Speaker 1: You. Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com
Speaker 1: and listeners liking Yeah, I know, the most aggervated noise.
Speaker 1: It's all media.
Speaker 2: Oddly, we're live February twenty sixth of twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. Now,
Speaker 2: it's been quite a whirlwind of a couple of weeks, really,
Speaker 2: and I didn't speak to Larry Hancock last week because
Speaker 2: rather suddenly, right before we were supposed to air, I
Speaker 2: was not well enough to do. So it's my fault.
Speaker 2: But thankfully Larry decided to join us this week, and
Speaker 2: actually it probably times out better because we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about some current events and we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about Hey, how about foreign policy. I know that's on
Speaker 2: everybody's mind right now. There's sarcasm in that, you know,
Speaker 2: everybody wants to talk about the Epstein files. Everybody's talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, the economy because it's strangling us all but
Speaker 2: not according to the State of the Union address. But
Speaker 2: also not according to the State of the Union address.
Speaker 2: Oddly absent in my mind is foreign policy. Really. I
Speaker 2: know there were some mentions, but not a lot there. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: moves are being made so it's sort of strange to
Speaker 2: see this administration not signaling moves, or maybe they're signaling
Speaker 2: moves in a different way that I don't understand, and
Speaker 2: maybe even moving without comment on certain things because assets
Speaker 2: are being moved around. We certainly have this issue now
Speaker 2: with what's going on with Cuba in the boats, because
Speaker 2: we had the Venezuela thing, but according to Trump's State
Speaker 2: of the Union, Venezuela is now a great partner of
Speaker 2: ours ever since they took Maduro out of there. So,
Speaker 2: you know, no looking at the boats and whatever's going
Speaker 2: on on the high seas in r. S's And meanwhile,
Speaker 2: what's happening with the circling of Iran and the speculation there.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I didn't hear much of that in
Speaker 2: the State of the Union. But let's hear from somebody
Speaker 2: who's a little more sober and intelligent on these things
Speaker 2: than I am usually, and that's Larry Hancock, who's the
Speaker 2: author of very many books. Of course, there'll be a
Speaker 2: hyperlinks you can go follow Larry's blog, you know, and
Speaker 2: he talks about history and history as it's being made sometimes,
Speaker 2: and gee, the Oversight Committee's awfully busy, but he may
Speaker 2: have more commentary on that in the near future as well.
Speaker 2: Who knows. Larry. First off, how you doing tonight.
Speaker 3: I'm doing fine, Chuck, looking forward to an early spring.
Speaker 3: It's been warm here this week. It's very nice the.
Speaker 2: Past couple of days. I got warmer here, but it
Speaker 2: was freezing for Georgia for a while while, I mean
Speaker 2: really really cold. I know people in the Northeast are
Speaker 2: probably saying to themselves shut up because they were buried
Speaker 2: under you know, three and a half feet of snow.
Speaker 2: But believe me, it was cold for us in Georgia.
Speaker 2: For being in Georgia, it would have been like, you know,
Speaker 2: a typical week in I don't know, March in Jersey.
Speaker 2: But hey, it is what it is anyway, Larry. But
Speaker 2: this is a strange time. I mean, look, you heard
Speaker 2: what I had to say at the beginning, and I
Speaker 2: do feel that way. And I'm not offering much of
Speaker 2: an opinion on when I don't feel as though I'm
Speaker 2: being offered much data. So you know, maybe you're seeing
Speaker 2: things I'm not. So what is actually happening regarding US
Speaker 2: foreign policy? I mean, are we about to strike Iran?
Speaker 2: In your estimation? I mean all those questions that I'd
Speaker 2: really love to ask somebody I don't know, like at
Speaker 2: the Pentagon right now, But where's that guy been? Right? Anyway?
Speaker 2: I know our head of the FBI was making sure
Speaker 2: to celebrate with the hockey team in Italy and all,
Speaker 2: but you know, we are busy with other things. Maybe
Speaker 2: I missed the memo, what what do you see happening here?
Speaker 2: And what can we see beyond the surface? Do you think?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: One thing that talking about who's saying? What about? Just
Speaker 3: an immediate comment is one One high ranking admiral pointed
Speaker 3: out to the President about three weeks ago that that
Speaker 3: we have been deploying forces at a rate that is
Speaker 3: quite unusual for US without having an active you know,
Speaker 3: being at war or having a you know, a congressionally
Speaker 3: approved military action play. And the admiral was essentially saying,
Speaker 3: you know, I've got a carrier group that's been deployed
Speaker 3: already for a year and a half. The guys in
Speaker 3: that carrier group would like to come home, they'd like
Speaker 3: to be rotated. We really need to maintain ships. We've
Speaker 3: got some real sustainment issues with this force. So I
Speaker 3: just need to advise you of that. So please don't
Speaker 3: send them to the gol again. And the answer was
Speaker 3: to ignore him or move him out of his position,
Speaker 3: which is happening a lot these days, and sure enough
Speaker 3: to carry a group to the golf. So one of
Speaker 3: the things that's happening that is I think why you're
Speaker 3: not hearing much from anybody, Chucks. It's become very clear
Speaker 3: that if you actually even state your opinion from a
Speaker 3: professional standpoint, if it's not the right opinion.
Speaker 1: You need to look for work immediately.
Speaker 3: And so I think that is and the Secretary of
Speaker 3: Defense is strictly in that court. If you have advice,
Speaker 3: they don't really want advice. What they want is compliance.
Speaker 3: And so I think that's why the level of communication
Speaker 3: has really dropped down. Okay, similar to what we might
Speaker 3: have explained over the last few decades.
Speaker 2: Right, So let me just ask you about a couple
Speaker 2: of specific things. Then, because you have the the Gerald Ford,
Speaker 2: there's reports that those guys kind you know, gave that
Speaker 2: sentiment that you just mentioned about Hey, listen, we've been
Speaker 2: out here long enough and maybe it's time to rotate
Speaker 2: us or you know, give us some shot leave or something.
Speaker 2: I saw that report. In addition, I saw that you know,
Speaker 2: they're supposed to be deploying hospital ships right to Greenland,
Speaker 2: and these things seem awfully incongruous to the awfully ignored
Speaker 2: elements that have been deployed that seem to be strategic
Speaker 2: but are not actually involved in an active operation. Does
Speaker 2: this seem contradictory or does it seem like we're just
Speaker 2: not getting a full report on what's actually happening regarding this,
Speaker 2: or what do you make of that?
Speaker 3: I always think it's all disconnected because it's quite frankly,
Speaker 3: all situational.
Speaker 1: That's a comment I would make.
Speaker 3: Traditionally, you would have a stated foreign policy, okay, and
Speaker 3: then you can looking for things that would be consistent
Speaker 3: with that foreign policy. We're in a very situational mode
Speaker 3: at the moment. Whatever strikes the president at any point
Speaker 3: in time, any given a week becomes the foreign policy priority.
Speaker 1: And whatever it was last week.
Speaker 3: You know, it may recycle, but it's not part of
Speaker 3: a coherent, consistent, orderly process.
Speaker 1: It's like rotation. You know. Well, we talk about Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if somebody asked a question about it, and if
Speaker 3: they ask the right question, that makes us think about it,
Speaker 3: we may do something different.
