Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners.
Speaker 3: Liking Yeah, I know, the most aggervated noise and in
Speaker 3: our media.
Speaker 4: Chuck Shelley, fourth day of March twenty twenty six, allegedly,
Speaker 4: according to that thing we call a calendar here on
Speaker 4: a Wednesday, Wednesday, hump day, middle of the week, whatever
Speaker 4: it is you want to call it, I am live
Speaker 4: at that time. But of course if you're hearing it
Speaker 4: some other time, I'm lying to you right. No, just
Speaker 4: this is when we're recording. This is when we're live,
Speaker 4: and we got a special treat. Why because a little
Speaker 4: quicker than usual, Larry Hancock is back with us, And
Speaker 4: why because I gotta say something about this, Larry, And
Speaker 4: I hope you don't mind the little ribbing here. Your
Speaker 4: timing is impeccable with this stuff. You're either so far
Speaker 4: ahead of the curve, okay when it comes to historical
Speaker 4: events occurring in real time, that people forgot that you
Speaker 4: got there before they did, or or you exactly summ
Speaker 4: things up right before somebody turns around and kicks over
Speaker 4: the entire dinner table that was set instead of sitting
Speaker 4: down to have a meal. And it's like, I don't
Speaker 4: understand it. I try and keep up with you. We're
Speaker 4: in constant contact. Your analysis is spot on, your you're
Speaker 4: up to date and everything. But maybe it's my show.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Isn't my show?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: Because you did it with a book too, where it
Speaker 4: was like I pretty much told you that like two
Speaker 4: years ago, and here it is that's happened a bunch
Speaker 4: of times with you where it's either your nostrodamus or
Speaker 4: if Larry says it, get ready for it all to
Speaker 4: go out the window the next day. So I never
Speaker 4: know how to how to mark that You're You're incredibly
Speaker 4: interesting with your timing when you and I talk, and
Speaker 4: your analysis, like I said, always correct, But timing kills
Speaker 4: me with you. It's like either you're so far ahead
Speaker 4: like I said, that people have forgotten how rightly you
Speaker 4: called things, or like I said, it's like once Larry
Speaker 4: described something, somebody said, okay, Hancock said it. Let's now
Speaker 4: turn the historical page and let's go to the thing.
Speaker 4: You know that that really shakes it all up. What
Speaker 4: are we talking about tonight? Obviously, Iran and you know
Speaker 4: the song remains the same to me, but we're gonna
Speaker 4: find out what Larry Hancock thinks tonight live on the show,
Speaker 4: and I'm gonna let him speak as best the Internet
Speaker 4: and everything else will allow, because it needs to be done.
Speaker 4: And of course there'll be links into Larry's work, to
Speaker 4: Larry's books, to probably some reference articles having to do
Speaker 4: with what we're discussing tonight and everything else. And meanwhile, Larry,
Speaker 4: don't casually discuss World War three tonight, please, Maybe I just,
Speaker 4: you know, maybe till the next time we talk, save that,
Speaker 4: can you? I'm sorry?
Speaker 3: I think I think I need to get myself under control.
Speaker 3: It's becoming a little depressing. It was bad enough when
Speaker 3: I kind of forecast what Putin was going to do
Speaker 3: in UK, as you said two years earlier. Maybe I
Speaker 3: shouldn't have said that, And now it's like, I think,
Speaker 3: maybe I should just stop talking about these things.
Speaker 5: You know, maybe the latest Pixar movie would be safer.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I got to get myself under control.
Speaker 5: It's not good, right.
Speaker 4: I mean, look, I don't mind somebody who can prognosticate,
Speaker 4: that's for sure, but I swear it is such a
Speaker 4: sharp weirdness that it's like Larry already knows everything that's
Speaker 4: going to happen, but he decides when to tell you.
Speaker 4: And the only thing he's got wrong slightly sometimes is
Speaker 4: he's way ahead of everybody's analysis. That's it. That's the
Speaker 4: only thing he tells about the future a little too soon.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: It's like telling people in the eighteen hundreds that Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is going to be president and they don't know
Speaker 4: what the hell you're talking about until one hundred and
Speaker 4: then one hundred and fifty years later, you know. Okay, Sorry,
Speaker 4: I had to make that joke though, Larry, because it's
Speaker 4: happened several times on this show, where you talk about stuff,
Speaker 4: you call it exactly as it's going to go, and
Speaker 4: then it's almost like they got a script from you
Speaker 4: about what to do next. Anyway, Sorry, but oh indeed
Speaker 4: we are, you know, talking at the time when the
Speaker 4: US has bombed Iran and Israel is bombed Iran, and
Speaker 4: Iran has responded, and the various propaganda chandles have been deployed,
Speaker 4: including you know, the thing that I pointed out right away.
Speaker 4: But everybody's like, yeah, yeah, so what the pattern recognition here?
Speaker 4: You know, I was a little kid when the hostage
Speaker 4: crisis thing happened, when and the Iranians were demanding the
Speaker 4: return of the Shaw of Iran, and the propaganda in
Speaker 4: America was, oh, my goodness, what's going on over there,
Speaker 4: And it was almost like they got rid of their
Speaker 4: kindly leader and they're crazy over there, so you know,
Speaker 4: that's why they took our hostages as well. Don't tell
Speaker 4: them about the Savak, Don't tell them about the you know,
Speaker 4: disappearance of various dissidents. Don't tell them about the fact
Speaker 4: that the CIA helped trade them. Don't tell them about
Speaker 4: the fact that we have you know, a conducted regime
Speaker 4: change in one way or another through our intelligence assets
Speaker 4: US meaning you know, America and the British at the
Speaker 4: very least repeatedly. Don't tell them any of that. Just
Speaker 4: those people are crazy. And also this is the hornet's nest.
Speaker 4: We weren't supposed to kick, you know, for what thirty
Speaker 4: years I heard this, Like, you know, you don't want
Speaker 4: to do Iran. Iraq's different. You don't want to do Iran.
Speaker 4: Iran is different. You don't want to do Iran. We
Speaker 4: intercede in Syria, we intercede in Iraq. We get involved
Speaker 4: with various wars and the other misadventures in the Middle
Speaker 4: East and almost always, even though they're part of the
Speaker 4: access of evil. Don't kick the hornets nets that is
Speaker 4: Iran because we're going to get stun and that changed
Speaker 4: less than a week ago, Larry, So do you start
Speaker 4: there or do you want to start somewhere else?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think where I would start is the fact
Speaker 3: that we're having a real difficulty in terms of foreign
Speaker 3: policy calling this a war, and you know clearly it
Speaker 3: is a war, and the fact that the fellow's in
Speaker 3: charge of the House in Congress says, no, it's not
Speaker 3: a war, it's a special operation.
Speaker 5: Well, special operations.
Speaker 3: If you want to call Venezuela a special operation, that's okay.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you go in, you go out. You have a
Speaker 5: very specific mission.
Speaker 3: Now, maybe other things happen after us, but at least
Speaker 3: you do what you said you were going to do
Speaker 3: and you leave.
Speaker 5: That's a special operation.
Speaker 3: This when when you start this level of combat and
Speaker 3: you say it's going to be weeks, could be months.
Speaker 3: We don't know when it's going to end, and essentially
Speaker 3: you go after a whole nation. I mean, today we
Speaker 3: torpedoed an Iranian UH destroyer one thousand miles away.
Speaker 5: It's this is this war.
Speaker 3: So I guess my foundational question that's troubling me is
Speaker 3: if we have a case for war, why does the
Speaker 3: president not just go to Congress, present the case and
Speaker 3: let Congress declare it, which, given the vote today on
Speaker 3: war powers, I think undoubtedly they would have backed him.
Speaker 3: So that's one of my fandotional questions, not about Iran,
Speaker 3: but about us. You know, why, why can we no
Speaker 3: longer you know, take the more high ground and just
Speaker 3: claire that you know something's going on, we need to
Speaker 3: go to war, and we've given that up.
Speaker 5: So that's kind of one foundational question.
Speaker 3: And of course the other foundational question is, as you said,
Speaker 3: Eisenhower told us not to kick the wast nest in
Speaker 3: Southeast Asia, and we did that, and we know what happened.
Speaker 3: Now we've done it again, and clearly we don't have
Speaker 3: a specific mission, we don't have a specific plan. Clearly
Speaker 3: Israel does, and we have entangled ourselves in the worst
Speaker 3: possible way with Israel's agenda because now you have no
Speaker 3: agenda from one player and a very specific agenda from
Speaker 3: the other, and that means the other agenda is going
Speaker 3: to take over the first one, like it or not
Speaker 3: because they know exactly what they want to do, and
Speaker 3: you'll just be sucked into it, which is what I
Speaker 3: see happening. So I guess those are my two starting points,
Speaker 3: Chuck is one is just a very simple question is
Speaker 3: if if we were at risk, if there was a
Speaker 3: clear and extreme danger, why not do it the way
Speaker 3: we're supposed to do it and just declare war and
Speaker 3: go ahead?
Speaker 5: Uh? And the other question is what is our real
Speaker 5: what's what's the endgame? What's will? When? Will? What? How
Speaker 5: do we declare victory? When do we get out?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: Those are the two things that are troubling me at
Speaker 5: the moment.
