's the Skyfall, it's both right.
Speaker 2: So if he's talking about testing nuclear powered means to
Speaker 2: deliver nuclear weapons, that okay. I mean I don't I
Speaker 2: think we already do that. I mean, we have nuclear
Speaker 2: powered submarines tooling all over the oceans right now, and
Speaker 2: guess what, they can deliver nuclear weapons, So in a way,
Speaker 2: we're testing ours all the time. Maybe he's talking about
Speaker 2: testing something the equivalent of the Skyfall, I would guess,
Speaker 2: and I don't know, or I wouldn't say that we
Speaker 2: have something or that we've looked at the skyfall and
Speaker 2: realize that it's not so important to spend that much
Speaker 2: money on. I mean, there's some discussion that it leads
Speaker 2: a trail of radioactive you know, miss all over.
Speaker 3: The place and it's easy to track.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's true, but if it is,
Speaker 2: then why waste the money doing it?
Speaker 3: You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Money building a nuclear reactor on a missile that you're
Speaker 1: gonna to.
Speaker 3: Be tracked all around the world.
Speaker 2: Because I don't know if this is the case, but
Speaker 2: if to give the presence some leadway here, not that
Speaker 2: he needs it from Mike from Montana, but he might
Speaker 2: be talking about that. I'm really talking about their testing,
Speaker 2: their their means to deliver nuclear powered weapons systems to
Speaker 2: deliver in nuclear weapons, so away, okay, Or he's talking
Speaker 2: about testing nuclear weapons, that's where and he just laid
Speaker 2: out So the NPTP, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that essentially would be broken because we would be tested
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons at a time where we're all concerned of
Speaker 2: the expansion of nuclear armed countries. So we have the
Speaker 2: most effective, I think, most resilient nuclear triad in the world.
Speaker 2: We have over five thousand nuclear weapons. We can launch
Speaker 2: them from land, sea, and air and maybe space for all.
Speaker 2: We have a treaty about space too, But as far
Speaker 2: as I know, we could right. And it's the most modern.
Speaker 2: So even though Russia has slightly more like five hundred
Speaker 2: more or something. Yeah, we have the most modern, most effective.
Speaker 2: We can test with computer models, not actually testing them.
Speaker 2: We're on the driver's seat. So I don't know why
Speaker 2: we China has what six hundred.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think just over five hundred. But there's where
Speaker 1: they're worried that they're going to keep keep piled right,
Speaker 1: and if.
Speaker 2: We start testing again, we don't know that's what he meant.
Speaker 2: So when we're just going on speculation, now we start testing,
Speaker 2: then China might go, oh cool, now it's a chance
Speaker 2: to expand our nuclears. Well, they don't haven't done that
Speaker 2: many tests, and they're not that confident then there in
Speaker 2: their systems and their weapons, and they might use it
Speaker 2: to expand greatly and test it and then they're more effective.
Speaker 2: I mean, the lest thing we need is a more
Speaker 2: effective China with new nuclear weapons that have been tested. Yeaight,
Speaker 2: so that's one problem. It might invite other countries to
Speaker 2: do the same, or would invite might. Uh, it's against
Speaker 2: the theory or at least the underlying philosophy of the
Speaker 2: New Start Agreement, which is going to expire in February,
Speaker 2: you know, next year.
Speaker 3: So a couple of months.
Speaker 2: It would cost what I read over one hundred billion
Speaker 2: dollars just to get the Nevada test site ready to
Speaker 2: do it, and over one hundred million a piece of
Speaker 2: tests to do, which is not done by the DoD
Speaker 2: It's done by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Speaker 2: the National Nuclear Security Administration. Oh, there's a lot of reason.
Speaker 2: In fact, the reason why I'm wearing all these fancy duds.
Speaker 2: I'm going on to debate this apparently with a bunch
Speaker 2: of other folks on TV. And I asked, I asked
Speaker 2: the you know, the person that was producing it, Like,
Speaker 2: is there somebody out there that's really pushing like this
Speaker 2: is a good idea.
Speaker 1: I was just gonna ask that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like because they called it a debate, and
Speaker 2: I said, well, I can get on and discuss it.
Speaker 3: Because I'm an analyst. I don't link.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but she indicated to me that somebody out there
Speaker 2: from the US side is going to push nuclear testing,
Speaker 2: So I don't I don't know how I'm going to
Speaker 2: be interested to hear that person.