Speaker 1: Same way with the hospital ships.
Speaker 3: You know, you hear that the hospital ships are on
Speaker 3: their way in a social media post, but we know
Speaker 3: that's not true, and we know that can't even happen.
Speaker 3: One of them is under maintenance. They would require icebreakers
Speaker 3: that we don't have. The port's not big enough to die.
Speaker 3: It's just they're inconsistencies all over the place. So at
Speaker 3: this point in time, we don't really have a foreign
Speaker 3: policy being supported by an integrated series of actions.
Speaker 1: We have at best, it's tactical.
Speaker 3: You know, what are you going to do this week
Speaker 3: to support what the priority was this week? And next
Speaker 3: week you'll turn around and go, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: but I already deployed everybody for that.
Speaker 1: Now you want me to pull them back.
Speaker 3: It's like the carrier that you talked about, rather than
Speaker 3: being rotated as it should have been in the first place,
Speaker 3: was deployed to support the Venezuela operation tentatively, and then
Speaker 3: it was no, it's not going to have to go there.
Speaker 3: Is it going to go home? No, No, it's turns
Speaker 3: out it's going to go. So what you are seeing
Speaker 3: is a lot of disconnections. I think it would be
Speaker 3: hard for anybody to objectively not think that was going on.
Speaker 3: It's very difficult for commanders, It's very difficult granders. It's
Speaker 3: difficult for the person. Well, I would say, the only
Speaker 3: person who's pleased by this. And if I were really
Speaker 3: in charge of China and really wanted to invade one,
Speaker 3: I'd wait about a week under the assumption that we
Speaker 3: might well have engaged with Iran and that we might
Speaker 3: have supplied the bulk of our anti ballistic missiles there
Speaker 3: are available to us to Israel, and then in a
Speaker 3: short period of time we'll use them.
Speaker 4: All well, wow, well this leads us to a logistically.
Speaker 3: Our forces will be tired, out of ammunition and not
Speaker 3: involved in this kind of situational activity.
Speaker 2: Right, So it leaves you with logistical questions. But are
Speaker 2: we certain that we're just simply not being shown? Like,
Speaker 2: is this a new kind of stealth behavior?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Where there is two tracks let's say of behavior here.
Speaker 2: It's not all singular. Let's just say there's the surface
Speaker 2: level stuff and the stuff that's being shared, and then
Speaker 2: there's maybe a quiet contingent that is simply you know,
Speaker 2: actually enacting more long term strategies. Is that a possibility?
Speaker 2: I mean, are we really looking at a four D
Speaker 2: kind of chest.
Speaker 1: Now, No, I don't think no, I think that's true.
Speaker 3: I think what you did say is obviously there are
Speaker 3: two levels of things going on. The military stuff is
Speaker 3: quite transparent, and these days it can't not be. You
Speaker 3: can't really sneak forces around that if you can turn this,
Speaker 3: turnoff transponders, you know. But you know when we're assembly enforcing.
Speaker 3: Quite frankly, the president never fails to announceward forced. So
Speaker 3: that that part is pretty straightforward. What we don't see,
Speaker 3: and we talked about this a little bit earlier. Uh,
Speaker 3: the president is always running a series of deals in
Speaker 3: the background, and if the deals were that's going to
Speaker 3: condition the military response, it may restrain it. I mean,
Speaker 3: we saw that in Venezuela clearly. In Venezuela you had
Speaker 3: it was very confusing because you had something going that
Speaker 3: had to do with drugs, which like.
Speaker 1: It disappeared, and then it had to do with oil.
Speaker 3: And what it turned out was that he had clearly
Speaker 3: been the ghost shading with the vice present the country
Speaker 3: to actually gain access to its oil supplies, not to
Speaker 3: do a revolution, for do a new democratic government, not
Speaker 3: to control drugs, but literally essentially to do a deal
Speaker 3: to gaintain access to its oil. So wise, so there
Speaker 3: is a there's a deal making going on. Certainly, there's
Speaker 3: deal making going on in regard to Palestine, in regard.
Speaker 1: To Iran, and REGARDSS.
Speaker 3: So what's in the background that you're not seeing is
Speaker 3: what particular deal he's trying to cut at any point
Speaker 3: in time, because that deal may be different than the
Speaker 3: one that he's talking about. So, yeah, certainly, is that
Speaker 3: for fortys I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's what.
Speaker 3: It is, but it's there's a level of complexity situationally.
Speaker 1: And what deal he thinks can be cut.
Speaker 3: And the fascinating thing to me was in Venezuela, the
Speaker 3: deal that's been cut and the outcome that's been that
Speaker 3: we're arriving at is totally different than what the deal
Speaker 3: being discussed in the beginning was. So that kind of
Speaker 3: leaves you at odds about you know, I wonder where
Speaker 3: we may end up.
Speaker 2: Well, let's see if we can make a pattern out
Speaker 2: of this, because it seems to me like that is
Speaker 2: a consistent pattern, you know, when it comes to intervention
Speaker 2: regarding Israel and that circumstance, right, it was to be
Speaker 2: in support of them because they had been under attack,
Speaker 2: and that was a couple of years ago, now I know,
Speaker 2: And you know, before we go any further, I got
Speaker 2: to mention there's still shooting going on in Ukraine. Everybody forgets,
Speaker 2: but there it is. And the only address to that
Speaker 2: in the State of the Union was, well, that wouldn't
Speaker 2: happened if I was president, Okay, but it's still happening.
Speaker 2: And what happened to that negotiation not a top priority
Speaker 2: at the moment according to this administration, right, So the
Speaker 2: top priority of Venezuela, well, that was about drugs, and
Speaker 2: we were bombing the boats and then we had to
Speaker 2: take out the dictator. And meanwhile, I didn't think Venezuela
Speaker 2: was a big drug hub anyway, but at least not
Speaker 2: from the history. I understand it's really not. But that's okay.
Speaker 2: They're going to clamp down on that. They're blowing up boats,
Speaker 2: and the next thing you know is we're snatching the dictator,
Speaker 2: bringing them here under drug charges and cutting an oil deal.
Speaker 2: So I mean, it's either chaos or there is a
Speaker 2: pattern being hidden here where it's like, look it's a ropodope,
Speaker 2: you know, Look we're going in one direction. We're going
Speaker 2: in run direction. Keep your eye on my left and
Speaker 2: here's my right. I don't know, it's an odd sort
Speaker 2: of thing to witness here, because I've never seen this
Speaker 2: before in foreign policy, even studying historically foreign policy. I mean,
Speaker 2: is there a time period we could look back to
Speaker 2: that would reveal to us this type of foreign policy
Speaker 2: behavior from the United States? Do you think?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: I think one can say that we have always we've
Speaker 3: always had two stated foreign policy seeze right, the overt
Speaker 3: foreign policy the State Department would be communicating, we be
Speaker 3: communicating diplomatically, and then whatever an individual president chose to
Speaker 3: make his priority. So the fact that we would have
Speaker 3: two priorities in play and some conflict there and some
Speaker 3: you know, dysfunction is not odd.
Speaker 1: It's not odd at all.
Speaker 3: I mean, we go back to, you know, the invasion
Speaker 3: of Cuba, and you have the guy who's at the.