Speaker 4: Well, right now, Look, I have trouble with your last question,
Speaker 4: but the first two are a little easier, okay, And
Speaker 4: I will put them to you this way. I think
Speaker 4: I do believe these are the answers. Trump doesn't have
Speaker 4: to therefore he won't. It's really that simple. He figures,
Speaker 4: I don't have to do that, so I'm not gonna
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter if it's legal, illegal, Okay, if it
Speaker 4: makes sense, if it is a part of the general
Speaker 4: convention of what should occur, what polite society believes, what
Speaker 4: the law says. He can do what he wants. So
Speaker 4: that's why no declaration of war, even though he would
Speaker 4: have gotten it. Secondly, I find myself in a very
Speaker 4: strange place because at this point I want to know
Speaker 4: how it is. I wound up agreeing with Marjorie Taylor Green,
Speaker 4: who is making statements that sound like things I would say,
Speaker 4: I don't know when that happened, Okay, but it happened,
Speaker 4: and I gotta say this just look. Pattern recognition is
Speaker 4: very simple sometimes and a guy says I'm going to
Speaker 4: be the peace president, and in less than two years,
Speaker 4: I don't think he's been all that peaceful with his
Speaker 4: execution through his Department of War, which he insists on
Speaker 4: calling it, even though that antiquated name no longer applies
Speaker 4: to what is still officially called the Department of Defense.
Speaker 4: He wants that relabeled, and he wants a peace prize,
Speaker 4: you see. And it all comes to an interesting culmination
Speaker 4: with the communications that are they keep saying unprecedented, you know,
Speaker 4: on the different streams and news shows and stuff, but
Speaker 4: they're lying to everybody about how it's unprecedented. The idea
Speaker 4: that a president or the commander in chief or even
Speaker 4: a general high level would basically say surrender or die.
Speaker 4: Has happened before, However, it used to take some time
Speaker 4: for that sentiment you're going to turn around and join us,
Speaker 4: or you're going to die. Is not uncommon, it is
Speaker 4: not unprecedented, not even in our short American history. Others
Speaker 4: have done this. However, again, it would have taken a
Speaker 4: week or days or something for those words to begin
Speaker 4: to resonate in a place as far away as ran
Speaker 4: in the time periods where it was done before. Instantaneously,
Speaker 4: this guy has basically stood out on the street and said, look,
Speaker 4: I'm out here with your dead security guide. I'm out
Speaker 4: here with the owner of the club. You're inside the club.
Speaker 4: I have killed him. And if you people want to keep,
Speaker 4: you know, rolling, you're gonna do things my way now.
Speaker 4: And you're standing on the very street where it's happening.
Speaker 4: And that's not usually presidential behavior. But that is a
Speaker 4: level of behavior I understand. That is the lightweight version
Speaker 4: of what a street level thug does. And this is
Speaker 4: who we are now now that I try to remove
Speaker 4: my sentimentality from all this, but it's impossible because again, okay,
Speaker 4: I grew up, I was a little kid, and the
Speaker 4: hostage crisis happened, and the Shaw of Iran was fleeing
Speaker 4: from Iran with good reason because they were not going
Speaker 4: to treat him kindly after they overthrew him themselves. Maybe,
Speaker 4: but he was a result of an overthrow previously, because
Speaker 4: he was a reinstallation of the monarchy in Iran, if
Speaker 4: I understand the history correctly, that was actually headed by
Speaker 4: his father previously, and after a little while and after
Speaker 4: they got through, you know, living through the hell of
Speaker 4: the secret police known as the Savakh, which also were
Speaker 4: trained by our intelligence assets and British intelligence too. Don't
Speaker 4: forget their role, you know, in suppressing his own people.
Speaker 4: The people threw him out. You end up with, yes,
Speaker 4: the dedicated fighters being the people that are swayed by
Speaker 4: the many types and the ayahtolas, and you have an
Speaker 4: Islamic republic where indeed they have a constitution, but all
Speaker 4: things must be approved by the Islamic Council. As a
Speaker 4: result of that, that stands for a while. And now
Speaker 4: the prince, this prince I don't Riza Reza whatever they
Speaker 4: call another guy who is again educated in America, just
Speaker 4: like the previous Shaw, who is the son of the
Speaker 4: guy we used to call the Shaw of Iran is
Speaker 4: making statements in support of the overthrow mozaedec No that
Speaker 4: was before the overthrow of the Ayatolin now and seeming like,
Speaker 4: even though I don't even know if the guy's ever
Speaker 4: even been to Iran, he is a the prince in exile,
Speaker 4: and everybody forgets that shaw means king. So it's almost
Speaker 4: like they slapped a new label on this. But they're
Speaker 4: doing the same thing again, and the pattern if meant
Speaker 4: to progress in exactly the same way. I mean, how
Speaker 4: many turns do we got to take at this with
Speaker 4: regime change in Iran that is usually stronger than the
Speaker 4: other Middle Eastern nations, better organized, better supported by allies.
Speaker 4: And oh, by the way, that whole farce of Russia
Speaker 4: is now you know, they're not going to see spire.
Speaker 4: They're going to go through a sea spire and part
Speaker 4: of Ukraine because they're afraid of nuclear escalations. See how
Speaker 4: good They're only afraid of that because they're going to
Speaker 4: locally wind up shutting down power plants that are gonna
Speaker 4: melt down if they don't knock it off. So that's
Speaker 4: got nothing to do with the Iranian situation. But I've
Speaker 4: seen people try to tie it together. It is a
Speaker 4: bizarre world where they're pretending like we don't have a
Speaker 4: history to look at here, Larry, I mean, but this
Speaker 4: is me trying to look at it and say, do
Speaker 4: I see a pattern? Yes? I do? And how many
Speaker 4: times do you have to walk into the wall before
Speaker 4: you start looking for another exit, regardless of what the
Speaker 4: circumstance was? Why now? I know Israel is why now?
Speaker 4: But why now America is really the question? And is
Speaker 4: this in America first posture? Of course not? Is this
Speaker 4: a good idea? Oh? By the way, wait to see
Speaker 4: what it does to your gas prices and the prices
Speaker 4: of everything else when we're in the middle of an
Speaker 4: economic crisis. But you know it had to be done, Larry,
Speaker 4: I mean, am I making a point here? I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm so like turned around with the lack of logical
Speaker 4: reasoning in the study of history that it's hard for
Speaker 4: me to even choke these words out of me. So
Speaker 4: I'm sorry I went on there for a minute, but
Speaker 4: I think you see where my general problem is and
Speaker 4: maybe you could help me understand it better. Maybe there's
Speaker 4: something I'm missing here, but please help.
Speaker 5: Me out there.
Speaker 3: Two or three points, So let me kind of go
Speaker 3: through those backwards. That the first point, I made the
Speaker 3: remark that we clearly have no adga okay, And I
Speaker 3: think that was and it's been kind of glossed over
Speaker 3: because the first day the President came out and said,
Speaker 3: you know, we're going to do a military action, but
Speaker 3: we're going to do in a staggered fashion with a
Speaker 3: series of off ramps, because this is all about nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons and it's all about negotiations, and they wouldn't negotiate,
Speaker 3: so we're going to apply for us and show them
Speaker 3: that they should. Okay, at least there's some logic in
Speaker 3: that statement, and that's why we're doing it now, because
Speaker 3: it's all about nukes. Okay, Sure, it's not about rockets,
Speaker 3: it's not about it's about nukes. But in the same
Speaker 3: day or by the end of that day, he came
Speaker 3: back and said, well, we killed so many of their
Speaker 3: leaders that there's nobody to negotiate with.
Speaker 5: Clearly, there's a problem with that.
Speaker 3: Clearly whether we kill them all or where the Israelis
Speaker 3: kill them all, and that I think that's still a question.
Speaker 5: We took out the option of.
Speaker 3: A series of off ramps.
Speaker 5: We took out the option.
Speaker 3: Clearly, we didn't have a mission, you know, lined up
Speaker 3: tactically to support negotiation, because you don't.
Speaker 5: You don't kill everybody.
Speaker 3: That might negotiate with you and expect, you know, to
Speaker 3: have that happen. And then within two days the Israelis
Speaker 3: had killed everybody else that was in line for succession
Speaker 3: and trying to pick a successor. So clearly, I think
Speaker 3: it's from the beginning, whatever the President said, you know,
Speaker 3: the mission, the goal was not about nukes and negotiations
Speaker 3: and pressure. It just that doesn't play that if you
Speaker 3: say that, But that's not what the reality says.
Speaker 5: So the first thing is that we just got to
Speaker 5: accept that your question is right. Why now, Well, the reason.
Speaker 3: Was the nuclear you know, the reason given was nuclear negotiations. Now,
Speaker 3: as it's a complex situation, so expanding on that, the
Speaker 3: logic would be that here's a nation that certainly is
Speaker 3: a sponsor of terror, sponsor certainly is especially bad for
Speaker 3: you know, the Near East, a sponsor especially bad and
Speaker 3: neighboring nations, you know, especially threatening in the Gulf and
Speaker 3: in the straight of hormones. Lots of bad things that
Speaker 3: they've done. Okay, but the one thing that they haven't
Speaker 3: ever done is to threaten the United States with nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons or rockets or anything else. And the rockets that
Speaker 3: were busily destroying, now, because that was the next the
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense or war whatever came out and said, well,
Speaker 3: now we're really there.
Speaker 5: What our mission is.