Speaker 1: I don't understand. Yeah, I don't get how where you
Speaker 1: find there we have the most advanced modeling in the world,
Speaker 1: or you know, at least top two, and uh, let's
Speaker 1: still blow up nuclear weapons in the desert somewhere, or
Speaker 1: in the ocean or you know wherever. It makes fucking
Speaker 1: no sense because the fact is like, yeah, we're big
Speaker 1: and bad our military, but we don't want to Nobody
Speaker 1: wants to use nuclear weapons because we know what's the result.
Speaker 1: The end result will be like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look at a model of just a limited exchange
Speaker 2: between say Pakistan and India. Yeah, people go, oh, that
Speaker 2: would be That'd be horrible for Pakistan India. No, I'll
Speaker 2: be horrible for the world.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: Like this is it has made massive environmental consequences that
Speaker 2: could significantly alter the ecosystem of the world and therefore
Speaker 2: make it a lot more difficult to grow food, right,
Speaker 2: which millions could die. And I'm not trying to be
Speaker 2: like you know you're Cassandr or just google it. Just
Speaker 2: watch the random six models on a limited nuclear exchange
Speaker 2: and I think you'll see that it's not an exaggeration.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked about I remember we talked about it
Speaker 1: when India and Pakistan were getting a little squirrely, like
Speaker 1: six or months or so back well, and we talked
Speaker 1: about what a limited exchange would be and it would costs,
Speaker 1: like like the Americas would get fucked with like our
Speaker 1: food crops and stuff like that, you know, and like
Speaker 1: I think it was like twenty million people would die
Speaker 1: of fucking.
Speaker 3: Starvation really bad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like some un goodly number.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let alone the people actually impacted and out. If
Speaker 2: you had a chance to watch House.
Speaker 1: Dynamite, I did. Yeah. Did you you liked it?
Speaker 3: I did ye. I have my mutual friend of the
Speaker 3: direct Ugh, what you know.
Speaker 1: The movie was great and I have a buddy in
Speaker 1: that movie. He plays one of the earlier guys in
Speaker 1: the beginning of his kid Sam Awesome. Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: really a great speaking role too. Uh. The movie was gripping.
Speaker 1: I have a problem with Catherine Bigelow a little bit
Speaker 1: because I'm a movie snob. I've made a movie before
Speaker 1: and award for her Locker, which, like all military people
Speaker 1: from the Teamhouse On say, is nonsense, Like.
Speaker 2: Jared doctor either well, well let's stick to House of
Speaker 2: because it's relevant to.
Speaker 1: The Sorry, maybe we'll touch on this after. Yeah, House
Speaker 1: the Dynamite was great. It was super gripping. I love
Speaker 1: like the different perspectives and stuff. It was a really
Speaker 1: good movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my feedback was and it was after the fact.
Speaker 2: I don't know if she cared or even got.
Speaker 3: It, but.
Speaker 2: One I would have had a lot more debate, not
Speaker 2: just because I'm from the intelligence community.
Speaker 3: And who did it? Right?
Speaker 2: They go into the like should we just newt the
Speaker 2: world to I mean, they're looking at the three there's
Speaker 2: always three options.
Speaker 3: By the way in the military, you know, and it's like,
Speaker 3: well who did it?
Speaker 2: Like they would be screaming the president down, they would
Speaker 2: make they would force the icy to say, you tell
Speaker 2: us your best estimate of who launched dismissal or all
Speaker 2: the all the talk about what to do about it's irrelevant, right,
Speaker 2: And I know, I mean I think in the scenario
Speaker 2: it was launched a sea at sea, probably obscure did it.
Speaker 2: But it would be like they'd be retasking every damn
Speaker 2: satellite They'd be they'd be sending everything that we have
Speaker 2: floating to that to find out, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: like it and they would not have allowed the Icy
Speaker 2: to say, we don't know, they just wouldn't, right, so
Speaker 2: and maybe for political reasons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, we missed our intercept. Vehicle misses it.
Speaker 1: It's gonna blow a spoiler, it's going to explode in Chicago. Okay,
Speaker 1: tell me what my options are now to just fucking
Speaker 1: nuke everybody.
Speaker 3: Like they're not gonna nuke everybody, right, so.
Speaker 1: Let's figure out who the like you said, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 3: They would have demanded it. They would have.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't have been a pass So I didn't I
Speaker 2: thought that which should have been added. So the so
Speaker 2: the other issue not ours, but the Pentagon said, oh no,
Speaker 2: we would have hit that thing. We have like one
Speaker 2: hundred percent success, right. I don't think that's I know
Speaker 2: that's not the case.