Speaker 1: UN going, oh, we would never do something like that.
Speaker 3: At the bottom line is we just didn't tell him
Speaker 3: we were about to do that, you know. So I
Speaker 3: think it would be unfair to say that we haven't
Speaker 3: been in these situations before.
Speaker 1: We seem to be in more.
Speaker 3: Of them at any one time than before, and I
Speaker 3: think I think that makes it. It makes it a
Speaker 3: lot more challenging and probably a lot more risking. But
Speaker 3: because you can, you know, you can get away with
Speaker 3: one mistake if you make it.
Speaker 1: Can you get away with life in the same timeframe?
Speaker 1: Not sure. But the real answer to your.
Speaker 3: Question, I think is what is totally escaping us at
Speaker 3: the moment is committing to these actions without an understanding.
Speaker 1: Of the long term impact.
Speaker 3: Because, as you just said, in all of these cases,
Speaker 3: we come out with a statement in the beginning of
Speaker 3: why we're doing it, and then we change it in midstream,
Speaker 3: and then the question is going to be, well, we
Speaker 3: changed in midstream.
Speaker 1: How does you know?
Speaker 3: First of all, did we accomplish what we said we
Speaker 3: were going to do? You know, let's look at Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Have I seen anyse Yeah, we've suck some boats. Have
Speaker 3: I seen any Have I seen any statistics in the
Speaker 3: State of the Union message about drug usage in the
Speaker 3: United States being down, drug availability in the United States
Speaker 3: being down?
Speaker 1: Is there any metric to show me that that worked? Okay,
Speaker 1: now what about the metrics on the on the oil?
Speaker 1: We know we've we've taken a lot of oil. We haven't.
Speaker 1: We're not. We're taking it easy way, We're taking it
Speaker 1: out of tankers, right, you know, and we're selling that,
Speaker 1: And and where's the metrics on that?
Speaker 3: Where's the oversight committee that says, has it made their
Speaker 3: life better already?
Speaker 1: Maybe it has, don't know, haven't seen it.
Speaker 3: What we have definitely not seen was the claim that
Speaker 3: was made in the beginning is that we're actually going
Speaker 3: to take Matiro because we want to put a democratic
Speaker 3: government in place, and democratic governments are good for the hemisphere.
Speaker 3: We'll all be better if we get rid of all
Speaker 3: these dictators. Well, we know that there's a disconnect there
Speaker 3: because immediately after that was said, then we actually saw
Speaker 3: a couple of detators that had been charged and in
Speaker 3: prison released, and we had established good relationships with other
Speaker 3: dictators that we've been really taking to task for drug running.
Speaker 3: So there's the inconsistency, you know. So to get back
Speaker 3: to your question, it's hard to answer a question of
Speaker 3: whether this is working or not when all of these
Speaker 3: feats they're not what was supposed to work. And when
Speaker 3: it's the metric, how do I evaluate it?
Speaker 2: Right? So, I mean, the essential message here is that
Speaker 2: when you see a public message from the United States
Speaker 2: about the motivation and operation. If I were just random
Speaker 2: any foreign entity, I would not take it seriously as
Speaker 2: the ultimate, you know, root of the operation. I would think, Okay,
Speaker 2: they say they're coming to do this, it doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that's what they're really after. Number one. Number two, I
Speaker 2: don't know if I buy it, because it seems as
Speaker 2: though every beginning entry into action from the US as
Speaker 2: of late appears to change mid stream, like you said,
Speaker 2: and then ultimately ends up in a completely different sort
Speaker 2: of orientation. You know, like, let's just take Venezuela for
Speaker 2: a moment. They wanted to remove the dictator, okay, but
Speaker 2: they left the vice president there because an oil deal
Speaker 2: could be cut. Well, I guess the drug problem left
Speaker 2: when Madruro did. It's a very weird circumstance there. It's
Speaker 2: almost like, don't believe the first thing the US says
Speaker 2: would be how I would interpret it if I didn't
Speaker 2: have some good intelligence to let me know what was
Speaker 2: coming next? Would that be an unfair sort of outsider perspective, you.
Speaker 3: Think, I don't see how anybody who's looking at what's
Speaker 3: going on could feel differently, honestly, And I, you know,
Speaker 3: I don't see what.
Speaker 2: I'm well, someone can tend this is a perfectly good
Speaker 2: strategy anyway, you know, just to just to enact the
Speaker 2: confusion before the infusion of the actual agenda.
Speaker 3: Right anyway, Uh, I think the fighting is still in Gaza.
Speaker 3: Fighting is still going on in Gaza, right, is not anything?
Speaker 3: The Israeli army has not agreed anything. The Israeli settlers,
Speaker 3: are you thinking? The Israeli government, their democratic government hasn't
Speaker 3: agreed anything. You know, we're sort of acting like, okay,
Speaker 3: we're done, there's peace, going to something else, and none
Speaker 3: of these things are ever done that there's kind of
Speaker 3: there were points in time like with we're good at
Speaker 3: declaring victory, right, and I think we're back to that motive.
Speaker 1: We're quickly declaring victories.
Speaker 3: So we can go on to something else and not
Speaker 3: looking behind us at all. We're not we're not learning
Speaker 3: every experience. We're not we're almost not interested in the experience.
Speaker 1: So not that we have not been there before in Guatemala, you.
Speaker 3: Know, I talked about regime change and Guatemaldel for ages
Speaker 3: where we did literally manage.
Speaker 1: To kick out a government.
Speaker 3: You know, we didn't do a deal with it that right,
Speaker 3: but the net result over there, we left it in
Speaker 3: a contentious state. Over the following ten years there was
Speaker 3: something like twenty thousand deaths and murders inside the country,
Speaker 3: just you know, because we didn't. We declared victory and
Speaker 3: we're done. You know what we got what we wanted.
Speaker 3: Whatever happens to the people is wherever, you know, it's
Speaker 3: their problem.
Speaker 1: Uh, it's we're satisfied with and one left and right.
Speaker 3: It's kind of a very a very hit and run thing.
Speaker 3: I'm having trouble.
Speaker 1: Again with Iran a run.
Speaker 3: There was a period of time where we might have
Speaker 3: jumped in and taken some strong military action when there
Speaker 3: was a revolution in the streets.
Speaker 1: We didn't.
Speaker 3: And you can't delay those things. And we've learned that
Speaker 3: over time. That's a historical lesson. There's there's it's a
Speaker 3: very small if you if you want the military action,
Speaker 3: you do it now.
Speaker 1: And then Cuba to us and.
Speaker 6: Well we went and so we did not yet we
Speaker 6: had bombed their atomic facilities before and now we're about ready.
Speaker 1: To bomb them again.
Speaker 3: And it just there doesn't see any seem to be
Speaker 3: any continuity. Everything is what what are we going to
Speaker 3: do today?
Speaker 1: Well, right, and with the hospital ships today, is it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? With Iran, I'm confused because I could have swore
Speaker 2: we were told that they absolutely obliterated all of the
Speaker 2: nuclear program when they took out this one particular area
Speaker 2: before with the Israeli assist Right, and now we're going
Speaker 2: to reobliterate their nuclear program. I am confused.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think even the President said we'll just
Speaker 3: bomb the desert again.