Speaker 3: To eliminate their ability to respond outside their borders to
Speaker 3: project power.
Speaker 5: So our real mission has knocked out all the rockets. Okay,
Speaker 5: well that's none of those could have reached the US.
Speaker 5: So who who was being threatened by those rockets?
Speaker 3: Clearly it was Israel, So that's Israel's mission, not ours.
Speaker 3: Backing into this whole thing to answer your question, I
Speaker 3: think gets back to why didn't we declare war? And
Speaker 3: I almost that doesn't trouble me nearly as much about
Speaker 3: Iran as it does, because I believe.
Speaker 5: Your answer was correct.
Speaker 3: We have reached the point where the President of the
Speaker 3: United States has decided he doesn't need Congress, he just
Speaker 3: doesn't need it, and Congress has enabled that. So we
Speaker 3: have just at this point in time, we have literally
Speaker 3: sunk our constitutional system.
Speaker 5: That troubles me more than Iran.
Speaker 3: I don't like see killing, but I think this is
Speaker 3: a tipping point for the United States, where you can
Speaker 3: get engaged in this kind of military conflict and Congress
Speaker 3: chooses not even to participate. Congress today could have passed
Speaker 3: and they refused to pass the War Powers Act. They could,
Speaker 3: as they did in Vietnam, have passed a special Act
Speaker 3: enabling him literally saying Okay, we're not just going to
Speaker 3: downplay you, We're one hundred percent we're going to endorse this.
Speaker 5: They didn't do that.
Speaker 3: They just are not even participating. So back to your
Speaker 3: very first point was I agree with you, and I
Speaker 3: think that's the most dangerous thing going on. Iran's going
Speaker 3: to get people killed.
Speaker 5: I am more concerned about.
Speaker 3: Our constitution and our nation right at this point in time,
Speaker 3: because we're stepping away from our three power checks and
Speaker 3: balance system, and that's bad for all parties because that
Speaker 3: means you've just you've given up debate, you've given up dialogue,
Speaker 3: you've given up comprise.
Speaker 5: So okay, that was so I'm with you on that one.
Speaker 3: The second point, and I think this is the the
Speaker 3: other point is talking about the endgame, and as you
Speaker 3: rightly point out, we have we've gone across the board
Speaker 3: on this, even in the past few days At first,
Speaker 3: uh the president was encouraging revolution in the streets and
Speaker 3: regime change, backed away from it, encouraged it, again, backed
Speaker 3: away from it.
Speaker 5: Israel is certainly encouraging it.
Speaker 3: Although what in the world and Iranian regime would look
Speaker 3: like that would suit israel Is I can't I can't
Speaker 3: really fathom at this point. I guess just one that
Speaker 3: is unarmed, because we see that in Lebanon they really
Speaker 3: don't mind a regime, you know, in the territory that
Speaker 3: doesn't get.
Speaker 5: In their way.
Speaker 3: And I don't I say that objectively. I you know,
Speaker 3: I have no problems with they're defending themselves. But if
Speaker 3: you look at Lebanon and Syria, they're okay as long
Speaker 3: as you don't get in their way, right, Okay, So
Speaker 3: back back to regime change.
Speaker 5: We're not only apparently negotiating with.
Speaker 3: Vlavi, with the former line of succession to the kingship,
Speaker 3: you know, and we're talking about a whole country that
Speaker 3: has a large percent of its population dedicated to opposing
Speaker 3: his kind of regime. So if you bring him in
Speaker 3: and you put his regime in power, you're going to
Speaker 3: be in the same place that we were in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: We have this tendency to do regime change and then
Speaker 3: work with expats.
Speaker 5: Expatriots have never been in.
Speaker 3: Country because they can claim some sort of power base
Speaker 3: and then it all goes bad over and over and
Speaker 3: over again.
Speaker 4: We do that.
Speaker 5: But at the.
Speaker 3: Same time, you didn't mention the other thing we appeared
Speaker 3: to be doing, which is encouraging the Kurds to attack Iran. Now,
Speaker 3: at this point in time, the Kurdish Polave doesn't have
Speaker 3: any fighters on his side.
Speaker 5: He has no military We don't.
Speaker 3: There's no sign that he has it other than kind
Speaker 3: of like anybody that's anti you know, the regime is
Speaker 3: on his side.
Speaker 5: That's not necessarily true.
Speaker 3: The Kurds have a really well organized, structured military force.
Speaker 3: They can go in and certainly geographically take over a
Speaker 3: big chunk of Iran, and we appear to be encouraged
Speaker 3: him to do that. So how many different factions are
Speaker 3: we encouraging. It appears to me that what we're doing
Speaker 3: is encouraging chaos.
Speaker 4: Well, and here's the thing about that chaos. How we look.
Speaker 4: I know you just said that the Kurds have a
Speaker 4: substantial force, and yes they do, but there is a
Speaker 4: reason why there is no Curtis Stan. They have not
Speaker 4: been able to codify themselves into a cohesive enough unit
Speaker 4: to be able to take anything They have been basically,
Speaker 4: I mean, in my estimation, the whole time I've been alive,
Speaker 4: it seems like the Kurds have been the nomadic fall
Speaker 4: guys for all kinds of justification. You know, even when
Speaker 4: Hussein was allegedly bombing his own people, he was actually
Speaker 4: killing Kurds. And I don't know exactly how much confidence
Speaker 4: I would put in that, as you know, my force.
Speaker 4: I mean, I understood the idea at least with Afghanistan
Speaker 4: when they brought the Northern Alliance in. They were on
Speaker 4: the losing side of the war. I understood what their
Speaker 4: infrastructure was about. They were about out of the country
Speaker 4: actually until we made it possible for them to swing in.
Speaker 4: But these were people that seemed better armed than the
Speaker 4: Kurds have ever been because they don't have a homeland,
Speaker 4: they don't have a real base of operations. In my mind,
Speaker 4: maybe I'm wrong, God.
Speaker 5: Would I would.
Speaker 3: I would disagree with that strongly, Chuck. The Curds are
Speaker 3: very well organized militarily. The Kurds were able to stand
Speaker 3: up to the Taliban the Kurds were, uh, the Northern
Speaker 3: Alliance was pretty much gone.
Speaker 5: The Curds are.
Speaker 3: If you look at the pictures coming out today with
Speaker 3: the forces moving towards Iran, I mean you're looking at
Speaker 3: hundreds or thousands of very well or armed Kurds, and
Speaker 3: your point is well taken.
Speaker 5: But up to this point in time.
Speaker 3: The Kurds have faced Iran, which was a very strong power,
Speaker 3: and they faced Turkey, which is a very strong power.
Speaker 3: If they move on Iran and we encourage them to
Speaker 3: take and hold territory, they that it's like easy prey.
Speaker 3: The big game changer at this point in time is
Speaker 3: we have never encouraged them.
Speaker 5: We have never encouraged them. If we really say, okay.
Speaker 3: Take as much as you want, because we want anybody
Speaker 3: there except the people that are in power.
Speaker 5: We've given them a new opening.
Speaker 3: So I see the Kurds as much more of a
Speaker 3: player in this.
Speaker 5: Than you might think. I accept get their history. They
Speaker 5: have been on the outs.
Speaker 4: I agree, and look, I accept that as a possibility
Speaker 4: that they listen. They have survived generational occurrences of having
Speaker 4: again no homeland is pretty significant over there. They have
Speaker 4: not been able to establish a homeland. They are spread out, okay,
Speaker 4: And the fact that there's any Kurds left is a
Speaker 4: testament to the fact that they are a significantly tough
Speaker 4: force of people that have had to, through means of survival,
Speaker 4: become exactly what you're describing. But here's the thing they
Speaker 4: Let's just imagine for a moment that they are fully
Speaker 4: in couraged and we supply them, and other people supply
Speaker 4: them and everything, and they get the gold standard of support.
Speaker 4: Are the Iranians who are there going to accept that,
Speaker 4: because you know, everybody a lot not everybody, let me
Speaker 4: stop there. A lot of Americans seem to think it's
Speaker 4: a homogeneous ethnicity, and Iranians will correct you quickly if
Speaker 4: you think you're going to confuse them with somebody else.
Speaker 4: So a very young Iran that you know, was going
Speaker 4: to the streets, you know, being told they were going
Speaker 4: to be supported and getting you know, gunned down because
Speaker 4: everybody forgot about all those deaths that occurred. You know,
Speaker 4: nine people get killed in Israel because of a rocket.
Speaker 4: They talk about it, but you know a lot of
Speaker 4: people allegedly were killed just for going into the streets
Speaker 4: in Iran. Those people, are they going to accept and
Speaker 4: occupying assistance force allegedly that is Kurdish. That is a
Speaker 4: calculus I don't know exactly how to make because of
Speaker 4: the cultural issues.
Speaker 5: They won't. They won't.
Speaker 3: You're absolutely right, and that's why I said that this
Speaker 3: is just a map to chaos. It's we don't have
Speaker 3: a plan. There is no successor group. The people that
Speaker 3: have been going into the streets are not armed.
Speaker 5: We did not support.
Speaker 3: Them at that point in time when when Pavavi, the
Speaker 3: fellow that we are negotiating with with the lineage of
Speaker 3: the kings, says, oh, I can put ten thousand people
Speaker 3: into the street eat you literally. I'm sure he could,
Speaker 3: because he's going to spark opposition. Those are unarmed street
Speaker 3: demonstrators who will be mowed down, just like seven.
