Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the show. This is another edition
Speaker 1: of the Cajun Night Live.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: Almost did a Cult of Conspiracy intro there. Kind of
Speaker 1: lost my place for a moment, but it's all good.
Speaker 1: It works. I want to thank everybody for coming on
Speaker 1: this evening and being a part of the retinue. For
Speaker 1: any of the listeners that would like to be a
Speaker 1: part of this conversation. Every Wednesday night at nine pm Central,
Speaker 1: you go to patreon dot com slash Cajun Night. Not
Speaker 1: always that the only place to get these shows commercial free,
Speaker 1: but it's the only place to see the videos, the articles,
Speaker 1: the news clips, all the things, all this stuff, and
Speaker 1: also you get to join in on the conversation. It's
Speaker 1: become a real Wednesday Night barn burner for the group
Speaker 1: of us that come together and do this. I know
Speaker 1: I look forward to it every week. So without any
Speaker 1: further ado, I'm gonna go ahead and share the screen
Speaker 1: and let's just jump straight into it with the wildness
Speaker 1: that is going on in the world. Starting off, I
Speaker 1: thought this was interesting and also silly. So this is
Speaker 1: from the Hill Trump on Norway denying the Nobel Prize.
Speaker 1: He says, I don't care which you know, it's silly, right,
Speaker 1: It's silly to me. And then didn't he get it
Speaker 1: from like Venezuela or something like that, And it was
Speaker 1: the I think it was the Venezuelan one of the
Speaker 1: laureates that just got it. She basically like gave her,
Speaker 1: gave him hers or something like that. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: the point. He was just pissed that he didn't get
Speaker 1: the Nobel Peace Prize because I've done nord for peace
Speaker 1: in this world than anyone else right now, And it
Speaker 1: was silly things Ian realistically it was. But yeah, we
Speaker 1: might as well read on this one because that ties
Speaker 1: into Davos, and that ties into everything else we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about next. But let's start off here. President
Speaker 1: Trump insisted Monday that he does not care about the
Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize, but maintained that Norway controlled quote unquote
Speaker 1: the award, despite the country's leaders denying any involvement in
Speaker 1: deciding who receives the prize. Yeah, the nation of Norway
Speaker 1: doesn't have like I say so in that it's it's
Speaker 1: from the Nobel Peace Prize organization. And I should just
Speaker 1: say the Nobel Prize, right, because like I mean, hell,
Speaker 1: Teddy Broosevelt was awarded a Nobel Prize, but for literature.
Speaker 1: So I mean, like it's I'm just saying it's for this.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna go ahead and just say the Nobel
Speaker 1: Prize organization, you know, I'll go ahead, Sam, It wasn't
Speaker 1: the nob.
Speaker 2: As Nobel as in the guy who created the prize.
Speaker 2: He wanted to create that so that it would be
Speaker 2: a way to fix his reputation after his first invention.
Speaker 3: I can't remember.
Speaker 2: I think it was dynamite and it was used it
Speaker 2: killed so many people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he invented dynamite as a way to try
Speaker 1: to be the weapon to end all weapons, because he thought,
Speaker 1: if you make a weapon that's so destructive, nobody will
Speaker 1: want to fight wars anymore, and it will save lives.
Speaker 3: And he said that same thing with the Gatling gun.
Speaker 1: They said the same thing with the gatling gun. They
Speaker 1: said the same thing with Archimedes fire. They said the
Speaker 1: same thing. Why I should say Greek fire? Excuse me?
Speaker 1: They said the same thing with nuclear weapons. That's not
Speaker 1: how humans function. But yeah, the dude who mister Nobel himself, right,
Speaker 1: And there's a couple of different categories. You can be
Speaker 1: awarded the prize for one of them is peace, and
Speaker 1: Trump was kind of but hurt that he wasn't given
Speaker 1: the Peace Prize and said that it was the country
Speaker 1: of Norway that was the ones that prevented that from happening,
Speaker 1: which is silly. But anyway, he says, I don't care
Speaker 1: about the Nobel Prize. He told reporters, First of all,
Speaker 1: a very fine woman felt that I deserved it and
Speaker 1: really wanted me to have the Nobel Prize, and I
Speaker 1: appreciated that, he added, referring to Venezuelan opposition leader, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna try to pronounce this on Maria Corina Machado. Yeah,
Speaker 1: her decision to give her eighteen care Gold Medal to
Speaker 1: Trump during a meeting at the White House last week. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she literally just got awarded this. Most of the country
Speaker 1: of Venezuela doesn't even know about it, what they probably
Speaker 1: do now, But because she was an opposition leader, Maduro
Speaker 1: made sure that nobody in the country had heard about
Speaker 1: this whatsoever. And she's been I don't even think she's
Speaker 1: been in the country for years because like she was hunted,
Speaker 1: she had a price on her head. But basically she
Speaker 1: felt that, yeah, you do deserve one, mister Trump, And
Speaker 1: here's mine. She just got awarded that like a few
Speaker 1: months ago, as a matter of fact. But basically that
Speaker 1: wasn't the point, Okay, wasn't about the medal. It was
Speaker 1: about the status. That move, though not mentioned directly, prompted
Speaker 1: the Nobel Committee to note that while the symbol of
Speaker 1: the prize a medal and a diploma, can be given
Speaker 1: away to honor itself, is inseparably linked to the winner.
Speaker 1: Trump's comments came days after he linked the prize, which
Speaker 1: he has long coveted, to his aspirations to acquire Greenland,
Speaker 1: in a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Joha Stor, writing
Speaker 1: that he no longer felt an obligation to think purely
Speaker 1: of peace. See he was basically I'm gonna read the
Speaker 1: direct quote, but basically he's saying the only reason why
Speaker 1: he hasn't done more war things is because he wanted
Speaker 1: the Nobel Peace Prize, and now that that's not how opening,
Speaker 1: he doesn't feel obligated to think of only peace, which
Speaker 1: is again it's a rather silly take honestly, direct quote here,
Speaker 1: dear johann or Jonas, considering your country decided not to
Speaker 1: give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight
Speaker 1: wars plus. I no longer feel an obligation to think
Speaker 1: purely a peace, although it will always be predominant, but
Speaker 1: can now think about what is good and proper for
Speaker 1: the United States of America, the President wrote. According to
Speaker 1: News Nation Storm, the Prime Minister clarified in a statement
Speaker 1: on Monday that the Norwegian government holds no sway over
Speaker 1: who receives the Peace Prize, which again, that's I feel like,
Speaker 1: that's crazy, that's I wish I could and this is
Speaker 1: not a fair comparison, but just bear with me here.
