Speaker 1: Jane nine says the following about the weather heat divised
Speaker 1: to tomorrow at eight pm. Wait for it, we get
Speaker 1: a reprieve on Thursday between now and then high ninety
Speaker 1: one today with a low one hundred heat index, very hot,
Speaker 1: very humid, muggy. Overnight clear sky is seventy three, partly cloudy,
Speaker 1: very humid. Tomorrow with ninety two for a high and yeah,
Speaker 1: heat index in the low one hundreds. Wednesday night sixty
Speaker 1: eight flody, maybe a scattered shower phone in there. Then
Speaker 1: finally Thursday, cold front slowly coming in. We're going to
Speaker 1: see high have just eighty two, feel good seventy five.
Speaker 1: Right now, it's time for traffic chuck from the u se.
Speaker 2: Of Traffic center, you see a weight well center offers
Speaker 2: surgical and medico OBCD careen expertise called five one three
Speaker 2: nine three nine two two sixty three. That's nine three
Speaker 2: nine twenty two sixty three. Res are clear off a
Speaker 2: two seventy five spound near Mostellar. That traffic clearing out
Speaker 2: from seven to forty seven. Just hereing dispatches for a
Speaker 2: new wreck on northbound seventy one before you get to
Speaker 2: the Ragan Highway. Traffic it's all already back king up
Speaker 2: through Kenwood chat ingram on fifty five KRC talk station.
Speaker 1: Hey twenty eight, fifty five KRCD talk station. Stayed in
Speaker 1: the obvious. It's Tuesday, and for regular listeners, stayed in
Speaker 1: the obvious. It's the time of week when we get
Speaker 1: the deep dive Daniel Davis Deep Dive find them online
Speaker 1: where you actually might run into me. I was on
Speaker 1: his program last week. It was a real honor to
Speaker 1: do so, Welcome back, retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Got
Speaker 1: a lot of haters out there, man, Well.
Speaker 3: Well we do. But you know the people, what do
Speaker 3: they call it? Hate watching? Sometimes they just love to
Speaker 3: do that. But it was great to have you on
Speaker 3: the show.
Speaker 4: Well, I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: Man. We talked about four or five different subject matters.
Speaker 1: But boy, I guess I really stepped in it when I
Speaker 1: had comments about Israel and no expert on you know, Israel,
Speaker 1: It's history or anything else. I'm just aware of what's
Speaker 1: in the news of late. But apparently that was what
Speaker 1: hit a nerve. But I guess I'm used to that.
Speaker 1: You always hit a nerve with someone when you're talking
Speaker 1: about the deteriorating situation there between Israel guys and of
Speaker 1: course the terrorist organizations.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and of course I have this when you and
Speaker 3: I talk about Israel. I think you've told me You've
Speaker 3: had some of the folks not lacking what I've said either.
Speaker 4: So I guess you just can't win on that. You can't.
Speaker 4: It is what it is.
Speaker 1: That's the fact it really is. And people have some
Speaker 1: very very very deep seated feelings about that. But before
Speaker 1: we talk about that, let's get the latest on rushing
Speaker 1: Ukraine another day. Know, the same old, same old, it seems,
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump, it seems like he's pulling the
Speaker 1: plug on't even trying anymore. Tries to sit down with
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin, tries to get Putin to negotiate, But as
Speaker 1: you and I have observed and talked about regularly, Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin's got his list of demands, he's not wavering from them.
Speaker 1: And so you end a discussion with nobody conceding to
Speaker 1: anything that he wants. You're not going to get a settlement.
Speaker 1: And then the bombs and the drone start flying again.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, and you know what, I honestly find the
Speaker 3: whole episode puzzling. I mean, let's go back to when
Speaker 3: the fifty day deadline was said. I thought that was
Speaker 3: kind of odd because I didn't understand what was fifty.
Speaker 4: Days tied to you?
Speaker 3: Now, why would you say, all right, we've already gone
Speaker 3: six months to the Trump administration. Why why another fifty days?
Speaker 3: And why would that be any different? And then why
Speaker 3: did it go from fifty to now ten or a
Speaker 3: dozen something like that? Uh? And but still we had
Speaker 3: the same thing lumin out that we did when that
Speaker 3: first fifty day deadline was set. What is going to
Speaker 3: happen if he tries to impose those secondary sanctions on
Speaker 3: Russia and the primary issues not what they do to
Speaker 3: Russia because Russia is basically sanctioned proof already. It's the
Speaker 3: secondary sanctions that they slapped the terrace on China, India,
Speaker 3: Brazil and anyone else. They say, who does business with
Speaker 3: Russia with uh pydric garbage, et cetera. I don't know
Speaker 3: that you're going to succeed if you're going to try
Speaker 3: to get our you know, our friend India to say
Speaker 3: don't buy Russian oil or it's gonna you know, get
Speaker 3: it from somewhere else where else are you going to
Speaker 3: get it? And then, of course we have the issue
Speaker 3: with China. We're still in a trade issue with them.