Speaker 1: Well, I just doesn't seem productive to me.
Speaker 3: But and one of the reasons, quite frankly, while most
Speaker 3: of the nations in the Gulf region are trying to
Speaker 3: discourage this, is that they and know what follows regime
Speaker 3: change in Iran will be totally unpredictable and probably much
Speaker 3: more violent and much more vicious. And this is kind
Speaker 3: of generally the state of regime change when you don't
Speaker 3: when there's no you know, when you force regime change,
Speaker 3: no parties obviously in control. I guess that's not the
Speaker 3: only good thing you say say about Venezuela. We really
Speaker 3: left the party of dictor schadership in control and they
Speaker 3: are still in control. But if we break Iran, all
Speaker 3: those people over there know that it's just going to
Speaker 3: be bloody conditional warfare among half a dozen parties for ages,
Speaker 3: and they don't want that to happen because at this
Speaker 3: point in time, two things could happen. The Iranians could say,
Speaker 3: we accept your conditions and lie to us and go ahead,
Speaker 3: just so we pull those forces back back, okay, and
Speaker 3: that could very well happen. Or they could say we're
Speaker 3: going to fight, because they're kind of the same position
Speaker 3: Putin's in. You know, either let us stay or you
Speaker 3: come to eliminat us. And if you come to eliminat us,
Speaker 3: we're gonna fight, and it'll be a bloody battle if
Speaker 3: it happens. And I think more than even being a
Speaker 3: bloody battle, I keep in my own mind, I don't
Speaker 3: quite understand why a run having a handful of nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons is more a danger to this country than North Korea,
Speaker 3: for example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or Russia.
Speaker 2: That's because I don't think it is.
Speaker 1: Why did we suddenly.
Speaker 2: See there's the key. I don't think it is. I
Speaker 2: think it's more of a danger to Israel than it
Speaker 2: is to us, you know. But there you go, right,
Speaker 2: And now now this turns into the foreign policy question.
Speaker 2: Nobody likes to really discuss unless you're angry and hateful
Speaker 2: one way or another. Right, it seems like, you know,
Speaker 2: people are anxious to talk about this, but this is
Speaker 2: the hornet's nest that nobody wanted to kick, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: isn't that what Iran has been since, you know, basically
Speaker 2: the hostage crisis my recorded memory, I don't know, maybe
Speaker 2: I'm wrong, but it hasn't that been the case where
Speaker 2: it's like, look, nobody wants to really go in and
Speaker 2: do anything regarding Iran. They're contained, so to speak. I mean,
Speaker 2: that was the idea. Now Israel has a different point
Speaker 2: of view on it, and we have been you know,
Speaker 2: blamed for and said to be, you know, at the
Speaker 2: behest of Israel doing many things. And I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that that is valid or invalid incomplete, because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of nuance there. But as far as our concerns
Speaker 2: America first concerns, no, I don't think Iran having a
Speaker 2: weapon or a handful of weapons or whatever it is
Speaker 2: that they could possibly manufacture is actually many more dangerous
Speaker 2: than anything else on the planet right now, you know.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I don't see anybody discussing China
Speaker 2: in foreign policy discussions at all, maybe I'm you know,
Speaker 2: missing something, but it's like China disappeared off of the map.
Speaker 2: As far as these discussions go, am I imagining that?
Speaker 3: No, no, you're not, and it is confusing. I just
Speaker 3: got my mut's issue of my Air and Space magazine.
Speaker 1: I subscribe to you since I former Air Force heading.
Speaker 3: So the theater commanders or you can sell, they're having
Speaker 3: to be political, but they're being nonplussed about what they're
Speaker 3: being what they're being asked to do with their resources.
Speaker 3: You know, they're talking about, well, there was a policy,
Speaker 3: a foreign policy shift under Obama towards China.
Speaker 1: Okay, well we got that and we started reorienting.
Speaker 3: Taining all our resourcesologies are we're fighting whatever towards China.
Speaker 1: But this Venezuela, whether it's Iran.
Speaker 3: And they're the ones to have the real problem. They've
Speaker 3: got a small number of assets relatively speaking, and they've
Speaker 3: been told that there was this shift towards China, but
Speaker 3: that's not where they're being.
Speaker 1: Asked to send differences.
Speaker 3: That's not where they're asked to be spend their assets
Speaker 3: in terms of maintenance and personnel and weaponry.
Speaker 1: And they're what they're doing is they're very you know,
Speaker 1: these are graduate of war colleges.
Speaker 3: They're very politely saying, we are perplexed. Also, we're trying
Speaker 3: to do the best we can.
Speaker 2: Don't pick on us, right, So you know, it's it's
Speaker 2: a very weird state. It's like to me, that would
Speaker 2: be the sleeping dog. I'd be worrying about getting up
Speaker 2: to bite us. You know. All these other concerns. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're situational. They may have you know, different and flashpoints,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But I would think that in general, the
Speaker 2: long term issue has got to be to deal with
Speaker 2: the Chinese and what it is that they plan to
Speaker 2: do in the region, because you know, there you go,
Speaker 2: that's what I thought the deal was. But all of
Speaker 2: that as again, like I said, sort of evaporated from
Speaker 2: the discussion, and it's about all of these other brush
Speaker 2: fires as opposed to the major thing building there. I mean,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, but there you go. That's my opinion. Sorry,
Speaker 2: I didn't mean to put mine into it this time.
Speaker 1: But it is the other thing that goes along then.
Speaker 3: And you know, it seems like we're spending all of
Speaker 3: our time talking military, but quite frankly, these days, most
Speaker 3: of it does seem to be foreign military. You know,
Speaker 3: what are we doing overseas with the military. And one
Speaker 3: of one of our advantage at the moment is that
Speaker 3: we have smallphens and you can go to Venezuela and
Speaker 3: do very precise, highly targeted, cleanly targeted aggression, you know,
Speaker 3: so lots of people don't get killed. And that's about
Speaker 3: what we're going to do in Iran again. You know,
Speaker 3: that's one of the great areas of expertise right now
Speaker 3: that we have and we're the only ones demonstrating.
Speaker 1: Do the Chinese have it?
Speaker 3: Sure they have it, they're just not fighting anybody. And
Speaker 3: actually they're not consuming any of their resources. We keep
Speaker 3: asking why they can afford this. You know, see, I'm
Speaker 3: going to keep spending and growing the way they employ
Speaker 3: those assets again, highly expensive. You can't replenish those types
Speaker 3: of ammunitions, can't. You can't replenish the ballistic missile interceptors
Speaker 3: that we spent on Israel right and in mass more
Speaker 3: than we're ever used for anything before. It takes years
Speaker 3: to manufacture and reply those things.
Speaker 2: But in these.
Speaker 3: Years using your stockpiles that are that Yeah, that's our
Speaker 3: American advantage and and that's great, and it helped protect
Speaker 3: our people. But if you start spending it, and spending
Speaker 3: it heavily for these types of actions, then you you're
Speaker 3: talking about a year or two years to reset, which
Speaker 3: is why there's so much spending in this year's military
Speaker 3: budget for replenishment and resupply and growing the munition space.
Speaker 3: Because we've somehow, and I quite know how it happened,
Speaker 3: we've somehow become in an almost constant state of warfare
Speaker 3: using these sophisticated weapons with almost.