Speaker 1: That would be like somebody being pissed off that they
Speaker 1: didn't get Magna cum laude at Louisiana State University in
Speaker 1: engineering and blaming the governor of Louisiana for not That's
Speaker 1: not how that goes. That's not how that goes at all.
Speaker 1: Although the prize is based out of Norway, the Norwegian
Speaker 1: president and the Norwegian Royalty and every version of that
Speaker 1: you want to take has no actual sway in the medal.
Speaker 1: But all right, cool. As regards the Nobel Peace Prize,
Speaker 1: I have clearly explained, including to President Trump, what is
Speaker 1: well known the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel
Speaker 1: committee and not the Norwegian government, the Prime minister wrote.
Speaker 1: Speaking to reporters Monday night, Trump rejected that notion. If
Speaker 1: anybody thinks that Norway doesn't control the prize, they're just kidding.
Speaker 1: He said, they have a board, but it's controlled by Norway,
Speaker 1: and I don't care what Norway said. Yep, yep, that's
Speaker 1: that's a thing. The President spent months publicly lobbying to
Speaker 1: win the Peace Prize before it was awarded to Machado,
Speaker 1: often claiming he deserved it because he had helped to
Speaker 1: end several wars. And I mean, to be honest with you, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think, especially if you look at other laureates who
Speaker 1: have been awarded. Yeah, Trump has definitely done more in
Speaker 1: certain regards and could be I think has a pretty
Speaker 1: solid nomination, right. But again, blaming the Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: Norway for this one, that's wild. That's wild. But I
Speaker 1: really don't care about the Nobel pricy in system Monday.
Speaker 1: What I care about is saving lives, and I think
Speaker 1: I've saved tens of millions of lives. We stopped eight wars,
Speaker 1: and maybe we'll stop a ninth very soon. We'll see.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has ratcheted up the pressure on European
Speaker 1: countries in recent weeks, as the president eyes a US
Speaker 1: takeover of Greenland, a self governing Danish territory. He announced
Speaker 1: Saturday that he would implement a ten percent tariff on
Speaker 1: Denmark and its allies starting February first, and potentially raising
Speaker 1: to twenty five percent in June until a deal is reached.
Speaker 1: The President and other senior US officials have argued that
Speaker 1: the island must come under US ownership to protect national
Speaker 1: security interests and thwart threats from Russia, China, Russia and
Speaker 1: China in the Arctic region. Now, this is why I
Speaker 1: brought up this nobel situation. It's silly. It's it's silly.
Speaker 1: It's Trump being a little bit of a whiner, a
Speaker 1: little bit. He a little but hurt. Okay, got a
Speaker 1: little stand in the snatch, and he's feeling some type
Speaker 1: of way. All right, fine, but that's not the important
Speaker 1: portion here. It's about Greenland. And Trump started saying that
Speaker 1: he well, first, first things first, he started making more
Speaker 1: of a push towards Greenland, and he was saying that
Speaker 1: we're gonna take it, not militarily, but I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: we could if we have to, but like we don't
Speaker 1: want to, we'll just buy it. And somebody threw out
Speaker 1: a number, and I saw a couple of different reports,
Speaker 1: but a report that I saw pretty consistently was somewhere
Speaker 1: in the ballpark of seven hundred billion dollars, which, all right, cool,
Speaker 1: I just dropped a TikTok and an Instagram and whatever
Speaker 1: the socials about what my personal take is. As far
Speaker 1: as what Norway is about, what Greenland is about, I
Speaker 1: don't think it was for the military strong point right.
Speaker 1: America has a base there and has had a base
Speaker 1: there since the Cold War. They just changed it from
Speaker 1: the Thule base to the Patufic Base, I believe, and
Speaker 1: it has the capabilities of housing thousands of troops, not
Speaker 1: not no, hundreds of thousands, no, but you could pretty
Speaker 1: easily find a way to house about ten thousand troops
Speaker 1: there right now, and nobody would Batny. Greenland has never
Speaker 1: had an issue with America bringing troops over that way.
Speaker 1: I don't think they ever will, to be completely honest
Speaker 1: with you, it's not like they're an ally. They're a
Speaker 1: NATO ally, so it's no big deal. But he was
Speaker 1: also talking about maybe buying it out right. Denmark said
Speaker 1: they don't want nothing to do with that. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: Then you had France step up and say like, hey boy,
Speaker 1: enough's enough, that's enough of that that crazy shit Donald
Speaker 1: Germany stepped up and said something similar. Britain step Duppin
Speaker 1: said something similar. There was one more country. I forget
Speaker 1: which one, but one of these other European NATO allies
Speaker 1: was talking about, hey, hey, that's enough, Donald, we don't
Speaker 1: need none of that. As soon as Trump threatened ten
Speaker 1: percent tariffs, every one of them just went silent. Funny
Speaker 1: how that works out, and then cut to a deal
Speaker 1: has indeed been reached as of today as a time
Speaker 1: of recording. Let's learn about that one together, y'all.
Speaker 4: Fash new's a learned out of Davos, Switzerland, breaking right now.
Speaker 4: New information from President Trump about Greenland, posting moments ago
Speaker 4: on truth Social he said, based upon a very productive
Speaker 4: meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO,
Speaker 4: Mark Ruta, we have formed the framework of a future
Speaker 4: deal with respect to Greenland and in fact the entire
Speaker 4: Arctic region. This solution, if consummated, would be a great one.
Speaker 4: For the United States of America and all NATO nations.
Speaker 4: Based upon this understanding, and here's a big part of this,
Speaker 4: I will not be in posing the tariffs that were
Speaker 4: scheduled to go into effect on February the first. Watch
Speaker 4: your four oh one K. Additional discussions are being held
Speaker 4: concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further
Speaker 4: information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President Jadvance,
Speaker 4: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoys Steve Wiccoff, and
Speaker 4: various others as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations.
Speaker 4: They will report directly to me. Thank you for your
Speaker 4: attention to this matter. Donald Trump, President of the United States.
Speaker 4: Ed Lawrence slivin Davos watching all of this, I think
Speaker 4: the markets are going to like this.
Speaker 5: Yeah, markets will like this. And one thing we've heard
Speaker 5: from I've spoke to several commissioners from the European Union
Speaker 5: and they said that they wanted to start from a
Speaker 5: place of negotiation, so maybe there would be some wiggle
Speaker 5: room for the European Union to come and talk about this.
Speaker 5: They did say, though, in unison, that the European Union
Speaker 5: would not sell Greenland. They said Greenland flat out is
Speaker 5: not for sales. We're gonna have to see where the
Speaker 5: movement on that will be. But clearly the NATO Secretary
Speaker 5: General has been in President Trump's corner from the beginning
Speaker 5: of this President posted on true social note that was
Speaker 5: passed to him from Mark Ruda, the Secretary General of
Speaker 5: supporting him and strife for Greenland. The President is making
Speaker 5: the case here and this is what we've heard from
Speaker 5: this administration saying that that US is the best position
Speaker 5: to protect Greenland should something happen from China or Russia.