Speaker 5: Thousand of them or three weeks ago.
Speaker 3: Now, if we had really wanted regime change, we would
Speaker 3: have done this with them before. We stepped back and
Speaker 3: stepped away and then they all got slaughtered.
Speaker 5: But your point is where it will take it now, the.
Speaker 3: Iranians, the Persians, if you will, I mean basically, you've
Speaker 3: got Persians, then you've got the radical alam Islamis that
Speaker 3: are kind of an overlay faction are no more likely
Speaker 3: to accept the Kurds than they are to accept the
Speaker 3: Israeli offer of being.
Speaker 5: There to help. You know, that's end.
Speaker 3: There's certainly you've got the Shoei Shia Sunni thing. Forces
Speaker 3: are not going to come in from those other Gulf
Speaker 3: nations that are a hostile religious group. There is no
Speaker 3: combination that seems to show anything like a workable structure
Speaker 3: for replacement, other than possibly just literally subdividing the country
Speaker 3: so that it's no longer a functional power, which may
Speaker 3: be quite frankly what we want and maybe exactly what
Speaker 3: Israel wants, and then they will just continue to fight
Speaker 3: each other rather than projecting power.
Speaker 5: But no, I wouldn't argue that the Kurds.
Speaker 3: The mere fact that we're talking to both those factions
Speaker 3: as possible replacements just shows how how.
Speaker 5: Far out of the ballpark it is. It just makes
Speaker 5: no sense at.
Speaker 4: All, right, But it does make sense from the Israeli perspective, because,
Speaker 4: as you said, if you can subdivide it and cause
Speaker 4: enough chaos in Iran so as to you know, effectively
Speaker 4: cause a cessation of a bunch of much smaller, much weaker,
Speaker 4: although much more dedicated forceful mini states, and you can
Speaker 4: atomize Iran into something that's no longer a coherent singularity.
Speaker 4: Well that does kind of work for the Israelis because
Speaker 4: you know, even with the and that's the other thing.
Speaker 4: I thought we destroyed all their nuclear capabilities a little
Speaker 4: ways back. Maybe it was only a few months ago.
Speaker 4: I know they happened quickly, but seems to me as though, yeah.
Speaker 3: We took credit for it, but maybe that was a
Speaker 3: little premature, But yes, we did say that.
Speaker 4: Uh huh. I'm just going with what's being said, right,
Speaker 4: and here we go. What's being said doesn't necessarily match
Speaker 4: the strategy that we see unfold. And that's really the
Speaker 4: consistency here is that we're told one thing. You know, look, Venezuela,
Speaker 4: we'll go to the other side of the map, right, Venezuela.
Speaker 4: They are drug runners. They're drug runners. Were blowing up
Speaker 4: their boats, and now we're gonna snatch their dictator because
Speaker 4: they're drug dealing through the state. He's a drug dealing
Speaker 4: dictator and his regime is evil, but we're gonna deal
Speaker 4: with his vice president. Don't worry about it, and we're
Speaker 4: done blowing up the boats now, Thanks and all the
Speaker 4: drugs magically evaporated, along with whoever got killed on those boats.
Speaker 4: The strategy, the execution, and the projected propaganda are all mismatched.
Speaker 4: And is that a strategy in and of itself?
Speaker 5: Larry Is?
Speaker 4: My question? Is that actually not a strategy per se?
Speaker 4: But like a coherent operating business practice?
Speaker 5: Here?
Speaker 4: Is this what it is? We say one thing, we
Speaker 4: do a slightly different thing, and we accomplish yet a
Speaker 4: third thing and declare victory. Is that what it is?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 4: Make sure that none of it is coherent, so nobody
Speaker 4: really knows what's happening until it's already done. Is that
Speaker 4: actually a sort of posture that a nation the size
Speaker 4: and strength that we are militarily can use to our advantage?
Speaker 4: I mean, militarily we can, But how does that vote
Speaker 4: for any other sort of international relations? You know, if
Speaker 4: I look at somebody who says I love you, punches
Speaker 4: me in the face, okay, and runs away screaming that
Speaker 4: I hurt them, I'm going to be a little confused.
Speaker 4: And then when they come back to sell me something,
Speaker 4: I'm not gonna want to buy it. I mean, I'm
Speaker 4: just saying, you know, that's what it seems like to me.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm oversimplifying it. I'm sorry, but it does seem
Speaker 4: like that's the current accepted practice here, is that where
Speaker 4: we're what we're doing, like say one thing, do a
Speaker 4: separate thing, and accomplish a third thing and victorious.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's a I don't think it's a
Speaker 3: foreign policy. I think this is this is an artifact
Speaker 3: of the president. I mean, this is simply how the
Speaker 3: president and his administration operate. But the president, because I
Speaker 3: don't think in this case, we don't really have a
Speaker 3: president in the same sense that we've had presidents like
Speaker 3: even an Ice an hour Kennedy, some of the more
Speaker 3: recent where they really you know, they had National Security
Speaker 3: Council meetings and there really was give and take, and
Speaker 3: there was debate, and there was back and forth. You know,
Speaker 3: are we doing something stupid? Are we not doing something?
Speaker 3: We're not operating that way anymore. Again, we've moved to
Speaker 3: whatever the president decides is it's just a matter of
Speaker 3: yes and who does what, who does what to implement it,
Speaker 3: So that that's that's not really a foreign policy foreign nation.
Speaker 3: That's uh that's very situational. Uh so, but it is
Speaker 3: everybody can see it I mean, it's quite clear what
Speaker 3: it is. There's no doubt for for foreign nations. You know,
Speaker 3: when when our our presidents, when Spain says, well, we
Speaker 3: don't think what you're doing is right, so please don't
Speaker 3: fly your aircraft bound for the you know, the radiant
Speaker 3: war through through our nation, and we in the positing
Speaker 3: immediately says I'm going to impose like one hundred percent
Speaker 3: terrified you and by the way, we'll fly through your
Speaker 3: airfields whether you like it or not. You know, it
Speaker 3: doesn't take long for everybody to catch on to this
Speaker 3: as to how this game is being played. And I
Speaker 3: think that's again I hate to say this, but I'm
Speaker 3: less concerned about Iran per se than what this reflects
Speaker 3: about our nation and the fact that that we we
Speaker 3: no longer certainly we're not even thinking about seeking the
Speaker 3: moral high ground. We're just saying what we're going to do,
Speaker 3: and then we'll do it, and we don't really have
Speaker 3: to justify it.
Speaker 5: We just say what we're going to do and do it.
Speaker 3: The other thing that I've got to uncertain this dialogue
Speaker 3: is we're doing it with an amount of hubrius, an
Speaker 3: amount of gloating that I have never seen before.
Speaker 4: Well, I was going to get to that. I was
Speaker 4: going to get to that. Sorry, because that's the other
Speaker 4: weird thing is, Okay, let's just say you're completely successful
Speaker 4: and justified in smashing a regime, decapitating it as they
Speaker 4: have claimed to have done, and all of that. Now
Speaker 4: you will want to negotiate with and contain any sort
Speaker 4: of chaos. Usually if that matters, if you're trying to
Speaker 4: control a dangerous element in the region, you're gonna want
Speaker 4: to say, Okay, now your leadership's gone. You got to
Speaker 4: do something different. You're going to need to talk to somebody.
Speaker 4: And in the immediate aftermath of the military action, what
Speaker 4: we have is, yeah, you like that. We got more
Speaker 4: a street level again, Larry, I'm sorry, but go ahead.
Speaker 3: And we moved to the fact that again we don't
Speaker 3: have the press covering the war anymore in terms of
Speaker 3: even embeds as we did before, and nobody's reporting from
Speaker 3: the scene per se. Really, what everything is coming out
Speaker 3: of the Pentagon is coming out of the Pentagon. And
Speaker 3: I look at this every day and I kick myself
Speaker 3: for it. It's just one image after another image of
Speaker 3: us destroying things. And this has been characterized before This
Speaker 3: is what is called war porn, and we are loving
Speaker 3: it and we're loving seeing things destroyed and violence.
Speaker 5: And that's what's coming out of the Pentagon.
Speaker 3: Before you would get a report of the Pentagon, basically
Speaker 3: a situation reports.
Speaker 5: How's the war going okay?
Speaker 3: Without any self congratulation? Really, and I've seen us do
Speaker 3: enough for us, so I've seen what comes out.
Speaker 5: It's not that way anymore.
Speaker 3: You read read the Pentagon releases, read what Cain is
Speaker 3: saying or Expect is saying, and it is self congratulation constantly,
Speaker 3: and how badly. You know, that's not the way we
Speaker 3: used to if we went to fight a war. We
Speaker 3: went to fight the war. We dropped an H bomb,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, a bomb. We did whatever we needed to
Speaker 3: do and then we're done. We didn't say, oh, this
Speaker 3: was the biggest bomb ever dropped, that is killed the most.
Speaker 3: We didn't gloat about it. We just did it and
Speaker 3: it was done, and you declare victory and walk away.
Speaker 3: This is just constant gloating, which is troubling. If you
Speaker 3: have to do it, you have to do it. But
Speaker 3: if you feel that you have to brag about it constantly,
Speaker 3: and in every press release, you say we're doing this
Speaker 3: because of previous president that you're to me essentially realizing
Speaker 3: that you're sort of having to justify yourself, which you shouldn't.