Speaker 1: Note seene it right now, there's this thing nobody planned
Speaker 1: on it. That's why we're suddenly.
Speaker 2: Well and there's the entriest thing.
Speaker 1: Sorry we have money or to buy forget that, forget
Speaker 1: giving right.
Speaker 2: Sorry you broke up a bit there. But the important
Speaker 2: point in my mind is that while we are spending
Speaker 2: these assets and resources, uh, the Chinese are quietly not
Speaker 2: doing that. So what type of build up are we
Speaker 2: looking at, you know, for something potentially in the near future.
Speaker 2: That is what would be concerning me if I was
Speaker 2: involved in this business directly exactly, is that, Look, they're
Speaker 2: not spending all these resources, They're just building things and
Speaker 2: stockpiling them. And isn't that what we used to worry
Speaker 2: about also, right, was the stockpile of who's got the
Speaker 2: most in the stockpile? That used to be a direct concern,
Speaker 2: it seems like, and that's no longer you know, again
Speaker 2: discussed or even hinted at in these in these back
Speaker 2: and forths that I see. I don't know, like I
Speaker 2: say to me, this is what's concerning. Is anybody keeping
Speaker 2: an eye on that? And how out? You know, Look,
Speaker 2: we got to keep manufacturing things because we're using them,
Speaker 2: we're lending them, we're giving them.
Speaker 3: I see it in Yeah, I use all of it,
Speaker 3: you know. I think Congress actually began to see it
Speaker 3: a little bit this year because the budget which is passed.
Speaker 1: Hun.
Speaker 3: But the second thing is we've become so relied on
Speaker 3: that advanced technology, and it's the offensive that we have
Speaker 3: in versual numbers. I mean, the size of our force
Speaker 3: is nothing loss even much less twenty or fifty.
Speaker 1: It's men stool compared to that.
Speaker 3: And for all aspects of our forces that you know,
Speaker 3: use really advanced, really expensive assets.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: I was just reading today and while this has happening,
Speaker 3: you talked about China. Twenty years ago, China had perhaps
Speaker 3: ten low worth orbit surveillance satellites monitoring our assets and
Speaker 3: resources around the globe. Now they have one hundred, they'll
Speaker 3: probably have five hundred within two years. They can deal
Speaker 3: with this on a level they've never had before. And now,
Speaker 3: you know, it's just they're they're changing the they're changing
Speaker 3: the plane field from our standpoint where we're still stuck
Speaker 3: in the same plane field and it gets more and
Speaker 3: more expensive to cope. So, no, you didn't see a
Speaker 3: lot of discussion about that last night. You saw during
Speaker 3: the speech talk about claims for the space Force.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's all well and good, but.
Speaker 3: You know, I sort of missed people actually, you know,
Speaker 3: dealing with the reality of the situation, and sometimes you
Speaker 3: sometimes it's not all good. Sometimes you have to admit
Speaker 3: things aren't the way you want them to be.
Speaker 2: Well, and there you go, Space for which should be
Speaker 2: frankly becoming much much more significant in our strategic planning.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard anything about it. It's almost like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we established it, but we really haven't done anything with
Speaker 2: it yet. It seems like now that could be because
Speaker 2: we're you know, keeping our cards close to our best
Speaker 2: so to speak. That could be, or it's not a
Speaker 2: priority at the moment, I don't know, you know, it's
Speaker 2: hard to say. I mean, have you noted any you know,
Speaker 2: interesting things about Space Force expansion, what it is they're
Speaker 2: planning on doing. Have they added to you know, the
Speaker 2: the actual elements that are going to make up the
Speaker 2: infrastructure of this newly created military branch. I mean, has
Speaker 2: any of that come through? I don't think so.
Speaker 3: Well, I had they're planning on it, and they were
Speaker 3: planning on if they got funded. But one of the
Speaker 3: problems is in these days, the way we've been recycling
Speaker 3: the budget, and not just the budget, but the spending.
Speaker 3: You know, that's that's a problem we have that the
Speaker 3: Chinese don't have, or the Russians say, you know, somebody,
Speaker 3: you know, they just spend, you know, they don't They
Speaker 3: don't stop and.
Speaker 1: Start where we do.
Speaker 3: Our contracting stops and starts, payments turn on and off,
Speaker 3: and they don't have that problem. But no, the Space
Speaker 3: Force has those plans. But I think I think really
Speaker 3: what we're talking about, if we admitted it, have admitted it,
Speaker 3: is for whatever reason, we have moved into just bragging
Speaker 3: about how good we are and how effective we are,
Speaker 3: and we're really talking about how good we are, which
Speaker 3: is was fine.
Speaker 1: I mean, for example, our performance.
Speaker 3: In Venezuela or in Iran from a military standpoint was
Speaker 3: awesome and it was fantantastic.
Speaker 1: But it's constrained.
Speaker 3: So if all you'd ever do is brag about it,
Speaker 3: then you don't get to discuss. You know, we can't
Speaker 3: do that every week. You know, we don't have the people,
Speaker 3: the assets or resources.
Speaker 1: But we've.
Speaker 3: We've just everything is, it's gone. We've gotten into a
Speaker 3: bragging mode, which can be dangerous. I need a little
Speaker 3: a little hubris needs to be entered into the dialogue.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's the difficulty is now we have a
Speaker 2: lot of you know, hyperbolic statements about everything's great, it's
Speaker 2: in a golden age. But we're ignoring some things here
Speaker 2: I think, or it does seem as though action is
Speaker 2: not being taken where it should be, and smarter planning
Speaker 2: is not being done. And I mean again, maybe that's
Speaker 2: just the perspective we're being presented so that, you know, surprise,
Speaker 2: we actually have all this other stuff. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that I know for certain, but one
Speaker 2: does wonder, you know, how this is all going to
Speaker 2: pan out, not necessarily tomorrow, but in a few years
Speaker 2: from now we'll see the effects of this sort of
Speaker 2: change in posture. I guess we could call it, Would
Speaker 2: that be a fair way to put it? Or how
Speaker 2: many years do you think it'll be before we actually
Speaker 2: see the results here?
Speaker 3: I think there are two levels of results. The first
Speaker 3: is the results of what we've done. I mean, the
Speaker 3: results in Latin America of what we've done. I mean
Speaker 3: we we've You and I talked about this another show.
Speaker 3: We have instituted, reinstituted dunboat diplomacy in Latin America.
Speaker 1: Call it what you will.
Speaker 3: We've made it very clear to everybody that either you
Speaker 3: play with us or we'll take you out right. You know,
Speaker 3: So is that going to produce what we wanted? Is
Speaker 3: that going to produce revenues for us? Revenues for them
Speaker 3: we want?
Speaker 1: Up?
Speaker 3: We know we just started that. We won't know what's
Speaker 3: going to happen. Same thing in some of these other venues. Uh,
Speaker 3: same thing about you know, Gaza or Palestine. What is
Speaker 3: it really going to produce? We won't know for some
Speaker 3: time because we've already done all that, right, we haven't
Speaker 3: done the other stuff that you and I are talking about,
Speaker 3: you know, are we prepared for the other stuff?
Speaker 1: Is the real question?