Speaker 4: Everybody, you're hitting a bullet with a bullet, you're never
Speaker 4: gonna have a hundred percent success, right, So I don't
Speaker 4: know if it was would have been to picket like this,
Speaker 4: we got one shot at and sale that thees, but
Speaker 4: like to be fair to miss Bigelow is.
Speaker 5: Like you would have a movie if they hit it, right.
Speaker 5: The best okay, yeah, there have been a real really
Speaker 5: short movie, so obviously they have to make it go
Speaker 5: through the other thing, which is purely cinematic not technical.
Speaker 5: Was I think I would have showed the impact, right,
Speaker 5: because you.
Speaker 3: Still don't know.
Speaker 2: And maybe she did this on purpose, so maybe she's like,
Speaker 2: that's why I did it. Whether we're chasing a ghost, yeah,
Speaker 2: we were're chasing the ghost, but to really have that
Speaker 2: impact and then maybe not even show what the US response.
Speaker 1: Was, Well, they didn't really show the US response.
Speaker 2: Because they didn't show the impact. Whether it was actually
Speaker 2: a missile right, yeah, it by the way, should say
Speaker 2: spoiler a orner at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Well, sorry, guys, it's all right, you're still good. It
Speaker 1: just switched them my Yeah, yeah, it's a bit low,
Speaker 1: but that's all right. Yeah. I would say it was
Speaker 1: totally gripping. Uh, and she's good at that zero. Doc
Speaker 1: thirty was a good movie. I guess maybe I'm just
Speaker 1: too connected with Teamhouse and stuff like that to talk
Speaker 1: to like people, and and and from what I understand
Speaker 1: is this, and I'm sorry, I know this is your
Speaker 1: former Ah, heads up, all right, I think we're okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we're Okay, so this is your former outfit, right. Uh.
Speaker 1: The CIA basically wrote the story for and I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: like they let him like Parnetta let him in the room,
Speaker 1: her and Mark Bowl. Uh.
Speaker 3: Another another movie you're talking.
Speaker 1: Talking about Zero Block You're a Dark third?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But I mean, listen, how'se a dynamite totally good movie.
Speaker 1: Should watch it. It's on Netflix, Netflix, send us a
Speaker 1: check please. Yeah. But so Zero Dark Dirty, just because
Speaker 1: I know you're in that world and you don't have
Speaker 1: to say anything. The CIA welcomed he them in and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying to not get you know, use whatever
Speaker 1: you can with sources and stuff like that. But it
Speaker 1: kind of feels like a CIA authorized movie, to be honest.
Speaker 1: And it's a cool movie, right, And obviously you're not
Speaker 1: gonna show the teams of people that have worked on
Speaker 1: bin Laden and it's better to like anthromorphousies the entire
Speaker 1: crew into one person. I understand that for dramatic effect,
Speaker 1: but I'm not I mean, well, we all know that's
Speaker 1: not you know, the part where like the enhanced interrogation
Speaker 1: was like a big thing and that's how it was
Speaker 1: found and stuff like that, and I'm not gonna say
Speaker 1: what I think I know, but like I know that
Speaker 1: wasn't just that right, and I understand the dark history
Speaker 1: with the intense interrogation and like fact, frankly Cia, people
Speaker 1: do what the president lets you do, right, and you're
Speaker 1: gonna do you know, guys or girls are gonna do
Speaker 1: what they can to get what they can for the
Speaker 1: to keep America safe. Like I would do the same
Speaker 1: thing if I was there. I just it just felt
Speaker 1: like nonsense. And I everybody I know, at least there
Speaker 1: was a walk in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm a little too close for that to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if I if.
Speaker 2: I start critiquing what's true and what's not, basically, I
Speaker 2: think if that cinematically.
Speaker 3: It was good. I knew a lot of it was
Speaker 3: accurate as you know public If I would.
Speaker 2: Say anything, did sure that was you know, as a
Speaker 2: person who knew was coming, was you know, out there
Speaker 2: doing stuff. I'll leave it at that. I knew it
Speaker 2: was coming for a while and then you know, we
Speaker 2: carry it off. It's every American was super proud for
Speaker 2: sure too, and you know I was, and I was
Speaker 2: one of them. And then you see, like every political
Speaker 2: figure in Washington tell every possible thing that he knew
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: I was like, what the why did I mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean obviously we're going to celebrate, you know,
Speaker 2: getting the guy who as a country.