Speaker 5: And that's the argument the President's making, and the administration
Speaker 5: coming in here saying, look, you need to allow us
Speaker 5: to make this argument, come in with an open mind,
Speaker 5: and we can negotiate something fair. Because the point of
Speaker 5: the President made in his address today was that Denmark
Speaker 5: really hasn't put in the resources where the money needed
Speaker 5: to support Denmark the way I mean to support Greenland
Speaker 5: the way it needs to be supported. So it'd be
Speaker 5: very interesting to see where this goes forward. But at
Speaker 5: least now we have a group of folks that have
Speaker 5: come together with a plan and the President, as you
Speaker 5: know his strategy, he talks big, gets people talking and
Speaker 5: then his next step is to put forth something and
Speaker 5: this is where the negotiations can start. So maybe that's
Speaker 5: where we are at the moment, a starting point for negotiations.
Speaker 4: John Mark Brunter, where surgery cooler heads to prevail. So
Speaker 4: we'll see if we're there. Ed, thank you for the
Speaker 4: other all right.
Speaker 1: So you know, perhaps that was his plan all along.
Speaker 1: I don't know this for a fact. This is just
Speaker 1: me speculating here. Perhaps it was just it was the
Speaker 1: same thing that he did well pretty much every time
Speaker 1: he's tried to make some outlandish claims and some outlandish threats,
Speaker 1: it's just to get people talking.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: Think about when NATO he was talking about how everybody
Speaker 1: needs to up there spending and the NATO countries basically said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we can't do that, bro, And then he's like, okay,
Speaker 1: well the US could just withdraw from NATO. That's an option.
Speaker 1: Now all of a sudden, all of the NATO countries
Speaker 1: are like, hey, you know, five percent is doable, it
Speaker 1: really is, you know. And now all of a sudden
Speaker 1: European leaders are praising him for demanding and commanding the
Speaker 1: European nations to up their defense spending. So perhaps and Again,
Speaker 1: I don't know this for a fact, but perhaps this
Speaker 1: was his plan all along. This is him still trying
Speaker 1: to do the whole art of the deal kind of
Speaker 1: situation here. He's he's making some bombastic claims, some borderline threats,
Speaker 1: and he does it so hard and so seriously that
Speaker 1: they started to capitulate, which is what he wanted in
Speaker 1: the first place. I don't know. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: would love to hear y'all's take on that one. But
Speaker 1: I have an article puote up here from Politico. It
Speaker 1: says Trump says he won't impose tariffs after reaching Greenland
Speaker 1: deal framework quote unquote. A deal wasn't met, but a
Speaker 1: framework for a deal was met, and that's enough for
Speaker 1: him to calm down on the whole tariff conversation, Trump
Speaker 1: said that he's reached an agreement with NATO on a
Speaker 1: Greenland framework and will not be imposing planned tariffs on
Speaker 1: European allies. The president said in a social media post
Speaker 1: that the deal quote will be a great one quote
Speaker 1: for both the US and NATO allies, but did not
Speaker 1: elaborate on the details of the agreement with NATO Secretary
Speaker 1: General Mark Root. Based upon this understanding, I will not
Speaker 1: be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into
Speaker 1: effect on February first, Trump wrote, the deal eases tensions
Speaker 1: over control of Greenland, which Trump has aggressively sought to
Speaker 1: rest control of from Denmark while citing national security concerns.
Speaker 1: In an interview with CNBC conducted shortly after his social
Speaker 1: media posts, the president said quote, we have a concept
Speaker 1: of a deal. I think it's going to be a
Speaker 1: very good deal for the United States also for them,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna work on We're gonna work together on
Speaker 1: something having to do with the Arctic as a whole,
Speaker 1: but also Greenland, and it has to do with the security,
Speaker 1: great security, strong security, and other things. He literally, I
Speaker 1: tried to a Trump impression, but it's just his speech
Speaker 1: pattern is wild. But anyway, Trump steered clear, providing further details,
Speaker 1: including whether the framework involved any degree of US ownership
Speaker 1: of Greenland or mineral rights. And this is why I
Speaker 1: thought it was all about that in the first place,
Speaker 1: because I don't think many people know this about Greenland.
Speaker 1: They have untapped mineral reserves, iron, uranium, rare earths, cobalt, gold, diamonds, zinc, copper,
Speaker 1: they have all of these things, and they being a
Speaker 1: country that only has fifty seven thousand people living there,
Speaker 1: they don't have the manpower to properly mine and smelt
Speaker 1: and take advantage of these minerals whenever. And you especially
Speaker 1: if you look at China and you look at all
Speaker 1: of what's going on, and they are like the lynchpin
Speaker 1: as far as the rare earth's go on Earth. If
Speaker 1: there's another spot where you can get your hand on
Speaker 1: some of those rare earths for those magnets that are
Speaker 1: needed in all of our electrical components, I could understand
Speaker 1: why he is saying that that is a matter of
Speaker 1: national security, even though it's not a military or defense
Speaker 1: thing as what we're thinking of when we think of
Speaker 1: like kinetic warfare. It's more like setting America up for
Speaker 1: the next five, ten, fifteen years. But again, no real
Speaker 1: word on if this framework quote unquote has anything to
Speaker 1: do with these minerals or not. I don't know. It's
Speaker 1: a little bit complex, but we'll explain it down the line.
Speaker 1: Asked how long the deal will last, Trump said forever.
Speaker 1: So I have a weird feeling that it's going to
Speaker 1: tie into the minerals. I could be so wrong. Here
Speaker 1: and it had nothing to do with that anyway, But
Speaker 1: I just I got a feeling, you know, I got
Speaker 1: a feeling. Trump, in his true social post said discussions
Speaker 1: around a missile defens system pertaining to Greenland are part
Speaker 1: of the negotiations, which will be led by jd Vance,
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Mark Arubia, and Special ENVOYE step Woitkough.
Speaker 1: NATO spokesperson Alison Hart said in a statement that the
Speaker 1: framework will focus on Arctic security through the collective efforts
Speaker 1: of allies, especially the Seven Arctic Allies. Heart added the
Speaker 1: negotiations between the US and Denmark over Greenland will go forward.