Speaker 5: Have to do.
Speaker 3: If everybody knows you're doing the right thing, you don't
Speaker 3: have to constantly gloat and justify yourself.
Speaker 4: Now, Larry, I don't advise that you watch this movie,
Speaker 4: but listeners to this show should. The guys from South
Speaker 4: Park some years ago put out a movie which is
Speaker 4: low you know, low tech, low res and obvious marionettes
Speaker 4: and puppets, and it was called Team America. And the
Speaker 4: behavior in that movie and the outlandish nature of it
Speaker 4: is pretty much what we're seeing now. That is how
Speaker 4: our military and our foreign policy is behaving is much
Speaker 4: like that movie. And sadly I got to mention another
Speaker 4: movie which you might have seen, Larry, but maybe you haven't,
Speaker 4: also done by another cartoonist named Mike Judge, and it's
Speaker 4: called Idiocracy. So I guess my only final question to
Speaker 4: ask you before you try and wrap some of this
Speaker 4: insanity into a sane something, turn it into a sant
Speaker 4: pretzel for us, Larry, please, is you know are you
Speaker 4: gonna vote for Trump? In twenty eight because it looks
Speaker 4: to be like the other two branches of acquiest the
Speaker 4: press has acquiesced and consolidated in his favor magically. And
Speaker 4: you know, I would say, somebody out of coherence strategy
Speaker 4: with that, where we have the consolidation of power and
Speaker 4: the removal of resistance. By the way, not just by
Speaker 4: one party. In my mind, it's you know, in the
Speaker 4: course of my lifetime, every time one party gets too
Speaker 4: much leverage and too much power, usually the other party
Speaker 4: sweeps back in, pushes the pendulum in the other direction
Speaker 4: way too far again, and then we rinse and repeat.
Speaker 4: That's what we had. If you think about political correctness,
Speaker 4: even we had a time when people were kind of,
Speaker 4: you know, a little bit aggressive, and then the answer
Speaker 4: was an over correction and political correctness leading to wokeness.
Speaker 4: This is on the social side of things, by the way, guys,
Speaker 4: it's totally disconnected from the political conversation, but the pattern
Speaker 4: is the same. Then it gets pushed back the other way,
Speaker 4: where they're glad to be able to call mentally handicapped people,
Speaker 4: you know, by a word which I commonly used a lot.
Speaker 4: And that's a victory now, and now the pendulum has
Speaker 4: gone in the other way too far. Again, here's the problem.
Speaker 4: At this point, though usually there was some noise that
Speaker 4: seemed to be a significant opposition, and in the case
Speaker 4: of our government, that significant opposition was supposed to be
Speaker 4: provided by the different perspectives of the judicial and the
Speaker 4: legislative branches pushing back against the overuse of executive authority
Speaker 4: or the unitarian executive concept that was to check that,
Speaker 4: and also Congress becoming too powerful and ridiculous, even though
Speaker 4: you know, I don't know how many government employees can
Speaker 4: just decide to give themselves a raise and take a
Speaker 4: vote on it as a body, but you know, hey,
Speaker 4: look it is what it is. But usually that could
Speaker 4: be checked in another way because even if they passed
Speaker 4: a law, well, the Supreme Court and also the president
Speaker 4: coveto and there was the infrastructure of resistance at least
Speaker 4: was there, even if it was just an appearance, because
Speaker 4: there was a majority of a bunch of people in
Speaker 4: agreement that were that were in way too much power,
Speaker 4: and then the people would react by removing those people
Speaker 4: through voting. It seemed like, I don't know how I
Speaker 4: feel about that at this point, because I don't see
Speaker 4: anybody getting ready to push the pendulum the other way
Speaker 4: right now. And I guess that's my way of trying
Speaker 4: to articulate this thing where you're more worried about the
Speaker 4: constitutional and you know, the the Republic here, which was
Speaker 4: supposed to be you know, representative and was supposed to
Speaker 4: abide by the Constitution and you know, had laws that
Speaker 4: applied to everyone and all that, and you see no
Speaker 4: counterbalance to everything flying in that direction, much like me,
Speaker 4: but we're articulating it in slightly different ways. Or do
Speaker 4: you think I'm missing the point here, Larry? And also,
Speaker 4: I do want to know you're going to vote for
Speaker 4: Trump in twenty eight I mean seriously, That's where I'm at.
Speaker 3: Okay, God, I hope he's not going to be running,
Speaker 3: but it's my sincere hope that he's not going to
Speaker 3: be running. If he is running, actually he wouldn't have
Speaker 3: to run, but if he gets to that far, then
Speaker 3: you might as well not have an election because it's done,
Speaker 3: you know, because legally he shouldn't, you know anyway, But
Speaker 3: he bothers me and his his administration that bothers me.
Speaker 3: It's but it's even it's Congress that bothers me more
Speaker 3: because I you know, I know some Congress people. It's
Speaker 3: not that they're all insane. Some of them are very
Speaker 3: smart people, and somehow they've been moved into positions where
Speaker 3: they've they've given up all of their sanity. They've disengaged
Speaker 3: from the game.
Speaker 5: It's just I'm.
Speaker 3: Going to do whatever the White House wants to do,
Speaker 3: and the last doesn't even come talk to me anymore.
Speaker 3: You know the fact that people that were used to
Speaker 3: be strong willed and political, they're not even political anymore
Speaker 3: because all the parties are going to be playing the game.
Speaker 3: If you're going to be political, they've given that all up.
Speaker 3: So quite frankly, Congress bothers me more than anything, probably
Speaker 3: even than the President quite at the moment, because they're
Speaker 3: there because we weren't supposed to have a king, and
Speaker 3: if they don't exercise their power, then the default is.
Speaker 3: You know, George Washington was offered that position and he
Speaker 3: turned it down and said, no, that's not the way
Speaker 3: to go. The founding fathers were very well aware of
Speaker 3: all the risk and dangers in this, and we're about
Speaker 3: to sell Lebrade our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, having
Speaker 3: apparently totally forgotten all of the things that concerned them.
Speaker 3: So but go back back to your to your wrapping
Speaker 3: it up. First of all, we've got to accept that
Speaker 3: foreign policy conducted like you're playing the game whack a mole.
Speaker 5: It's not a good way to go it just not.
Speaker 5: You're going to suffer the consequences.
Speaker 3: Which takes me to the final point is we've given
Speaker 3: up looking at consequences.
Speaker 5: As you know, Chuck, I am, I am not.
Speaker 3: I have no problem with military action, and I have
Speaker 3: no problem saying that previous regimes, democratic or otherwise, actually
Speaker 3: should have conducted military action against Iran long ago when
Speaker 3: Iran threatened ships and took out ships going through the
Speaker 3: Strade of Romos, we should have taken out the Radian Navy.
Speaker 3: Just straight up that President Obama, Biden, anybody could have
Speaker 3: gone to Congress and said, I want a resolution protect
Speaker 3: the straight I can't do that without taking out all
Speaker 3: of a ron's abilities to strike into the Strait.
Speaker 5: Okay, vote for it. We're going to We're going to
Speaker 5: do that now.
Speaker 3: That will be a special operation, and I can tell
Speaker 3: you when we're done. There was another point time if
Speaker 3: we're not have no reason we were worried about Iranian
Speaker 3: intermediate range ballistic missiles. But if if we did, and
Speaker 3: to make a case, that's easy too. We're going to
Speaker 3: take out their missiles. Okay, I'll tell you when we're done.
Speaker 3: If we would take short steps and various focus ship
Speaker 3: steps and missions, we wouldn't get into this kind of problem.
Speaker 3: But don't everybody wants to push it back. Well, we
Speaker 3: don't want to start something. Well, if you can't define
Speaker 3: the mission and carry it out, then I guarantee you
Speaker 3: in time, you will start something because it will start itself,
Speaker 3: which is what happened.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: We let Iran project power for far too long. And
Speaker 3: this goes the same thing happened with isis we let
Speaker 3: them project power far too long. If you're going to
Speaker 3: be a world power, sometimes you do have to use
Speaker 3: military force. You don't what you want to do is
Speaker 3: use it in a structured fashion and just not stumble
Speaker 3: into it.
Speaker 5: You know, when I hear our.
Speaker 3: Current secretary say, oh, well, we're we've got weeks to
Speaker 3: go because we're you know, we're putting more assets into
Speaker 3: the region and we're why tell me what is the
Speaker 3: mission we're striking deeper into into Iran?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Well, you eliminated their navy already. You just told me
Speaker 3: that you eliminated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, what is it?
Speaker 3: What are you really doing with all that military force?
Speaker 3: And we won't even talk about the fact that we
Speaker 3: are consuming munitions at a rate and drawing down our
Speaker 3: force capabilities at a rate that's uncredent. And and know
Speaker 3: when the President goes on social media and says we
Speaker 3: have an unlimited amount of munitions and that's that's that's wrong.
Speaker 5: He doesn't know what he's talking about. Uh.
Speaker 3: And I will tell you there are people of the
Speaker 3: Pentagon that are very worried right now about just that,
Speaker 3: but apparently not the Secretary of War who just continues
Speaker 3: to go on and do that forever.
Speaker 5: So wrap it up.