Speaker 1: Uh, definitely, but like why.
Speaker 2: Talk about I'm not even gonna say it because it's
Speaker 2: just justifies or not justifies that. They just said every
Speaker 2: possible thing that we did, which was awesome, and it
Speaker 2: had no reason to be in the public space. So if,
Speaker 2: if anything, since you can't undue time, we should collectively
Speaker 2: decide like like not to in the future. And it
Speaker 2: had real consequences on people whose lives have been forever
Speaker 2: changed totally. Somebody wanted to say something about a person
Speaker 2: that would help us and it it. Yeah, so I
Speaker 2: think I think the movie was cinematically was very well done.
Speaker 1: A lot of it was close, but yeah, yeah, you
Speaker 1: can't really get the specifics and even her Locker was
Speaker 1: a good movie cinematically. But like when I hear from
Speaker 1: like guys who were on the ground that were like
Speaker 1: that there would never be the case, right, I understand
Speaker 1: you need to take some dramatic license, but with the
Speaker 1: problem with Bigelow and bol didn't write this new movie,
Speaker 1: but that guy Mark Bole is I have a problem
Speaker 1: with a little bit. He's a screenwriter I think for
Speaker 1: zero Dark thirty, and I believe hurt Locker I might
Speaker 1: be wrong. Is they take a lot they act like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm a journalist and I got this. This is fact
Speaker 1: based completely and this isn't this is totally the truth,
Speaker 1: and it's like it's not completely the truth, so stop
Speaker 1: talking like it is. Specifically Mark Boltmore, I got a
Speaker 1: real problem with Mark Bowle. He's a rat in my opinion.
Speaker 1: So and there's a long history not to have him
Speaker 1: to do with me. But bo Bergdall, that whole thing,
Speaker 1: he's a piece of shit. Yeah, he's a bad guy
Speaker 1: with what he did with bo Bergdahal because obviously bo
Speaker 1: Bergdall he did a fucked up thing walking off base.
Speaker 1: But he's clearly mentally ill. And uh, you know when
Speaker 1: we were in the Wars, you know, the Army did
Speaker 1: lower standards and stuff like that, like you couldn't get
Speaker 1: into the coast Guard and the Army let him in.
Speaker 1: So shout out to the coast Guard, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. So, and this guy just kind of manipulated
Speaker 1: that kid to be honest, like a kid who was
Speaker 1: mentally ill, like he manipulated the shit out of him
Speaker 1: when he got back, and he was he was in
Speaker 1: captivity for five fucking years on top of that. Can't
Speaker 1: be good for your mental health. But anyway, I digress.
Speaker 1: This is me being a nerd like film like movie guy.
Speaker 2: Uh, so I do have to jump on my all right,
Speaker 2: get the hell out of here about why we don't
Speaker 2: want to trigger a.
Speaker 1: Nuclear Yeah, tell him it's a dumb idea for me. Please.
Speaker 1: I want you guys to check out Make five Boat
Speaker 1: Low Lowbo Institute.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The new podcast link is in the description and our
Speaker 1: patreon Patreon dot com Slash the Teamhouse. You get Teamhouse
Speaker 1: episodes and eyes On episodes ad free and early and
Speaker 1: it helped support the show Mick as always.
Speaker 3: I love you, thanks brother. Great to talk to you.
Speaker 3: Another good episode.
Speaker 1: All right, see you hey, guys, how's it going. It's
Speaker 1: d I want to thank you for watching this show.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. I love for you guys to
Speaker 1: check out our patreon. It's at Patreon dot com Slash
Speaker 1: the Teamhouse. The link is in the description, super easy
Speaker 1: to find if you're listening. It's in the show notes
Speaker 1: as well. You can find it right there. What do
Speaker 1: you get? You get AD free audio, AD free video
Speaker 1: for both Eyes on Geopolitics and the Teamhouse podcast, so
Speaker 1: two podcasts AD free for the price of one. You
Speaker 1: also get the shows a couple of days early on
Speaker 1: both video and audio, and you have the opportunity to
Speaker 1: shoot us some message, ask questions whether it's Teamhouse or Izon.
Speaker 1: We could cover topics and stuff like that. It really
Speaker 1: really helps support the show. We really appreciate the patrens
Speaker 1: that are there now. We couldn't do it without you, guys,
Speaker 1: so consider supporting the show. It's at patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash the Teamhouse. The link is in the description and
Speaker 1: in the show notes if you're listening to us on audio.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.