Speaker 3: And if you slap another one hundred percent, I mean
Speaker 3: that it hurt us last time when we had one
Speaker 3: hundred and forty five percent. So I just don't see
Speaker 3: how this is going to help our case much less
Speaker 3: hurt Russia.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 1: As we enter into more thoughtful and I guess deep
Speaker 1: trade negotiations on tariffs with China and our negotiation process
Speaker 1: with them process with them, these secondary tariffs, I think
Speaker 1: it's just going to blow that up. I would imagine
Speaker 1: China's not going to stand for it in a discussion.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean because you're you've spent so many months
Speaker 3: and so much you know, political capital, trying to come
Speaker 3: up to some kind of a mutually acceptable financial deal
Speaker 3: and apparently there are making some progress.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but you talk something like this on.
Speaker 3: Top, it'll literally blow up everything you've been doing and
Speaker 3: set us back, you know, several months, and that's just
Speaker 3: not going to be good for American consumers or business.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you get your reaction to this,
Speaker 1: because my my first reaction was this is childish. When
Speaker 1: we talk about, and we have before, when Ukraine wants
Speaker 1: to strike and strikes targets within Russia, you and I
Speaker 1: both scratch our head and wonder to what end. It's
Speaker 1: not like they're going to make advances and take over
Speaker 1: Russian territory. They don't enough troops to keep the territory
Speaker 1: if they took it. But when they choose targets to bomb,
Speaker 1: last time I checked, it was resort towns, there's not
Speaker 1: even a military objective. If you're bombing a beat where
Speaker 1: people go to vacation, what possible benefit could that be?
Speaker 1: And of course then the Russians retaliate by bombing the
Speaker 1: Ukraine resort towns, not military objectives. Either of those are
Speaker 1: civilian target So what's the point of this exercise? Again,
Speaker 1: it seems like children playing war games.
Speaker 3: Well, and part of the problem for the Ukraine side
Speaker 3: is that they don't. They have limited number of offensive
Speaker 3: missiles and drones, so they have some that can get in,
Speaker 3: but not that many. Russia, on the other hand, has
Speaker 3: more than enough air defense missiles. Unlike the Ukraine side
Speaker 3: and the Western side, who are in a significant dearth
Speaker 3: of those interceptor missiles, Russia has no shortage, but they
Speaker 3: have them. They do have a huge country, so they
Speaker 3: have to pick and choose where they put them. So
Speaker 3: on the militarily important targets, they have a lot of
Speaker 3: air defense, so Ukraine doesn't want to missiles where they
Speaker 3: don't even get you know, they don't even have video
Speaker 3: of burning buildings in Russia.
Speaker 4: So they go places.
Speaker 3: Where there aren't air defenses or there are not very many,
Speaker 3: and so they can get the video. Because this is
Speaker 3: all about just having impressions and media outlets. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's just the truth of it. They want the video
Speaker 3: footage to show that they're doing something. There is no
Speaker 3: military path, so it's not an issue that, well, this
Speaker 3: won't help the front line, because nothing will, which of
Speaker 3: course exposes the absurdity of continuing to fight a ward
Speaker 3: you can't win.
Speaker 1: No question about it. And this week after week after week,
Speaker 1: we keep coming up with the same conclusions, Daniel Davis,
Speaker 1: and we don't have the I think one of the
Speaker 1: things we learned from COVID is we need to start
Speaker 1: making our own stuff and not being so reliant on China.
Speaker 1: This is a moment of clarity for our US military
Speaker 1: because you know, the world is clamoring for our weapons
Speaker 1: and asking for patriots and wanting this, and that we
Speaker 1: don't even have enough of our own you mentioned many
Speaker 1: times on this program. We talked about it last week.
Speaker 1: We can only make six hundred patriot missiles a year.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sorry. The demand is much greater than
Speaker 1: the supply, and we have an obligation to our our
Speaker 1: own people to protect our people from threats abroad and domestically,
Speaker 1: and for that you need a stockpile of weapons, and
Speaker 1: apparently we don't have enough.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean that's you said, it's a moment of clarity.
Speaker 3: I would say it should be a moment of clarity,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't seem to be because I mean, what
Speaker 3: was it more than a year ago is when we
Speaker 3: expanded I gut maybe two years ago we expanded our
Speaker 3: capacity because it was five hundred missiles pier at the
Speaker 3: outset of the war. Now is up to around six hundred.