Speaker 3: Are at the time, at the time we're doing these
Speaker 3: have we really prepared for the big questions we have
Speaker 3: we made the investments that we need to compete with
Speaker 3: the Chinese economically? Have we made the investments that we
Speaker 3: need to compete in the Arctic?
Speaker 1: Have we made them? You know?
Speaker 3: That's that is the problem. Those are two different things.
Speaker 3: One is, you know, what are the repercussions of what
Speaker 3: we've done within the last eight months to a year,
Speaker 3: and then what are the longer term effects of what
Speaker 3: we're not doing now? And I would say here the
Speaker 3: strange thing, in my mind is the most obvious one
Speaker 3: is the Chinese very well, very greatly wanted influence in
Speaker 3: the Middle East and in Latin America in terms of
Speaker 3: resources and very much on their way to getting them,
Speaker 3: and we're very successful. Was this really a strategy that's
Speaker 3: going to stop that and suddenly we have access to
Speaker 3: all those resources?
Speaker 1: Maybe, and if so, that will be a good call.
Speaker 3: But I will have to tell you, speaking speaking locally
Speaker 3: for a change, what we're seeing the agriculture folks are
Speaker 3: seen in terms of lost markets for virtually all of
Speaker 3: our products in Latin America and other places around the
Speaker 3: world because of the tariffs. You know, that seems to
Speaker 3: be speaking against the fact that we've made advances. You know,
Speaker 3: maybe we got the Chinese out of some business deals,
Speaker 3: did we really?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 3: Maybe people people like us less without a doubt than
Speaker 3: the Chinese because Chinese didn't do anything to them. And
Speaker 3: the third point is we're not gaining new markets, we're
Speaker 3: losing them.
Speaker 2: Right. And then simultaneously, the unanswered question, which I find
Speaker 2: remarkable nobody's asked so far, is look, they're talking about Okay,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court ruled that that the initial tariffs were
Speaker 2: not legal whatever, And well, how about this. Now we're
Speaker 2: going to have to refund it. Who you going to
Speaker 2: refund it to? Right, You're going to refund it to
Speaker 2: the people that paid it, which is the importers, Okay.
Speaker 2: And the fact that that cost was passed along to consumers,
Speaker 2: they're not going to get a refund on this. So
Speaker 2: you have an imbalance right there. Plus the introduction of
Speaker 2: new tariffs and all of this is part of our
Speaker 2: foreign policy as well, and is affecting foreign policy if
Speaker 2: nothing else, you know, and Trump said it in the
Speaker 2: state of the Union. Let's take him at his word. Listen,
Speaker 2: either you're gonna make deals with us or we're gonna
Speaker 2: make it difficult on you. So I'm gonna bring fifteen
Speaker 2: percent tariffs instead of ten percent tariffs. And that's the
Speaker 2: way that's gonna go. And Okay, how is that gonna
Speaker 2: fall out? You know, if it sticks, which is a
Speaker 2: question from many different angles, will it stick? So I
Speaker 2: think that's a reasonable question to ask about all of
Speaker 2: these foreign policy decisions. Where again, if I'm a foreign nation,
Speaker 2: whether adversary, neutral, or ally, I would ask myself, is
Speaker 2: any of this gonna stick from the United States? No
Speaker 2: matter what they declare out of the gate, and no
Speaker 2: matter what deals I allegedly cut with them, because they'll
Speaker 2: walk away from deals, they'll decide that we have new
Speaker 2: deals to be made. Whether it's financial, militarily, anything else
Speaker 2: doesn't matter. And I would say that if we become
Speaker 2: too unpredictable, then it's going to like, you know, judge
Speaker 2: for yourself kind of diplomacy is going to happen on
Speaker 2: the other end, I mean, or am I overreacting?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: Now, I think that if we rapped all of this
Speaker 3: back up to the higher level of just talking about
Speaker 3: foreign policy. Okay, forget to see one judgment calling foreign
Speaker 3: policy has always been has any national been predictable.
Speaker 1: And trustworthy?
Speaker 3: Can I do business with them without expecting them to
Speaker 3: stab me in the back or attack me?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 3: That's really kind of the core of foreign policy. Foreign
Speaker 3: policy is to have a policy that people can understand,
Speaker 3: that it's consistent, they can trust, and it allows for
Speaker 3: business to go on.
Speaker 1: A long term basements.
Speaker 3: In some terms, I'd say, but that's one of the
Speaker 3: reasons why empires work pretty well for a time because
Speaker 3: they were very consistent over a long period of time,
Speaker 3: and what their policies were, you knew it, you could
Speaker 3: deal with it, you might not even like it, but
Speaker 3: it didn't change. And predictability has been very key in
Speaker 3: diplomacy and foreign policy forever, and we've taken that away.
Speaker 3: So I think at the highest possible level, the question
Speaker 3: is about our foreign policy, is that we've become so
Speaker 3: tactical and so situational that most of the other nations
Speaker 3: have to reconsider the terms that they're going to be
Speaker 3: doing business with us, whether that is military business, whether
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 1: Trade.
Speaker 3: We've already seen in Europe that lots of military deals
Speaker 3: that we're going to the US are now going to
Speaker 3: European man manufacturers because they're more trustworthy. We're we're not
Speaker 3: going to turn things on when you start using your
Speaker 3: assets as bargaining tools. You know, other people are not stupid.
Speaker 3: It's sort of like, well, you did that to me once,
Speaker 3: you did that to me twice, maybe I think you
Speaker 3: might do it again. So none of this speaks well
Speaker 3: to general foreign policy over you know, we're talking about
Speaker 3: over different administrations or you know, a decade or something
Speaker 3: like that, which is we're real foreign policy. Let's face it,
Speaker 3: since World War Two, people were able to view Americans
Speaker 3: in relatively consistent fashion. They might have thought we were
Speaker 3: assholes at point in time culturally or behaviorally, but they
Speaker 3: knew we did business. You know, they knew how we
Speaker 3: did business right, were predictable. We were a good source
Speaker 3: for them, We were a good market for them.
Speaker 1: And so that's great. We had a reputation for that.
Speaker 3: And that's what I'm concerned about at the moment, is
Speaker 3: is more what's happening to our reputation?
Speaker 2: Mmm? No, I mean one time a guy in Germany
Speaker 2: explained it to me like this that as so long
Speaker 2: as you let the Americans think they're you know, basically
Speaker 2: ripping you off a little bit, Uh, you can keep
Speaker 2: everything happy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that you are, and it doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that Americans in general will do that. But that was
Speaker 2: the way to maintain the balance. Is as long as
Speaker 2: an American thought they were getting over in some way
Speaker 2: in doing business with a foreign country, they were. They
Speaker 2: were thrilled. So there's change in attitude in general where nope,
Speaker 2: they're all ripping us off. Uh. It was a real
Speaker 2: It was a real serious change and and something that uh,
Speaker 2: for probably one hundred years, right, most of the planet
Speaker 2: did not think this way, know that we were like this.
Speaker 2: It was like, just just entertain them even and give
Speaker 2: them the idea that they're doing well in the transaction,
Speaker 2: and you'll be fine. That consistent paradigm just is no
Speaker 2: longer valid because of what's going on.