Speaker 1: Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen welcomed Trump's decision to back
Speaker 1: off the tariff threat and rule out military force in
Speaker 1: Greenland in a post on Wednesday evening. US stock markets
Speaker 1: railed Wednesday on news that Trump had backed off his
Speaker 1: tariff threat. Yeah, as the reporter just said, Watcher four
Speaker 1: one K, because man, that was a thing, that was
Speaker 1: the thing people were really worried about. He's back on
Speaker 1: the tariff kick. It's like, shit, we just got everything
Speaker 1: back to a working place. Why But that's because Trump
Speaker 1: be doing Trump shit. You know moving on. Prior to
Speaker 1: his trip to the World Economic Forum and Devo, Switzerland,
Speaker 1: Trump had threatened new duties on eight European nations, including
Speaker 1: Denmark and major NATO allies such as the UK, France,
Speaker 1: and Germany. At the time, the president said the terriffs
Speaker 1: would be in effect until quote a deal is reached
Speaker 1: for the complete and total purchase of Greenland. US imports
Speaker 1: from the eight countries were about three hundred and two
Speaker 1: billion dollars from January through October of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: about ten point five percent of total US imports in
Speaker 1: that period. Trump had also dangled the possibility of using
Speaker 1: military force to annex the Danish territory, and was exploring
Speaker 1: a range of options that included military action to take
Speaker 1: control of Greenland earlier in Jane anyway, but in a
Speaker 1: speech of Davos on Wednesday, Trump ruled out the use
Speaker 1: of military action. Which is good that nobody wants that.
Speaker 1: Really we don't. We probably won't get anything unless I
Speaker 1: decide to use successive strength and force where would where
Speaker 1: we would frankly be unstoppable. But I won't do that, okay,
Speaker 1: Trump said in his speech, which okay, yeah again. The
Speaker 1: entire nation. This place is three times the size of
Speaker 1: Texas and has a population of fifty seven thousand people. Y'all.
Speaker 1: The parish that I live in, which granted, everybody else
Speaker 1: in the United States has counties. Louisiana has parishes. The
Speaker 1: parish I live in has three times or just under
Speaker 1: three times the amount of people that live in it,
Speaker 1: as does the entire nation of Greenland. So yeah, we're
Speaker 1: talking about the United States military. If we were trying
Speaker 1: to annex it, I don't think there would be any opposition.
Speaker 1: I think the people of Greenlan would probably be like, well,
Speaker 1: all right, they wouldn't be happy about it, but I
Speaker 1: don't think we would see like, uh, you know, violent
Speaker 1: rebellions or anything like that either. Hell, Greenland could have
Speaker 1: claimed autonomy from Denmark anytime they wanted for the past
Speaker 1: few years. They just haven't done it. They're kind they're
Speaker 1: kind of nonchalant about the whole thing. So it would
Speaker 1: have been, like you said, kind of unstoppable. Yeah, obviously
Speaker 1: obviously where the American military like duh, but all right.
Speaker 1: The US campaign to take control of Greenland has been
Speaker 1: met with unusually strong resistance from European allies, who have
Speaker 1: insisted that Greenland's geographics, significance Jesus and defending the Arctic
Speaker 1: is critical to NATO's member states and should be controlled
Speaker 1: in coordination with NATO. Again, it is already but all right.
Speaker 1: European allies have been threatening strong responses to the looming tariffs.
Speaker 1: European Commission President Ursula of vonder Lehan said Wednesday that
Speaker 1: the EU is quote fully prepared to act in retaliation
Speaker 1: to the tariffs. I don't know what they would have,
Speaker 1: like counter tariffed okay cool. Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: the UK and and Beta male, he's just gonna throw
Speaker 1: that out, said he will not yield over Greenland despite
Speaker 1: the threat of tariffs. Again, UK, you need to not
Speaker 1: yield to protect your own citizens right now. But like, yeah,
Speaker 1: please speak up more. We love hearing from you. A
Speaker 1: spokesperson for the Danish embassy in the US did not
Speaker 1: immediately respond to a request for comment, and a panel
Speaker 1: at Davos on Wednesday Roots said that the NATO nations
Speaker 1: should be happy with Trump's role in reshuffling NATO a
Speaker 1: security alliance, and he has sharply criticized dating back to
Speaker 1: his first term in office. Route acknowledged that he is
Speaker 1: embrace of Trump is not popular with European nations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I could see that. I could see that multiple European
Speaker 1: nations are kind of tired of Donnie t in his mouth.
Speaker 1: I sure sure. In backing off, Trump may be able
Speaker 1: to maintain a fragile status quote with Europe, even as
Speaker 1: US officials have expressed frustrations that the European Union isn't
Speaker 1: living up to a July trade agreement that eliminated tariffs
Speaker 1: on a variety of US goods in exchange for a
Speaker 1: fifteen percent tariff on most European goods. Yeah, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Remember whenever Trump was going on his big tariff thing,
Speaker 1: and all these European nations said that they would remove
Speaker 1: these tariffs on US goods being sold in Europe. Some
Speaker 1: have absolutely stood by their word and they have removed them.
Speaker 6: Some have not.
Speaker 1: And it's been six months, and so Trump's not exactly
Speaker 1: too jazzed up about that either. So maybe that had
Speaker 1: to do with the Greenland situation, right, Maybe he's trying
Speaker 1: to use as much leverage as he can to get
Speaker 1: what he wants out of this, But who knows if
Speaker 1: he actually wanted Greenland to become a US state or
Speaker 1: territory or whatever. It's very possible that all of this
Speaker 1: was to strong arm his way into the mineral reserves
Speaker 1: in Greenland. But I've heard people say it's for the
Speaker 1: military thing.
Speaker 6: Bro.
Speaker 1: We could build another base in Greenland right now with
Speaker 1: nobody stopping us. And I'm not saying that because like
Speaker 1: they would not dare no, no, greend would be fine
Speaker 1: with it. Greenland has no problem with more jobs and
Speaker 1: more industry and more money being basically sent into their names.
Speaker 1: They'd be fine with it. It's not an issue. So
Speaker 1: I don't yeah anyway, But the latest episode renews questions
Speaker 1: about the reliability of the United States as a trading partner.
Speaker 1: Last year, the Trump administration struck trade deals with both
Speaker 1: the EU and the UK that set new reciprocal US
Speaker 1: tariffs on them at fifteen and ten percent, respectively. Speaking
Speaker 1: in Davos on Wednesday at an event hosted by Axios,
Speaker 1: US trade representative Jamison Greer probably mispronounced it's fine. Brush
Speaker 1: aside such concerns, saying that Trump's agreements aren't intended to
Speaker 1: permanently spare countries from tariff threats if new issues rise.
Speaker 1: So again, it's it seems like the tariff thing is
Speaker 1: what actually got people motivated to do something about Greenland.