Speaker 3: But I mean, unless I miss something, I haven't seen
Speaker 3: anybody say all right, we have this emergency contract here,
Speaker 3: we're gonna triple it or something to that effect.
Speaker 4: You know, we'll go way above what it is. Now
Speaker 4: that you see how.
Speaker 3: Many interceptions it takes to sustain combat. Clearly we don't
Speaker 3: have enough. And by the way, the last credible information
Speaker 3: I've forgotten from somebody who had access to the inside
Speaker 3: of the Pentagon, it'll take about five years for us
Speaker 3: to repay replace our own stock piles. And that that
Speaker 3: number doesn't even start five years until we stop giving
Speaker 3: everything that comes off the Foundation to somebody else right now,
Speaker 3: to you know, to whether it's to Israel or the Ukraine.
Speaker 4: So we need to do something.
Speaker 3: So you say clarity, but I don't see that that
Speaker 3: clarity has turned into policy.
Speaker 1: It's okay, the European Union's gonna buy seven hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollars worth of military hardware from domestic military
Speaker 1: hardware manufacturers, thus ensuring the longevity of the military industrial complex.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, I see that, certainly from an
Speaker 3: American perspective, that's a big number. And then investing six
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollars in our energy to all this, I mean,
Speaker 3: all that is really good, but I mean you still
Speaker 3: have that bottleneck there. It matters how much you can
Speaker 3: produce and how fast. So a lot of dollars are
Speaker 3: being thrown around, but you don't have the capacity to
Speaker 3: do anything big. You just have the ability for the
Speaker 3: status quo to continue to perpetuate for the military industrial complex.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't do a whole lot for our national security.
Speaker 1: All Right, Daniel Davis, let's walk down that dangerous road
Speaker 1: and talk about Israel, Gaza and Iran. Now, obviously, you
Speaker 1: and I and I think the whole world can agree
Speaker 1: there is a massive humanitarian crisis going on Gaza. There
Speaker 1: are people literally starving, and I think one of the
Speaker 1: things I stepped in the other day was about this
Speaker 1: getting aid into Gaza, getting food to people who obviously
Speaker 1: need it. You know, the two sides every story. You
Speaker 1: got Israel, and maybe they're blamed. You got the hamas
Speaker 1: Terrists maybe preventing the aid from getting it to people.
Speaker 1: But as soon as AID shows up, it's like any
Speaker 1: group of starving people, it just turns absolutely chaotic. I know,
Speaker 1: I saw a massive crowd storming one of the AID trucks.
Speaker 1: And the UN obviously seems to me to be always
Speaker 1: seems to me to be a pointless exercise, incapable of
Speaker 1: really providing any benefit anywhere. But they can't even seem
Speaker 1: to resolve the situation. How are we going to how
Speaker 1: can we just get food in there? Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: the that's the central problem right now. The problem with
Speaker 1: the UN is they have no power. They can only
Speaker 1: have influence and they only try to say something. But
Speaker 1: that requires primarily Israel on the ground, because they're the
Speaker 1: only ones that actually have power over this situation. And
Speaker 1: just in a form of context for people to understand
Speaker 1: why we're in this starvation situation. Israel decided they didn't
Speaker 1: like the UN program that was feeding people Undra, it's
Speaker 1: called UH and so they shut that down and then
Speaker 1: they formed this new one, and of course they had
Speaker 1: shut it off from from March up until just very recently.
Speaker 1: Now then they have four food designation points where they
Speaker 1: can have it. That's why you see this chaos here
Speaker 1: because the entire gauze strip has to swarm, you know,
Speaker 1: torment on four points.
Speaker 4: They had four hundred before that, and so.
Speaker 3: It's a lot easier to distribute food more orderly when
Speaker 3: you have multiple places and routine food coming in. But
Speaker 3: unfortunately Israel has restricted it to four and the number
Speaker 3: of trucks is about one I'm sorry, a fifth. What
Speaker 3: is needed for just a basic sustenance airgo You have
Speaker 3: people starving to death because there's not enough food getting
Speaker 3: into the population. And look, whatever you want to say
Speaker 3: about anything policies or who's right or wrong, Israel has the.
Speaker 4: Power over the food.
Speaker 3: And right now they are not releasing, they're not opening
Speaker 3: the gates, and they're not letting the rest of the
Speaker 3: trucks get in.
Speaker 4: And we see what the result is on the ground.
Speaker 1: And I have not looked for, nor have I read
Speaker 1: an explanation for why it went for that approach. I
Speaker 1: presume on some measure Israel wants to manage the distribution
Speaker 1: of food to keep it out of the hands of
Speaker 1: Hamas and get it to the people who actually are starving.