Speaker 3: That was always the definition, always the definition of is
Speaker 3: a good business deal was most both parties thought they
Speaker 3: did a little bit better than the other guy.
Speaker 1: Oh that was a good bid.
Speaker 3: If one of them gets beat to death and both
Speaker 3: sides know it, that's not a good business deal, and
Speaker 3: that's pretty much the where we've moved. I think somebody's
Speaker 3: going to feel that they really got had, and it's
Speaker 3: going to be and I don't just feel like it
Speaker 3: will be announced that you got had.
Speaker 1: You know, it's we're first, and we made sure we
Speaker 1: were first, and you know, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: So there.
Speaker 2: It sounds much like the warnings in childhood of don't
Speaker 2: gloat even if you did win by a lot, because
Speaker 2: it doesn't help, you know. It's just anyway. I don't
Speaker 2: know what kind of bow you want to tie on this,
Speaker 2: but I think we kind of already did, quite frankly,
Speaker 2: and I think it's look an examination in real time
Speaker 2: of what's going on with the foreign policy, which again
Speaker 2: was not the main focus of the State of the Union.
Speaker 2: Sometimes it has been, especially when we're getting ready and
Speaker 2: preparing to do some major action, but quite frankly, I
Speaker 2: think it's a little bit difficult to predict, you know,
Speaker 2: what the major action is, even from the political talking
Speaker 2: heads out there that are left that still have jobs,
Speaker 2: from all the independents out there that are just parroting
Speaker 2: each other, I think that they have no idea what's
Speaker 2: going to happen next and they're just going with their guts,
Speaker 2: and their guts are definitely not involved in most of
Speaker 2: the transactions. So you know, it's always good to talk
Speaker 2: to you about it because we get another lens and
Speaker 2: one that is a bit more objective. And I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: But I guess in closing, I would say, you know,
Speaker 2: do you have any idea how the history is going
Speaker 2: to record this period regarding foreign policy? In your mind?
Speaker 2: What do you think?
Speaker 3: I think it's it's I think it's going to record
Speaker 3: it as the point in time where we gave up
Speaker 3: the advantages that we garnered during the Second World War,
Speaker 3: basically in terms of foreign policy and in terms of
Speaker 3: building a reputation, trading partnerships, million military partnerships. That the
Speaker 3: news is that over several decades they begin to take
Speaker 3: taken for granted.
Speaker 1: You know, sometimes that's not a bad thing.
Speaker 3: You know, our markets were in place, they stayed in place.
Speaker 1: Nobody questioned it.
Speaker 3: Oh, we've been buying from these people, We've been doing
Speaker 3: deals with these people. As you said, you know, you
Speaker 3: might be take at times, they get advantage of you,
Speaker 3: but it's a comfortable place to be, right and we
Speaker 3: were that way with Europe, we were that we of
Speaker 3: Latin America, maybe not as much in Southeast Asia, but
Speaker 3: even in the Gulf States we were that way.
Speaker 1: It was a it was.
Speaker 3: A comfortable position that we took advantage of by remaining
Speaker 3: consistent and leaving things alone. And I think anybody's who's
Speaker 3: been in marketing, there's a famous saying is you spend
Speaker 3: a whole lot of money to gain market share, and
Speaker 3: you can lose it over by making a mistake.
Speaker 1: And so it's a lot you know.
Speaker 3: Once you get it, do not give it up because
Speaker 3: it's going to be really expensive to get it back.
Speaker 3: And I think that would be my overview at this
Speaker 3: point in time, in the long term, and that's that's
Speaker 3: why I'm sorry that foreign policy is not being talked
Speaker 3: about in those terms. It's not being talked about. Certainly,
Speaker 3: we gave up any talk of talking about it in
Speaker 3: terms of morality or democracy or you know.
Speaker 1: Good intentions. Forget that. We tried that for a while.
Speaker 3: That's gone, but we've given We've given up talking about
Speaker 3: follow foreign policies as a long term investment. Foreign policy
Speaker 3: is a long term investment in relations of all kinds,
Speaker 3: and I think we're in the process of sacrificing that
Speaker 3: it is. There going to be a reset, but we're
Speaker 3: going to have to earn it back.
Speaker 1: We earned it during World War Two with a lot
Speaker 1: of blood. We earned it during the.
Speaker 3: Cold War with a lot of blood and a lot
Speaker 3: of expense. And the nation should be proud of that.
Speaker 3: It sacrificed itself, spent lots of money on the Cold
Speaker 3: War and won the Cold War. We may just have
Speaker 3: lost it.
Speaker 2: Well, you know what, It reminds me of Larry And
Speaker 2: you might disagree, but this is the way I see it.
Speaker 2: You know, Coca Cola is the act example. I don't
Speaker 2: know if people remember this, and some of you might
Speaker 2: not have even been alive, but there was a point
Speaker 2: at which, you know, Coca Cola had a good, solid
Speaker 2: piece of the market and they didn't need to mess
Speaker 2: with it at all. They could add products whatever, and
Speaker 2: some genius decided to change the formula of Coca Cola
Speaker 2: and they came up with this crap called new Coke.
Speaker 2: And the second they did it, they suffered such losses
Speaker 2: that I'm telling you it took them about a decade
Speaker 2: to rebuild themselves with what they wound up calling Coca
Speaker 2: Cola classic for a long time because they had to
Speaker 2: reverse themselves and go back to the original formula. So
Speaker 2: take or leave my metaphor any which way you choose.
Speaker 2: I mean the listener, not you, Larry. But I do
Speaker 2: see it this way, I can take it.
Speaker 1: I can take it painfully, Chuck.
Speaker 3: Because a I was living in Atlanta then they was
Speaker 3: a stockholder. I'm still a Coke stockholder. So it wasn't
Speaker 3: just a boy. You guys made a mistake. You guys
Speaker 3: made a mistake with my money. Okay, But yeah, I
Speaker 3: think that's a good and you can come back. And
Speaker 3: I think it actually took them about no more than
Speaker 3: a months to realize that they've made a terrible mistake. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but coming back from that mistake took them a lot longer.
Speaker 3: And I think that is a good metaphor. You can
Speaker 3: you can make a mistake and it sounds good, it
Speaker 3: sounds attractive, and then it's going to take you a
Speaker 3: long longer time to come back. And that's why not
Speaker 3: to sound preachy about it, but it bothers me that
Speaker 3: we have not taken our our foreign policy and the
Speaker 3: perception of America as a partner.
Speaker 1: The way we should have.
Speaker 3: We've not taken it as a major national investment over
Speaker 3: decades and decades, and we should have taken it seriously
Speaker 3: and we didn't.
Speaker 2: Well, I definitely didn't mean to hit you personally, but
Speaker 2: you're well aware of the fact that for a long
Speaker 2: time they had to sell both products on the shelf.