Speaker 1: But now the deal has been struck, or at least
Speaker 1: a framework for a deal has been proposed and has
Speaker 1: made Trump calm down on the tariff conversation in Europe.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I'm taking that as a w honestly.
Speaker 1: But while we're talking about Trump and Dalla dollar bills, y'all,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of your heard about this,
Speaker 1: but Trump has decided to enact and found a Board
Speaker 1: of Peace involving Gaza, and he is charging nations who
Speaker 1: want to be lifetime members of this Board of peace
Speaker 1: a billion dollars for a permanent seat on this board.
Speaker 1: That's that's hilarious to me, especially when you see the
Speaker 1: countries that have already signed up. We're gonna get to
Speaker 1: it anyway. This is from France twenty four. Here, a
Speaker 1: permanent seat on US President Trump's Board of Peace, aimed
Speaker 1: at resolving conflicts, will cost countries one billion dollars each
Speaker 1: according to its charter. For the record, that's just for
Speaker 1: a seat that has nothing to do with the other
Speaker 1: costs that are going to be associated with peacekeeping operations
Speaker 1: quote unquote when it comes to the Gaza situation. But
Speaker 1: you know, just to get your foot in the door,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a billion, cold hard cash right off
Speaker 1: the top. So take that for what it is. According
Speaker 1: to its charter. Invited world leaders include Russian President Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 1: oh shit, Hungarian Premier Victor Orbun and the Canadian Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Mark Carney. Apparently Trump extending an invite to Putin.
Speaker 1: People are kind kind of giving some side eye glances
Speaker 1: about this. But perhaps and I'm not saying this is
Speaker 1: actually gonna happen. I don't think Putin actually gives two
Speaker 1: shits about what goes down in Gazi. He's got his
Speaker 1: hands full of other stuff. But the invitation extension, right,
Speaker 1: the extending of an olive branch. There are those that
Speaker 1: are hoping that perhaps this will kind of change the
Speaker 1: mood of Putin to where he'd be a little more
Speaker 1: willing to talk about peace in other regards. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's gonna happen, but like that seems to be
Speaker 1: the going consensus here. But let's read in more. Trump's
Speaker 1: government has asked countries to pay a billion dollars for
Speaker 1: a permanent spot on his quote. Board of Peace aimed
Speaker 1: at resolving conflicts. According to its charters seen Monday by AFP,
Speaker 1: the White Houses asked being areous world leaders to sit
Speaker 1: on the board chaired by Donald Trump himself, including the
Speaker 1: three that we mentioned earlier. Member countries represented on the
Speaker 1: Board by their head of state would be allowed to
Speaker 1: join for three years or longer if they paid more
Speaker 1: than a billion dollars within the first year. The charter
Speaker 1: says each member state shall serve a term of no
Speaker 1: more than three years from this charter's entry into force,
Speaker 1: subject to renewal by the Chairman.
Speaker 6: The board.
Speaker 1: Draft charter says, interesting, how you would make it a
Speaker 1: three year thing? Because he only has that long in office,
Speaker 1: So I find that interesting. Basically, whenever he leaves office,
Speaker 1: this Board of Peace very well might just take off
Speaker 1: with him. I guess we'll find out. We'll see how
Speaker 1: it goes. The three year membership terms shall not apply
Speaker 1: to member states that contribute more than a billion dollars
Speaker 1: US and cash funds to the Board of Peace within
Speaker 1: the first year. The board was originally conceived to oversee
Speaker 1: the rebuilding of Gaza, but its charter does not appear
Speaker 1: to limit its role to the occupied palace any in territory.
Speaker 1: It's for that purpose, but it might have some some
Speaker 1: other tentacles if you catch my drift here. The White
Speaker 1: House said there would be a main board, a Palestinian
Speaker 1: committee of technocrats meant to govern devastated Gaza, and a
Speaker 1: second executive board that appears designed to have more of
Speaker 1: an advisory role. The Board of Peace is an international
Speaker 1: organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependability and lawful governments,
Speaker 1: and secure enduring peace and areas affected by or threatened
Speaker 1: by conflict. That's what the charter says. Anyway, failed institutions.
Speaker 1: Now it appears that to take a swipe at the
Speaker 1: international institution such as the United Nations, saying that the
Speaker 1: Board should have quote the courage to depart from approaches
Speaker 1: and institutions that have too often failed, which I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be honest with you, there's some credibility there. There is
Speaker 1: not all of it. The UN has done some good
Speaker 1: things around the world for humanitarian aid and.
Speaker 6: Things like that.
Speaker 1: However, grand scheme of shit right, all cards on the
Speaker 1: and again not in a military sense. Right when the
Speaker 1: UN peace troops come in typically things have gone so
Speaker 1: far sideways that it's it's a whole international crisis at
Speaker 1: that point. But for the humanitarian aid that the UN provides,
Speaker 1: especially to third world countries whenever like a natural disaster
Speaker 1: or something hits, there are cases of them doing good work.
Speaker 1: But as a as a litmus test, litmist test, excuse me,
Speaker 1: of of where the money actually goes that comes from
Speaker 1: the UN. Yeah, it's it's a bit murky, to say
Speaker 1: the least. Before I continue, Sam, I see your hand, brother,
Speaker 1: what you got.
Speaker 2: Do people tend to forget that this wouldn't be the
Speaker 2: first time that there's been something other than the UN
Speaker 2: quote unquote Do people forget the League of Nations?
Speaker 1: The League of Nations was the precursor to the UN,
Speaker 1: was it not? That was after World War One?
Speaker 3: Yes, but it still failed miserably.
Speaker 1: It did. But also that's because Europe as a whole,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't even know how many non European
Speaker 1: countries are a part of the League of Nations. But
Speaker 1: world War One, whenever they took out all of the
Speaker 1: monarchy of all of the countries of Europe for the
Speaker 1: most part, and established republics and democracies and things like that.
Speaker 1: They were rebuilding centuries long legal systems with new framework,
Speaker 1: and then they were trying to do it in the
Speaker 1: best way possible. But it that was doomed to fail regardless,
Speaker 1: especially when you look at the amount of debt that
Speaker 1: had been accrued and all of it was thrown on Germany,
Speaker 1: all of it to the point there was no way
Speaker 1: they could ever pay them, Like I understand, America's got
Speaker 1: more debt, but Germany could never have made those payments happen.
Speaker 1: So all these countries that were a part of the
Speaker 1: League nations were gonna be just out. They were never
Speaker 1: gonna get their money anyway. So in my opinion, the
Speaker 1: League was doomed to fail from the onset, But I
Speaker 1: think it had good intentions behind it. They just it
Speaker 1: was the first time that something like that to that
Speaker 1: scale had ever been really attempted though.