Speaker 3: The point, the point I think by wrapping up would
Speaker 3: be if if we don't wake up, and if Congress
Speaker 3: doesn't engage, and we don't engrave, engage to get people
Speaker 3: in Congress who will, We're just going to keep doing
Speaker 3: this whack them old thing, and.
Speaker 5: In another two years, three years, I don't know if.
Speaker 3: We'll be in a position that we can recover. Regardless
Speaker 3: of Hoopa votes for whom it's going to be a
Speaker 3: long tough comeback after what we're doing to ourselves now.
Speaker 4: Well, and that's that's the overall point that I don't
Speaker 4: see anyone addressing, is that there will be there always is.
Speaker 4: It's not me being a doomsayer. But when you take
Speaker 4: a military action, there are reactions and there are consequences
Speaker 4: whether you were successful or not. You know, like I said,
Speaker 4: you take out the entire regime. Now you have a
Speaker 4: you know, a country with no rulers. If you take
Speaker 4: out the whole succession not necessarily the best thing to
Speaker 4: do strategically immediately. There is more than one tool. Look,
Speaker 4: warfare is inevitable among human beings in my mind, But
Speaker 4: to simply use only violent means.
Speaker 2: In warfare is foolish.
Speaker 4: It's just that simple. You have economic warfare, you have
Speaker 4: psychological warfare. You have one hundred different weapons or tools
Speaker 4: in the box if you want to dismantle a regime,
Speaker 4: if you want to affect a change in a region.
Speaker 4: And what I think people are just not caring to
Speaker 4: recognize is that somebody said I'm going to take the hammer,
Speaker 4: and just the hammer out of the box. We withdrew
Speaker 4: from the agreements, We abandoned other obligations to allow things
Speaker 4: to go on in the region, and forget about learning
Speaker 4: from Iraq after smashing a sovereign country's infrastructure and then saying, Okay,
Speaker 4: figure it out, which it took them quite a while,
Speaker 4: and I'm not even sure they're done sorting that out yet,
Speaker 4: and then taking something that was even more menacing. It
Speaker 4: seemed to me more organized, more dense in its infrastructure
Speaker 4: of unification as a nation, because again, like you said,
Speaker 4: these are the Persians. These are not the same people
Speaker 4: that we were talking about before in other places. This
Speaker 4: is a different people, and it's not the Kurds, and
Speaker 4: the Kurds are not going to be the arriving heroes
Speaker 4: that everybody says. I'll tell you what disturbs me even
Speaker 4: more than Congress and you and I are seeing the
Speaker 4: same thing. It's just we're having mildly different bad reactions
Speaker 4: to it. And my different reaction is, why are the
Speaker 4: American people actually not even objecting to this significantly? Do
Speaker 4: they not understand that, you know, Trump's going to die
Speaker 4: in a couple of years, no matter what, even if
Speaker 4: he lives to be a hundred, he's not going to
Speaker 4: be around as long as a whole lot of you,
Speaker 4: you will live with the consequences of this, and I'm
Speaker 4: sorry they could be much longer term than I think
Speaker 4: anyone is even daring to estimate publicly. And I don't
Speaker 4: know if it is apathy, stupidity, or just a simple
Speaker 4: I don't know, lack of information, which would be strange
Speaker 4: in the information age, you would think, and in the
Speaker 4: age when we can immediately communicate and can immediately project,
Speaker 4: and can immediately see the results of many things going on,
Speaker 4: you know, because one phone call and you can be
Speaker 4: talking to somebody in I ran right now, you know, immediately,
Speaker 4: no problem. You can move people quicker, you can do
Speaker 4: a lot of things quicker. But all we've seemed to
Speaker 4: do quicker is blow things up here and say, okay,
Speaker 4: now it'll sort itself out. That's what I keep taking
Speaker 4: from this regardless.
Speaker 5: Maybe it's video games.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's the instant gratification. There's there's no longer enter.
Speaker 3: We don't play strategy anymore, the game, right, we don't.
Speaker 3: We don't play those games. It's it's all right, you know,
Speaker 3: like I said, Warporn, but you you brought up.
Speaker 5: An interesting thing.
Speaker 3: I think that does deserve comment because I forgot to
Speaker 3: say it.
Speaker 5: Okay, and I talked about.
Speaker 3: Taking out the Iranian navy and so on and so forth.
Speaker 3: We didn't apparently didn't even ever bring up the point
Speaker 3: of full scale blockade. If you want to think about it,
Speaker 3: if if one of our you know, at this point
Speaker 3: in time, I've listed on paper like seven major goals
Speaker 3: that apparently we have in this war, and some of
Speaker 3: them conflict with each other, but let's let's talk about
Speaker 3: projection of power if we're concerned about them as as
Speaker 3: a projection of power with a moss and with hearties
Speaker 3: and so on and so forth. One of the things
Speaker 3: we literally could have done is said, Okay, you're bad people,
Speaker 3: you're terrorists. You're getting people killed, and you're doing that
Speaker 3: because you're shipping weapons. Well, guess what, as of tomorrow,
Speaker 3: you're not shipping anything. We're going to do a total interdiction.
Speaker 3: There's nothing going out across your border air seer land
Speaker 3: that we're not going to waste. And we're putting you
Speaker 3: on notice. And when we decide that, you're not trying
Speaker 3: to be bad again. And by the way, the these
Speaker 3: days we have the assets to do that, and you
Speaker 3: can see them.
Speaker 5: We're using in this war.
Speaker 3: Our intelligence collection ability is amazing. We could have done that,
Speaker 3: and we could have literally said, you know, no, the
Speaker 3: Hateys aren't going to get anything more from you simply
Speaker 3: because you're not exporting anything.
Speaker 5: Have a nice day, and we could enforce.
Speaker 3: It, and enforce it outside their borders for that matter.
Speaker 3: It doesn't seem to me Kennedy could see that in Cuba.
Speaker 3: Do we have nobody that even like looked up blockade
Speaker 3: and this is all the administrations, that's not just this.
Speaker 5: Current in it goes all the way back.
Speaker 3: Nobody seems to It's like we've got in our position
Speaker 3: that we can either do nothing or do it all.
Speaker 5: There are no interim steps.
Speaker 3: We can't we can't segment it, we can't we can't
Speaker 3: play the strategy game and apply a series of pressures.
Speaker 3: And we seem to have that ability. I don't know why, again,
Speaker 3: not just Trump. I say that, but we missed a
Speaker 3: lot of off ramps along the way if we thought
Speaker 3: this was serious, but instead we chose to ignore it
Speaker 3: until it got to this place.
Speaker 5: So I want to try to be objective about that.
Speaker 3: We missed a lot of opportunities and we could have
Speaker 3: cured the list of seven things that I have on
Speaker 3: this piece of paper now that we say we're addressing,
Speaker 3: and we could have either cured or certainly tried to
Speaker 3: cure that without entering full scale war, which we are
Speaker 3: in regardless of anybody who says what and if you
Speaker 3: can't see it, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Right, And the people that are clamoring and saying, well,
Speaker 4: this has to end, because you know, that's the thing
Speaker 4: that kills me. You know, Oh, there's a time limit
Speaker 4: on this, and that you mean to tell me that
Speaker 4: the same people who couldn't release the Epstein files on
Speaker 4: time are going to abide by a deadline? Is that right? Okay?
Speaker 4: And even the Congress people were like cheering on social
Speaker 4: media like that that's why that Team America movie came up,
Speaker 4: because you know that's America. If Yeah, that's the way
Speaker 4: the song goes. I don't know if you ever saw it, Larry,
Speaker 4: but it is.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately I did part of both of those, Yeah, not all,
Speaker 3: but I did part.
Speaker 5: But yeah, it feels just that way.
Speaker 3: There's no it's all you know, gung ho, there's not
Speaker 3: even any pause. It's if nothing else you should be say,
Speaker 3: shaking your head, saying it's really sad that we have
Speaker 3: to do this and so many people have to die,
Speaker 3: but it's our obligation.
Speaker 5: There should be no cheering, right.
Speaker 4: There's no somber you know, the statements came out. Okay,
Speaker 4: as of this time, we have done this. Okay, there's
Speaker 4: your pronouncement. And then it's in harrowing operations we have
Speaker 4: taken on the sacred duty of restoring order or you know,
Speaker 4: this is the kind of thing that usually follows a
Speaker 4: massive disruption. Even George hw Bush, who look, you can
Speaker 4: claim all kinds of skills that he allegedly had, but
Speaker 4: being a charismatic presenter was not one of them. He
Speaker 4: was able to project at that time, though the seriousness
Speaker 4: maybe a little too serious about what happened Operation Desert Storm, remember,
Speaker 4: and we didn't even decapitate the regime. We just contained
Speaker 4: them in like what a few weeks. And again Iraq
Speaker 4: is not Iran. But then when we went back and
Speaker 4: Junior went to go do it, he smashed the place
Speaker 4: and walked away. And the chaos that ensued did not
Speaker 4: end in a month, a year, nothing like that. We
Speaker 4: were contending with that we're supposed to leave, well maybe not,
Speaker 4: you know, unless we're going to be the caretaker of
Speaker 4: that nation, and I just don't see it in the
Speaker 4: posture behavior and recent record of the behavior the American
Speaker 4: institutions outside of just Trump. Yes, we're not gonna like
Speaker 4: turn around and occupy it, like it's part of Europe
Speaker 4: that has now fallen into chaos after World War Two.