Speaker 2: As they slowly walked it back. You had New Coke
Speaker 2: and Classic Coke both on the shelves. And believe me,
Speaker 2: the people did speak within about a month of like, hey,
Speaker 2: what did you do to a staple name brand? You
Speaker 2: know that the world knows what happened. Yeah, and it
Speaker 2: is inexplicable that it was such a se It's like
Speaker 2: a legendary self inflicted wound done by a corporation. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry to laugh at it, because it probably cost
Speaker 2: you quite a bit because all of a sudden, market
Speaker 2: share was down and it was like, whoa, what did
Speaker 2: we do to our business? Is what Coke Corporate was saying,
Speaker 2: and with good reason. Now will we see it within
Speaker 2: a month. No, But you know, at the speed of politics,
Speaker 2: I got to tell you that it usually seems to me,
Speaker 2: like any administration, the effects of what they do is
Speaker 2: seen in the following year. First, then a couple of
Speaker 2: years later you're still dealing with the fallout from whatever
Speaker 2: decisions they made, good, bad or otherwise. It does seem
Speaker 2: to be the speed of things, but then again, the
Speaker 2: world is constantly changing, so who knows it. We'll see it,
Speaker 2: and it we'll see a correction, or if a corrections necessary,
Speaker 2: maybe new cocal work this time.
Speaker 3: Larry, you know what concerns me is with the speed
Speaker 3: of events. I'm not sure that we even have the
Speaker 3: time tort before. Let's just talk about tariffs and investments
Speaker 3: and chip monks, and you and I talked about.
Speaker 1: This on an earlier show.
Speaker 3: If I can't figure out how much I'm actually paying
Speaker 3: in regard to tariffs, and if I can't figure out
Speaker 3: my economic picture, I can't invest money correctly right, and
Speaker 3: that's going to scare me off.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen over.
Speaker 3: The last eight months is I don't see how I
Speaker 3: can and and I've got to respond, I'm not as
Speaker 3: not as American, but as a foreigner doing business with US.
Speaker 3: I can't keep waiting to see if this is going
Speaker 3: to stabilize. I you know, we're we're making shipping orders
Speaker 3: and purchasing orders and manufacturing orders in real time.
Speaker 1: The good news is we've gotten really.
Speaker 3: Faster at this, But the bad news is you're going
Speaker 3: to make your decisions a lot faster too. You just
Speaker 3: can't wait to say, Oh, is this going to get
Speaker 3: back to normal? Is this going to stabilize? You're going
Speaker 3: to have to be making some unfortunately short term decisions.
Speaker 3: So it could it could change fit quicker than it
Speaker 3: might have twenty thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, especially with the you know, the hyper realization
Speaker 2: of supply chains on local level as well as on
Speaker 2: the you know, mass warehouse level and everything else. I mean,
Speaker 2: we are in a different world than we would have
Speaker 2: been prior to the turn of the century, for sure,
Speaker 2: So you know, you got to consider that across the board. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock, like I said, there will be links to
Speaker 2: some of Larry's books, which I highly recommend all of them.
Speaker 2: I don't know what book I would put on this
Speaker 2: one this discussion. I usually have a recommended book from you,
Speaker 2: but I recommend them all, And who knows, maybe we'll
Speaker 2: be discussing other topics which are a little more narrow
Speaker 2: in focus in the coming weeks. But who knows the
Speaker 2: news might produce things that are irresistible for us to discuss.
Speaker 2: And hopefully I'll have you with me in about two
Speaker 2: more weeks, right, Larry, sounds good, excellent Till then, guys,
Speaker 2: I'm merely o'celly. All of you are the effect.
Speaker 1: This is James Corbin at coorporreport dot com and you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Ocelly affected o'celly.
Speaker 7: Dot com of every denied matic statum at the real
Speaker 7: horsebottle re of.
Speaker 8: One Nason beneath the anti gods and anything they would
Speaker 8: team worthy of grant.
Speaker 5: The completely define it as play those.
Speaker 8: Adam Mi with the liberty just bet freely in justice
Speaker 8: the only the only that can ford the when but
Speaker 8: not on justice for the seat of the trans units,
Speaker 8: Jack brow Space Axe rockets, the.
Speaker 7: Opportunity every start by the systems of three's the rest
Speaker 7: of us.
Speaker 8: All that's a light country which is my witches.
Speaker 1: So will be the funnishment for ten red o'clock.
Speaker 9: The use expressed my caller schools there anyone else who
Speaker 9: happens again on the air of Jelly dot com do
Speaker 9: not necessarily replied the views of the Jelly dot com
Speaker 9: or And we are not responsible for any stupidity which
Speaker 9: might ensue.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 10: In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 10: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 10: operations center, still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial
Speaker 10: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 10: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 10: one has ever written about before.
Speaker 11: It shows why it really failed and why the United
Speaker 11: States did not earn from it. It also shows why
Speaker 11: other countries today are doing secret operations with more success.
Speaker 11: This is the book that puts what some want to
Speaker 11: deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air
Speaker 11: Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For more information, go to
Speaker 11: Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 2: Pick up your copy of.
Speaker 11: In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 2: In digital or physical.
Speaker 12: Revelation through conversation, conversation, you are the effect revelation.
Speaker 7: The show game revelations, conversation, ideation, a devastation revelation through
Speaker 7: conversation effect, you are the effect.
Speaker 8: Conversation all rasmon stranger, I'm selling the fact revelation conversation
Speaker 8: through tiion, through conversation oh, shall leave effect revelation.
Speaker 5: Of conversation gone and forgotten? What sill the effect? Beyond
Speaker 5: this place of has and fears are of the shade.
Speaker 8: The mercy of.
Speaker 5: Years finds it shall find me un a braid, and
Speaker 5: that is not a thread decay charge with the scroll.
Speaker 8: I am the master of my face.
Speaker 5: I am the chant of my soul.
Speaker 8: Sho funny effect.
Speaker 5: Revelation through conversation to propaganda horse continued cashing in and.
Speaker 7: Teach us about religion, keeping score at home?
Speaker 5: Are people you'd like to see even by wolves disrupted
Speaker 5: dying soon the cackles like Taco Tis in his continued
Speaker 5: glof stormy tour and winning a streak, says.
Speaker 7: God sparred him and decided a firefighter dies.
Speaker 5: Being revelation conversation. She affect you are the effect.
Speaker 1: You are the.
Speaker 5: Effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 1: But all praise, no stray.
Speaker 5: Revelation through conversation through conversation, all brass effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 7: Through conversation, all restraints tell you effected revelation through conversation.
Speaker 7: As a bit from Polo, whatever gone for my indokable
Speaker 7: soul in the couse of circumstance.
Speaker 5: I am not wis no cry aloud, needs a chance?
Speaker 5: My head bloody about.
Speaker 7: You are the effect, the Nally effect, revelation through conversation.
Speaker 5: Revelation, conversation, she effect. You are the effect. You are
Speaker 5: the effect.
Speaker 7: Revelation through conversation, ball praise, no streets of shell me effect.
Speaker 5: Revelation through conversation, revel through conversation, loves restraints. I tell
Speaker 5: you affected, revelation to cons conversation, street.
Speaker 13: Fact revelation, Wall Street, Street dot dot com, wall Street,
Speaker 13: Windows dot com dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author
Speaker 13: of The War State, gives you the benefit of his
Speaker 13: knowledge Wall Street dot dot.
Speaker 1: Go there, now go there, Now go there Sochili dot Com.
Speaker 14: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 14: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 14: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 14: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 14: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 14: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 14: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 14: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 14: In the decade that followed it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 14: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 14: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 14: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 14: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 14: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 14: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 14: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 14: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com