Speaker 3: Ill right, yes, but Spaniard still have a king, I believe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, multiple European nations still have kings and royal classes,
Speaker 1: but it's very much more for figureheads. I mean, hell,
Speaker 1: the King of Sweden, the King of the King of Norway,
Speaker 1: the King of Denmark. France has a nobility class still,
Speaker 1: but it's it's very much just uh yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: kind of like a historical nod to the past. It's
Speaker 1: not like they actually have any real pole or sway
Speaker 1: or on how things goes. The only nation that I
Speaker 1: know of that actually still operates with true monarch, well
Speaker 1: not technically monarchy, but essentially would be Luxembourg. And they're
Speaker 1: actually a grand duchy. They're the only grand duchy on earth,
Speaker 1: and they ever really they don't have a king. They
Speaker 1: have a grand duke and he runs his country full
Speaker 1: tilt as a monarchy. But at the same time, it's
Speaker 1: such a small nation that it's that he's beloved by
Speaker 1: his people. Luxembourg isn't known for throwing their hat in
Speaker 1: the ring as far as military is concerned. It's you know, so, yeah,
Speaker 1: they still have monarchy, but it's not to the level
Speaker 1: that it was prior to World War One. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree, the UN is the let's let's call it
Speaker 1: the stepchild of the League of Nations, but it had
Speaker 1: more credibility at one point in time, it seemed like
Speaker 1: it could be used for a greater good for a
Speaker 1: bit there. But as time has gone on, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: kind of gone into the realm of ineptitude, So I
Speaker 1: don't know, right. Trump has regularly criticized the United Nations
Speaker 1: and announced this month that his country will withdraw from
Speaker 1: sixty six global organizations and treaties. Roughly half are affiliated
Speaker 1: with the UN. We talked about that a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago. As a matter of fact, he's pulling out
Speaker 1: of everything that he sees to be wasteful, and we
Speaker 1: could look at the math on that. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much of this doge had anything
Speaker 1: to do with, right, But he's basically pulling out of
Speaker 1: a lot of things. And when you look at how
Speaker 1: much of these organizations that America was footing a giant
Speaker 1: chunk of the bill on, Yeah, it's a thing. Members
Speaker 1: of the Board would be limited to states invited to
Speaker 1: participate by the chairman, So not just any old country
Speaker 1: can be bop up to the Board of Peace and
Speaker 1: decide they want to be a member. You have to
Speaker 1: be invited. Trump would have the power to remove member
Speaker 1: states from the Board, subject to a veto by two
Speaker 1: thirds of members, and choose his replacement should he leave
Speaker 1: his role as chairman. The Board of Peace began to
Speaker 1: take shape on Saturday, when leaders of Egypt, Turkey, Argentina
Speaker 1: and Canada were asked to join. Trump also named as
Speaker 1: members Secretary of State Mark Rubio, former Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: Britain Tony Blair, senior negotiator Steve Witkoff, and his son
Speaker 1: in law Jared Kushner. Shocker shocker that Jared Kushner got
Speaker 1: asked to be a part of the Board of Peace
Speaker 1: and in response with gazam okay anyway, Israel has objected
Speaker 1: to the lineup of Gaza execute board UH to operate
Speaker 1: under the body, which includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fadad
Speaker 1: and Katar diplomat Ali al Thawadi. Yeah, members of the
Speaker 1: board is also a Turkish dude. Turkey hates Israel by
Speaker 1: the way, for anybody who didn't know, and a Katari
Speaker 1: diplomat because you know how those Kataris love them some Israel.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Israel's not exactly jazzed up about this either.
Speaker 1: But Trump is saying, screw it, We're gonna make this
Speaker 1: board a piece and if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of this ball team, it's gonna cost you a
Speaker 1: billion off the top. Go ahead, sam, is.
Speaker 2: It in Turkey like the redheaded stepchild of the Ottoman Empire,
Speaker 2: like at one point ahead of you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are what you could consider the last remnants
Speaker 1: of the Ottoman Turks. But even even that is a
Speaker 1: bit of a stretch, because the Ottoman Empire was so
Speaker 1: vast and come with so many different groups of people.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if we're gonna really start pulling hairs here,
Speaker 1: Turkey is the last remnants of that. But they're also
Speaker 1: the fucking bastard of NATO and of the EU. Nobody's
Speaker 1: happy that they're a member, but they come through in
Speaker 1: weird strategic ways. But then they also cause shit too.
Speaker 2: They they love hate America so damn much. They named
Speaker 2: themselves after one of our birds.
Speaker 1: Bro shut up.
Speaker 3: I mean, you don't get turkeys over there.
Speaker 1: I looked into it.
Speaker 6: They do.
Speaker 3: They got the fucking thunder chickens over there.
Speaker 1: They're not as big as the thunder chickens in America,
Speaker 1: but they do have a a native population of turkeys also. Uh.
Speaker 2: But Ben Franklin, the mac Daddy gangster that he was, Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: when we were throwing up the suggestions of our national board,
Speaker 2: he actually was disparaging against the Eagle. He said he'd
Speaker 2: much rather have more of a nobler bird, such as
Speaker 2: the turkey, and I'm just like, motherfucker.
Speaker 3: We eat those, we don't eat the bald eagles.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Apparently he thought that the bald eagle was a
Speaker 1: scoundrel of a bird and wasn't noble but the turkey. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Which there's a lot to unpack when it comes to
Speaker 1: old Ben Franklin. Again, if anybody has not read his
Speaker 1: literature on very strategic topics, specifically young men's choice in
Speaker 1: finding a mistress, not a wife, not a girlfriend, a mistress.
Speaker 1: Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet on this, and it is
Speaker 1: hilarious to read. Your boy was he was out there
Speaker 1: doing the most.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many royal like members that dude cooked
Speaker 2: over in France and all like cook.
Speaker 3: The entire parliament.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's that's more widely accepted there even to
Speaker 1: this day. That's why DNA tests aren't allowed in France
Speaker 1: because infidelity is so rampant there.
Speaker 3: They know that if they ever have, like, huh, all
Speaker 3: they supposed to be Catholic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because that matters, that matters. Yeah, there's been multiple
Speaker 1: popes with kids.
Speaker 2: So like, look at the bourgeoisie. Look what the fuck
Speaker 2: that they did. They dude, legitimmy through orgies in the Vatican. Like,
Speaker 2: I ain't Catholic and I don't get down with them,
Speaker 2: but even I wouldn't throw an orgy in the House.
Speaker 3: Of the Lord.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it'd be like that. So, yeah, in Fidelia. Is
Speaker 1: so rampant in France that they don't allow DNA testing
Speaker 1: companies to operate there because they know that if it did,
Speaker 1: it would pretty much just crumble whatever fragment of their
Speaker 1: society still exists.