Speaker 4: It's just not gonna happen. So I don't know when
Speaker 4: this is gonna end, just like they don't seem to
Speaker 4: know when it's gonna end four or five weeks or whenever,
Speaker 4: however long it takes. Which is also a strange attitude,
Speaker 4: because even if you don't know, you usually project an idea,
Speaker 4: like you have a hard line, you know, plan in hand, right,
Speaker 4: I mean, isn't that more normal to say, look, you know,
Speaker 4: even if you're lying to me, I'm gonna tell you,
Speaker 4: even if I'm gonna lie to you, this will be
Speaker 4: over in ninety days. This will be over. It will
Speaker 4: take us twelve months, but we will earn great victories
Speaker 4: and we will actually stabilize the entire region by this investment.
Speaker 4: And instead what we get is thank you for your service.
Speaker 4: Sorry you're dead, but it was worth it. And oh,
Speaker 4: by the way, you know, as per usual, just like
Speaker 4: with a rock, we wind up killing more of our
Speaker 4: own people in operational misadventures at this point, then are
Speaker 4: even destroyed by the enemy allegedly, and their retaliation is
Speaker 4: not over. You know again, I just I want to
Speaker 4: lay those points there, and by all means, Larry, tell
Speaker 4: me I'm wrong, tell me I'm being immature about this
Speaker 4: or whatever. But I believe we have actually opened up
Speaker 4: a can of worms where our eyes were bigger than
Speaker 4: our stomach on this, okay, and this is not going
Speaker 4: to end well, I can't see how this ends. Well,
Speaker 4: I really can't. And perhaps there is something here at
Speaker 4: play that is so sophisticated it's beyond me. I guess
Speaker 4: that's possible because I can't rely on anybody too. As
Speaker 4: you said, there's no reporters, there's no embeds, there's no
Speaker 4: you know, a friendly correspondence so that we can actually
Speaker 4: find out what's happening in real time about this except success,
Speaker 4: that's it. But other than that, oh, you know, I
Speaker 4: can't see how it ends. Well, I just can't. I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't have another way to phrase that. So what
Speaker 4: do you think in the final Finally.
Speaker 3: We don't really give any other examples of where this
Speaker 3: sort of thing.
Speaker 5: Hasn't it has ended well. I mean, we.
Speaker 3: Made a major effort to make things end well in Iran,
Speaker 3: and right at the moment they only look relatively stable
Speaker 3: because you know, this is not happening in Iraq. You know,
Speaker 3: we exercised a major effort in Afghanistan, and right now
Speaker 3: Afghanistan is at war with Pakistan, which we have not
Speaker 3: talked about at all. It's outlined, right, I sent you
Speaker 3: a couple of links on that. You know, Pakistan is
Speaker 3: bombing their capital right Uh. Ever, you know there is
Speaker 3: a full fledged war going on between a nuclear power
Speaker 3: by the way, Pakistan nuclear power is full scale at
Speaker 3: war with Afghanistan, which we put together and then came apart,
Speaker 3: and we were we were idiotic. They think that we
Speaker 3: could ever put it together and that it would stay.
Speaker 5: You know, we we There's just.
Speaker 3: There's no model that I can come up with where
Speaker 3: we do this sort of thing, especially if we do
Speaker 3: regime change, and then over the next twenty years, thousands
Speaker 3: of people don't die. The only the only time it
Speaker 3: ever there are periods of time where we managed to
Speaker 3: but a constant infusion of money or resources or support
Speaker 3: keep someone in power. A person in power who does
Speaker 3: deals with us, and could that be could we come
Speaker 3: up to situate a situation and Iran that is so
Speaker 3: fragmented and unstable that somehow assumed control over the nominal
Speaker 3: leader and steer it in the direction we wanted to.
Speaker 5: Well, that's you harken back to this. Eighty years ago.
Speaker 3: It was the CIA who essentially took credit for ousting
Speaker 3: the democratic elected premier of Iran and replacing him with
Speaker 3: a Shaw And I write about that length in creating Kaya.
Speaker 3: And we did that simply because we were playing along
Speaker 3: with the British, partnering with the British so that we
Speaker 3: could all control their oil. Now we're playing along with
Speaker 3: somebody else too. Do we really want to control Iran's oil?
Speaker 5: Actually?
Speaker 3: I don't think so, because at the moment it's we're
Speaker 3: the biggest producer in the world.
Speaker 5: So what's the net result of this. We're going to take.
Speaker 3: Control of their oil, we don't even have to. But
Speaker 3: what we have just done, for sure is to elevate
Speaker 3: the price of our own oil. Now you want to
Speaker 3: talk about a big conspiracy story, who really benefits from
Speaker 3: this in terms of dollars? The people in the oil
Speaker 3: business in the US, the people in the oil business
Speaker 3: in Opak and the people in the oil business in Russia. Right,
Speaker 3: And who really cares about Iran and whether it fragments
Speaker 3: into another series of Balkan states? Who really cares if
Speaker 3: we just make sure that they don't screw around in
Speaker 3: the golf. And screwing around the golf is not their
Speaker 3: oil shipments, it's screwing around with OPA's oilshipments. Right, Who
Speaker 3: are we really protecting the golf? Our oil is here,
Speaker 3: we don't have to ship it anywhere.
Speaker 5: We're protecting Opak oil.
Speaker 3: Think about that, We're now going to provide free insurance,
Speaker 3: anomaly priced insurance.
Speaker 5: For all those tankers.
Speaker 3: When we are the number one oil provider in the US.
Speaker 3: Why wouldn't we just step back and say sorry, you
Speaker 3: guys have a tough life.
Speaker 5: You know, and our wall is more expensive. Live with it.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I guess this is we don't
Speaker 3: want to look bad, right, although it's hard to look
Speaker 3: good at the moment.
Speaker 5: But the thought that we.
Speaker 3: Would be convoying other people's oil, you know, oil ship
Speaker 3: punts to protect the world with our ships who are
Speaker 3: going to come under fire, And if you don't think
Speaker 3: they're going to be drones and short range missiles flying
Speaker 3: out of Yemen and Iran for some time.
Speaker 5: I'm afraid you're being naive. Russia learned that in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Right, You can't, you know, with all the power in
Speaker 3: the world, you can't stop them forever from sending something
Speaker 3: at you. You know, that's and ironic knew this was coming,
Speaker 3: and they built thousands of drones. I'm more worried about
Speaker 3: their drones than their missiles, for Lord's sake.
Speaker 4: Right, I mean, they had so many that they were
Speaker 4: offering to supply Russia. Yeh a short time ago. So
Speaker 4: keep that in mind. And yeah, here we go again
Speaker 4: and the bad pattern. And we went in less than
Speaker 4: a generation larry from people on the streets of America chanting,
Speaker 4: you know, no blood for oil to uh this situation
Speaker 4: where they don't see any blood and we're not really
Speaker 4: getting any oil. And if we do, it's going to
Speaker 4: cost us triple anyway. You know, we sees control of Venezuela,
Speaker 4: we sees control of Iran, you know, with our partner,
Speaker 4: and that's gonna cost you more. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 4: they did bomb a tanker in the strait of Formosa
Speaker 4: as well. You know that, uh, if you know.
Speaker 5: There's a look at that.
Speaker 3: I sent you some links to post on what's going
Speaker 3: on there, and that's not hitting the headlines nearly as
Speaker 3: much as.
Speaker 5: You might expect that.
Speaker 3: There are a lot more pictures coming out of the
Speaker 3: Pentagon of us blowing things up than those the coverage
Speaker 3: of what's going on in the Straits right exactly.
Speaker 4: And it's for a reason. They have complete control of
Speaker 4: the narrative. They seem to have the people pacified, and
Speaker 4: we're going to pay more for oil. It's just that simple,
Speaker 4: no matter what the misadventure is. And I do pray
Speaker 4: out loud that we will not have to suffer through
Speaker 4: them lying to us about the returning caskets draped in flags.
Speaker 4: I am one of those people who thinks that the
Speaker 4: cost of war should always be considered right then and
Speaker 4: there in the people that are going to have to
Speaker 4: fight it, the people that are going to have to
Speaker 4: suffer for it, that didn't ask, the people that didn't volunteer,
Speaker 4: and those that did volunteer to go into military service.
Speaker 4: I don't see their blood as any less precious as
Speaker 4: the oil we're trying to control. I don't see their
Speaker 4: blood as something that should be spilled without absolutely every
Speaker 4: consideration in front of it. So I'm one of those guys.
Speaker 4: I understand that there's going to be this type of action,
Speaker 4: but again, maybe I'm just being emotional, but even my
Speaker 4: cold strategic mind does not comprehend how this works out. Well,
Speaker 4: I can't stop saying it anyway, Larry. I appreciate you
Speaker 4: walking through this with me, and I know it took
Speaker 4: you a little longer than I wanted to tonight, but all
Speaker 4: this needed to be said. Is there anything else you
Speaker 4: want to add? Or should I just refer people? I mean,
Speaker 4: you're going to be blogging about this and so on
Speaker 4: and so forth, and I do hope that next time
Speaker 4: we talk we're able to speak about things other than this,
Speaker 4: because somehow or other this has been resolved. But I
Speaker 4: don't think you know, what is the expression that cow
Speaker 4: has already left the barn? You know, the cats out
Speaker 4: of the bag. I think you're gonna have trouble putting
Speaker 4: it back in and not you, Larry, But you know,
Speaker 4: the point is, I think that putting toothpaste back in
Speaker 4: the tube is going to be quite a job. And
Speaker 4: this is where we're at now, and I think it
Speaker 4: was poorly considered regarding the consequences before it was enacted.