Speaker 1: But that Hamas is quite often commandeering the food supplies.
Speaker 1: It's more food supplies, more trucks, more distribution centers. It
Speaker 1: seems to me might still be managed by Israel if
Speaker 1: they broaden the effort. But there is that threat of
Speaker 1: Hamas and that concern about Hamas taking the supplies from
Speaker 1: the people they purport to represent.
Speaker 4: Well, but the reality is you're not doing any of that.
Speaker 3: You're not preventing even the way they're doing it now,
Speaker 3: it's not preventing food and forgetting Hamas. They have no
Speaker 3: idea who's Hamas and who's just Palestinian. So by saying
Speaker 3: that's what they're trying to do, what they're doing is
Speaker 3: starving other people. You're not gonna prevent that. You can't
Speaker 3: mean the Hamas is Palestine, I mean they are part
Speaker 3: of it. So you can't distinguish where the food goes
Speaker 3: because you Israel has no control whatsoever over where that
Speaker 3: food goes in those four distribution points. Once it goes
Speaker 3: in there, they don't know where it goes, whether it's
Speaker 3: four or four hundred. So that's not an attainable objective
Speaker 3: because it can't be met. But this is just not
Speaker 3: a military solvable question. And look, at some point you're
Speaker 3: just gonna have to say, either Israel is going to
Speaker 3: literally starve everyone to death or they're going to have
Speaker 3: to open the gates. And they're coming under a lot
Speaker 3: more pressure. And I personally find that reprehensible that that's
Speaker 3: they're using starvation as a tool.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, well, and the idea of using civilian captives
Speaker 1: as a tool, I find that inanitari from a humanitarian
Speaker 1: inspective and an ethical perspective, pretty awful too. But what's
Speaker 1: the downside risk of just allowing opening the gates and
Speaker 1: allowing food in. We're not talking about military or anything
Speaker 1: like that, just letting the food in and letting it
Speaker 1: go where it may.
Speaker 3: Listen, Brian, we got to be honest and especially and
Speaker 3: I'm not talking secret stuff here. I'm talking absolute open
Speaker 3: discussion within his senior Israeli positions and on Israeli media.
Speaker 3: They want the Palestinians out. They don't want to open
Speaker 3: the gates and let the food in. That would now
Speaker 3: then remove the pressure to get them. I think it's
Speaker 3: pretty clear from evidence that what they want is to
Speaker 3: compel or coerce other regional countries, whether that's in Africa.
Speaker 3: There's been some talk there or in other Arab countries
Speaker 3: that they want them to see how bad this is
Speaker 3: and say, are we'll just alleviate the suffering, let them
Speaker 3: come here, Let you know, five hundred thousand come here
Speaker 3: or something like that, or go anywhere, because they want
Speaker 3: them out. So there are many in Israel who don't
Speaker 3: want to solve that problem because they want to keep
Speaker 3: the pressure on that could possibly get them out.
Speaker 1: And that's just the uncomfortable truth. So they wanted to
Speaker 1: part they wanted to be just big as an empty
Speaker 1: parking lot.
Speaker 3: That is what they want. They have a plan right now.
Speaker 3: It was out there just last week. There's many discussing
Speaker 3: openly the reoccupation of Gaza to Israeli people, meaning they
Speaker 3: have to first get the current occupants out.
Speaker 1: Complicated world we live in. I always love talking one
Speaker 1: with you about it, which we could solve the problems
Speaker 1: of the world. But then again, you and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have anything to talk about every Tuesday at eight thirty,
Speaker 1: Daniel Davis, I would.
Speaker 3: Love it if we didn't have any we could talk
Speaker 3: about sports or all seasons coming up.
Speaker 4: I'd rather do that and have that problem solved.
Speaker 1: I tell you what, I have said that so many
Speaker 1: times over the years.
Speaker 4: If all the.
Speaker 1: Problems of the world solved, I wouldn't have anything to
Speaker 1: talk about. That's fine. I'll find something else to do
Speaker 1: for a living. Daniel Davis. Deeve Die find him online.
Speaker 1: You'll enjoy the podcast and the conversations he has throughout
Speaker 1: the week. And I say, we appreciate you let me
Speaker 1: on your show last week. Was a fun conversation, sir.
Speaker 1: It was a pleasure. I really enjoyed it. I'll look
Speaker 1: forward to next week, next Tuesday, my friend. It's a
Speaker 1: forty two right now, fifty five krc he Talks Station.
Speaker 3: This is fifty five krc an iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 4: I'm excited.