Speaker 6: So is that why?
Speaker 2: Is that why that they're too busy fucking? Is that
Speaker 2: why they surrender in every major war?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 1: I like the joke about France always surrendering, even with
Speaker 1: this whole thing with the tariffs in Greenland thing. I've
Speaker 1: seen so many people where it's like, oh, America's trying
Speaker 1: to take Greenland. France won't stand for this. I'm sorry, said,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Thats like I've seen the jokes and it's funny.
Speaker 2: But they fought a twenty year war in Vietnam. That's
Speaker 2: the because of France. That's the reason why we, I
Speaker 2: guess said over there, it was it's we called the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War. But it's the fune end of China War. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and like, I'm sorry, we really shouldn't have been over there.
Speaker 1: France agreed, agreed, But yeah, I'm the whole thing about
Speaker 1: France surrendering and stuff. Look, Rommel took over that country
Speaker 1: in two weeks. It wasn't one day. It was like
Speaker 1: two weeks to go from top to bottom of France essentially.
Speaker 1: But oh yeah. But at the same time, they were
Speaker 1: using blitz creek tactics involving tanks, and the world had
Speaker 1: never seen something like that actually done on a battlefield.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I'm trying to give them a little
Speaker 1: bit of credence here. World War One, they didn't surrender.
Speaker 1: They fought tooth and nail. Now, granted, they would have
Speaker 1: been taken if it wasn't for other nations helping them out,
Speaker 1: but historically France hadn't been bitches, you know. It's there's
Speaker 1: a couple of times where they have absolutely not shown
Speaker 1: their most courageous selves. And I have no idea what
Speaker 1: the current status of Francis legion are sick.
Speaker 3: They did send a fleet to us in the Revolutionary War.
Speaker 1: We wouldn't be a nation without them. So while we
Speaker 1: do have to. We do give them the shit, we
Speaker 1: also have to give them at least a little bit
Speaker 1: of respect on their name for the history of it,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: But I thought we do, we have Ucasians as a
Speaker 3: part of us.
Speaker 1: We do, but we actually started out as a penal colony,
Speaker 1: come to find out. So you know, I know, I
Speaker 1: was the one who told you, dude, It's funny you
Speaker 1: mentioned that right around the time when I actually saw
Speaker 1: a quick little docu series on it. And I'm like,
Speaker 1: I am thirty three years old, and I didn't know this.
Speaker 1: As much as we talk about Australia being the penal colony,
Speaker 1: how did I never know that Louisiana was literally.
Speaker 3: That because unlike Louisiana, Australia was six As for.
Speaker 1: We got successful later, yes, but y'all the bet.
Speaker 2: Like y'all started out with convicts and whores as the residents. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Australia that at least that they their their guards were armed,
Speaker 2: their guards weren't gaiters in fucking wildlife.
Speaker 1: For the record, not much has changed as far as
Speaker 1: Louisiana is concerned, and still and still be like that.
Speaker 3: You know, we in Louisiana go.
Speaker 1: Luck finding tags right now. They have a lottery system
Speaker 1: and you have to have land to get certain tags.
Speaker 1: But if you know somebody who I mean, unless you're
Speaker 1: gonna go out lawn, which is an option to strongly
Speaker 1: recommend against that, because boy, if the game warden catches
Speaker 1: you with alligator meeting your freezer and you can't account
Speaker 1: for where you got it from, they'll they'll take a house.
Speaker 1: Like get the game wardens do not fuck around in
Speaker 1: Louisiana's throw that out anyway, all right, moving on as
Speaker 1: we're still go ahead, Sam, you have one more thing.
Speaker 2: I was just gonna say, fuck green bitches and a
Speaker 2: good thing. I don't live in Louisiana. I was gifted
Speaker 2: the meat by the Lord.
Speaker 1: Look, most of the game wardens are good dudes, right
Speaker 1: and I know I know a good number of them.
Speaker 1: They're solid guys. They're not out here trying to ruin
Speaker 1: nobody's day. They're just making sure that everybody's being legal
Speaker 1: about it, and not just for gaters for everything right
Speaker 1: that's being said, going.
Speaker 2: In they're the only fucking thing that does not need
Speaker 2: a warrant. They can go into a house, take it out.
Speaker 2: Everything at your fucking house, all your guns and have
Speaker 2: you convicted for fucking no goddamn reason. That alone is
Speaker 2: why I do not fucking I do not like them,
Speaker 2: and I'm typically back to the blue. But fuck the
Speaker 2: ATF and fuck the game warns.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm with you as far as the no warrant
Speaker 1: needed for things, and that's shitty. But let's be honest here.
Speaker 1: If you've at least in Louisiana, if you have the
Speaker 1: game wardens kicking in your door without a warrant because
Speaker 1: they have that much probable cause to do so, brother,
Speaker 1: you are you're fucking around on a level that most
Speaker 1: people can't comprehend because the game wardens, they have so
Speaker 1: much square mileage that each individual warden has under their
Speaker 1: jurisdiction that they have to cover on any given weekend.
Speaker 1: For them to pick out one person in particular is like,
Speaker 1: you know what, I know you're doing something illegal and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna find out you have to have pissed in
Speaker 1: so many high profile cheerios that, like you, you asked
Speaker 1: for it at that point, because I have outlaws of
Speaker 1: my family, like legit outlaws that be doing the wildest shit.
Speaker 1: As far as that's concerned, the game wardens am even
Speaker 1: concerned with them, Like really, well, I mean as far
Speaker 1: as outlaw hunting goes, you know, like, yeah, I got
Speaker 1: some of those dudes. But and it's not even like,
Speaker 1: oh because the game warnings are all dirty, No they
Speaker 1: are not go ahead and try to bribe one of
Speaker 1: those boys.
Speaker 3: Oh no, they're some of the most molly correct people.
Speaker 2: But like, at the same time, how are you gonna
Speaker 2: bust on on on a kid just going fishing just
Speaker 2: because he doesn't have a fucking license.
Speaker 1: Most of the game wardens here wouldn't fuck around with that. Honestly,
Speaker 1: It's not worth their time to p to fuck with
Speaker 1: a kid who's fishing without a license. Come on now, now,
Speaker 1: if you're going deep offshore fishing or something, then like, okay, perhaps.
Speaker 2: It's happened to me and out the fucked up thing
Speaker 2: of was I was finishing all my cousins lan mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Oh, if it's on private land, then fuck them.
Speaker 3: Yeah. That that that my aunt came out and said, hey,
Speaker 3: do all this is private property my pond, get the
Speaker 3: fuck out.