Speaker 4: And I'm hoping that there's just a whole lot of
Speaker 4: stuff I missed here that makes this reasonable and sensible,
Speaker 4: because doesn't look like it to me. And the celebrations
Speaker 4: and the end zone dancing is not helping. And truthfully,
Speaker 4: if you were to try to create a formula, by
Speaker 4: the way to create the next generation of actual terrorists.
Speaker 4: And I don't mean I'm sorry, got a hard time
Speaker 4: with this guy property of Allah from the wrong country,
Speaker 4: who's Islamic inspired, And oh that's our first reaction. You
Speaker 4: ain't seen nothing yet, you know, realistically, when it comes
Speaker 4: to an actual reaction to this, because again, like even Eisenhower,
Speaker 4: you know, Eisenhower tried to warn us about the military
Speaker 4: industrial complex. Eisenhower tried to warn people about Iran. I
Speaker 4: don't know. Maybe we should listen to Eisenhower. And I'm
Speaker 4: not even saying I'm a big fan, just saying the
Speaker 4: guy might have known a little strategy he was in general,
Speaker 4: I don't know. Again, I say, I don't know how
Speaker 4: this bodes well or ends well. So Larry, I leave
Speaker 4: it at that. Do you have anything else you want
Speaker 4: to add.
Speaker 3: No, I'm afraid we just I think I think we've
Speaker 3: covered all the bases.
Speaker 5: The bottom line is that.
Speaker 3: My last call would be as long as the average
Speaker 3: VOD as well as the long as the average congress
Speaker 3: person decides not to mentally engage with this or be
Speaker 3: any more than a cheerleader, then the consequences are going
Speaker 3: to accrue that nature takes its course. As you said,
Speaker 3: there are patterns than this. I've written about this stuff
Speaker 3: over eighty years. It constantly repeats. We keep doing the
Speaker 3: same thing over and over again, and when we do,
Speaker 3: nothing good ever happens. It's just that then we wait
Speaker 3: five years or ten years, and we lose that institutional
Speaker 3: memory and we do it again. It kind of appalled
Speaker 3: me when I heard one of the senior administration figures
Speaker 3: say today, you know, any day when we kill a
Speaker 3: terrorist is a good day for America. Well, I have
Speaker 3: nothing wrong with killing terrorists, but actually, none of the
Speaker 3: people you're killing did anything to us.
Speaker 5: At the moment.
Speaker 3: The only known terrorists that we've ever had from that
Speaker 3: area identifiable came out of Saudi Arabia, and we totally
Speaker 3: ignored that and refused to act that and and now
Speaker 3: they're our biggest partner, and we just we we tend
Speaker 3: to forget easily. So I guess my call to action
Speaker 3: would be, uh, as long as we as we leave
Speaker 3: it to somebody else, and as long as we don't
Speaker 3: engage with it, we'll get what we deserve.
Speaker 5: Evolution is not nice.
Speaker 4: No, it's not. And and the truth is, you know,
Speaker 4: and and I hate to say this because people have
Speaker 4: been crucified for saying stuff like this, so you know,
Speaker 4: hang on yourself, Larry, but this is literally how you create.
Speaker 4: And it's not just this one situation, but there are
Speaker 4: various circumstances unfolding simultaneously right now that are literally the
Speaker 4: formula that they have told us now for I don't know,
Speaker 4: forty years is exactly the formula that was used in
Speaker 4: order to radicalize people that do become the terrorists later. Literally,
Speaker 4: actions are being taken again and again and again to
Speaker 4: create those people, to give them a circumstance where that
Speaker 4: is their almost logical evolution. If you know, you put plate,
Speaker 4: keep placing people in these circumstances. When we tortured people
Speaker 4: in a rock, it kind of pissed off the people
Speaker 4: outside of the jail, you know. I mean, I'm just
Speaker 4: saying this was not the best proof.
Speaker 3: There's no doubt that our actions in Iraq did a
Speaker 3: lot to create isis our actions against Russia and Afghanistan
Speaker 3: had a lot to do with creating Van Laden and
Speaker 3: isis right?
Speaker 5: I mean during our.
Speaker 3: Actions and reacting, there ay is reactions when we do
Speaker 3: something and we gloat about it. You know, I wonder
Speaker 3: how many people really realize the damage that was done
Speaker 3: by those photos that came out of a rock with
Speaker 3: the National Guard folks handling the prisoners like they did.
Speaker 5: I mean, especially if.
Speaker 3: We do this, and we do this and the way
Speaker 3: we're doing it now, with all this gloating and all
Speaker 3: this celebrating the people that you're doing it too, even
Speaker 3: if some of them that deserve it, it's not going
Speaker 3: to go. They're going to remember it that they have
Speaker 3: institutional memories too. You know, who who killed my grandmother?
Speaker 3: What about that school? How about those school kids?
Speaker 5: Oh well, we didn't.
Speaker 3: Intend to do it, and we probably didn't intend to
Speaker 3: do it. What they will remember is that we did it.
Speaker 6: In denial, secret wars with air strikes and tanks By
Speaker 6: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 6: operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In
Speaker 6: Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 6: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 6: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 6: really failed and why the United States did not.
Speaker 4: Learn from it. It also shows why other countries today
Speaker 4: are doing secret operations with more success. This is the
Speaker 4: book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 4: In Denial, secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 4: For more information go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 4: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 4: com in digital or physical.
Speaker 2: Foh Chili dot com.
Speaker 4: Wall Street Window dot dot com, Wall Street Window dot
Speaker 4: com dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the
Speaker 4: War State, gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Rallstreetdow
Speaker 4: dot dot Go there, now, go there, now there, now yourself.
Speaker 7: Every denial matic statum, metal, real metal horse bottle, We
Speaker 7: of one nas, the anti gods and anything they would
Speaker 7: team worthy of. Randy completely divide those Adam with the
Speaker 7: liberty distinct freely in justice only.
Speaker 8: The only thing have four to win, but not I'm
Speaker 8: justice for a seat on.
Speaker 9: The trans humanist attack bro space as Rogers has applatility,
Speaker 9: every slatter.
Speaker 2: About the systems that bring It's not the rest.
Speaker 1: Of us all done.
Speaker 5: That's a light cooker.
Speaker 9: We just want madge it so they'll be will be
Speaker 9: the funniest mess of the war. The Lady of life
Speaker 9: will make your see this gets a third stormy because.
Speaker 1: That is God's joy. Rages or go crazy for this guy.
Speaker 9: Dansler job and Jesus left is to.
Speaker 7: Save ourselves from communism and fascism.
Speaker 10: With me, we go fascism and cotopaths. In the new
Speaker 10: Trump Bible plotstree, where the anti Christ is a transgender
Speaker 10: wor Babylonist franchisees that merely included Trump Tower and a
Speaker 10: McDonald's in every New city, I'm a prison for prophet planet,
Speaker 10: but Johnny name it can afford the rat but not
Speaker 10: old Justice with a seat on the transhumanist tech bro
Speaker 10: SpaceX rocket to Hell. That's to cover those space Ax
Speaker 10: rocket to Hell.
Speaker 2: It's the opportune rats, but the light country we just
Speaker 2: might make it.
Speaker 1: So will the punishment for the burn the flag of war.
Speaker 10: Place get a third show.
Speaker 9: Because that is got joy rating. There's no crazy fusty
Speaker 9: Dave Roger and sees.
Speaker 1: That's what.
Speaker 5: Don't forget that though we are like.
Speaker 8: Country, we just mind make it so that'll see will
Speaker 8: be the punishment.
Speaker 6: For tailing to burn the flag of war already.
Speaker 5: In place, will make your orange.
Speaker 7: Let's get a third, sir, because that is God's trustrating orange.
Speaker 8: In the New World Order of.
Speaker 5: Tecto, Crazy, Promance, Sky Dance, Merca and Jesus.
Speaker 10: What does we save ourselves from communism and fascism with
Speaker 10: neo fascism and cryptocracy is in the New Trump Bible,
Speaker 10: Part three by.
Speaker 8: Antichrist, The Sender, War and Babylon as franchises and really
Speaker 8: acclude a Trump Tower of a McDonald's, and ever your
Speaker 8: city on the Plasant Prophet Planet.
Speaker 11: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 11: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 11: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 11: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 11: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 11: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 11: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 11: Before World War II, United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 11: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 11: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 11: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 11: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 11: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 11: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 11: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 11: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 11: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com.
Speaker 4: The Kelly dot Com Radio Network.
Speaker 2: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 2: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 2: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 2: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 2: events that led.
Speaker 5: Up to this.
Speaker 2: Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in
Speaker 2: Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen ten sixty one.
Speaker 2: Get your copy today at Amazon dot Com. Why the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 4: Could you express my caller stools there anyone else who
Speaker 4: happens to get on the air. O Jelly dot com
Speaker 4: do not necessarily reflect views of Oli dot com or
Speaker 4: Chef O Chelli, and we are not responsible for any
Speaker 4: stupidity which might.
Speaker 2: Instudent revelation through conversation.
Speaker 1: Mock any
Speaker 3: Interesting