Speaker 1: H huh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So that experience is why I've always said fucked them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, game warins are out there be on the lookout.
Speaker 1: Everybody anyway, moving on here talking, We're going to Al
Speaker 1: Jazeera next. The US forces seized a seventh Venezuela linked
Speaker 1: oil tanker. Yeah, they're saying it's more of the Russian
Speaker 1: shadow fleet, and here we have it. The US has
Speaker 1: moved to a cert strict control over the production in
Speaker 1: sale of Venezuela and oil since the attacking the country.
Speaker 1: This month, the United States military announced they have seized
Speaker 1: a seventh Venezuela linked oil tanker in the US titans
Speaker 1: control over the production and sale of the country's considerable
Speaker 1: oil resources. The US Southern Command or SOUTHCOMB, which oversees
Speaker 1: military operations in Latin America, said on Tuesday that it
Speaker 1: captured the motor vessel Sejeta Sagita. Not sure if that's
Speaker 1: a softer hard gen as part of the blockade and
Speaker 1: on oil vessels leaving and entering the country. The apprehension
Speaker 1: of another tanker operating in defiance of President Trump's established
Speaker 1: quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean demonstrates our resolve
Speaker 1: to ensure that the only oil leaving Venezuela will be
Speaker 1: the oil that is coordinated properly and lawfully, Southcomb said
Speaker 1: in a statement. It added that Tuesday's tanker seizure occurred
Speaker 1: without incident, sharing a video appearing to show US forces
Speaker 1: flying towards the vessel and landing on its deck. The
Speaker 1: US began seizing sanctioned tankers on December tenth as part
Speaker 1: of the campaign to increase pressure on Venezuela. Tensions between
Speaker 1: the US and Venezuela came to a peak on January third.
Speaker 1: We talked about that already, whenever they came in and
Speaker 1: bagged and tagged Maduro and his wife. In the lead
Speaker 1: up to that operation, Trump and allies like Stephen Miller
Speaker 1: had been increasingly vocal about laying claim to Venezuelan oil,
Speaker 1: given the US's history of prospecting for petroleum there is
Speaker 1: in early in the twentieth century, But by nineteen seventy one,
Speaker 1: Venezuela had nationalized its oil industry, which is never a
Speaker 1: good idea. Efforts to expropriate assets from foreign oil companies
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seven have further fuel criticism from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, which considers Venezuela oil stolen from US owners.
Speaker 1: Now that's a claim, that's a claim. Here legal experts, however,
Speaker 1: largely consider such arguments in violation of Venezuelan sovereignty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's accurate. Trump has nevertheless said the US will control
Speaker 1: Venezuelan oil and has used the threat to further military
Speaker 1: attacks to pressure Venezuela's government to compliance, which they are now.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing they keep trying. They keep sending
Speaker 1: out these vessels. I don't know how many oil tankers
Speaker 1: Venezuela has within its fleet here, but I feel like
Speaker 1: they might be running out. I don't know here. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration has also placed steep sanctions on Venezuelan's economy,
Speaker 1: as part of a trend stretching back to the Republican
Speaker 1: leader's first term as president. The US has framed the
Speaker 1: tanker seizures as a way of enforcing those sanctions, although
Speaker 1: the legality of using military force to enforce economic penalties
Speaker 1: is disputed. Yeah, you know, other nations have been upset
Speaker 1: by this, but at the same time, they're not really
Speaker 1: doing much to stop it. Could that be because they
Speaker 1: don't want none of the smoke with the US. Or
Speaker 1: is it because they don't want to catch a tariff
Speaker 1: from running their mouth too much? I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. Both are viable options, I suppose, Trump said.
Speaker 1: Trump and his officials have said that the sale of
Speaker 1: Venezuelan oil on the world more will be dictated by
Speaker 1: the US, and that the proceeds from those sales will
Speaker 1: be placed in a US control bank account. It's straight
Speaker 1: up theft, it's straight up schoolyard bullying, and honestly, I'm
Speaker 1: kind of here for it when it comes to just Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Not everybody, not everybody. America doesn't need to go on
Speaker 1: some conquest shit and start running everything on earth. But
Speaker 1: I'm not mad at it. When it comes to Venezuela.
Speaker 1: I'm just throwing it out any or any socialist nation,
Speaker 1: any socialist nation. I'm good with US bullying though. That's
Speaker 1: fine with me anyway. I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: are gonna be mad that I said such a hot take,
Speaker 1: but yeah, fuck them, Fuck socialism. Trump has also used
Speaker 1: control over Venezuela's oil to ratchet up pressure on Cuba,
Speaker 1: for which access to Venezuelan oil is an important economic lifeline.
Speaker 1: The US presidential reporters on Tuesday at a waffle House
Speaker 1: briefing or Jesus Christ, I misread that a White House briefing. God,
Speaker 1: that that's how y'all hungry? I am, I just read
Speaker 1: White House as waffle house. Good God, Almighty.
Speaker 7: You know it makes sense either, Honestly, bro, I want
Speaker 7: Trump to address a fucking press conference from a waffle
Speaker 7: house location.
Speaker 1: That would be phenomenal.
Speaker 6: I mean, he did a Walmart, so why not?
Speaker 1: Right, Look, I'm just saying my bad on the misreading,
Speaker 1: but also I kind of wish I would have rolled
Speaker 1: with that. Uh, we've got millions of barrows of oil left,
Speaker 1: he said at the White House. We're selling it on
Speaker 1: the open market, and we're bringing down oil prices incredibly.
Speaker 1: I will say that gas prices have been looking pretty
Speaker 1: nice in my neck of the woods here recently. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's because of Venezuelan oil. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's because of the tariffs. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: because of the sanctions. I'm just I'm just saying it.
Speaker 1: It's nice to see gas prices go closer to two
Speaker 1: dollars a gallon as opposed to whatever the hell they
Speaker 1: were two years ago. You know, let's at least take
Speaker 1: some of that good with some of the bad.
Speaker 6: Here, go ahead, voice just curiosity. What is gas in Louisiana.
Speaker 1: It's getting It's around two dollars a gallon right now.
Speaker 1: It depends on where you go. Like at Walmart, you'll
Speaker 1: probably get like it two eight to ten. If you're
Speaker 1: going to one of the smaller mom and pop shops,
Speaker 1: it might be like two fifteen.
Speaker 6: Gotcha, by the way, So two things.
Speaker 8: One, Walmart has horrendous gas and it's watered down, so sure,
Speaker 8: don't waste don't wish to waste your time money. Second
Speaker 8: of all, I'm sure you know this, but for anybody
Speaker 8: else who doesn't realize it, gas prices changed throughout the week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So like.
Speaker 6: Basically, if you if you find a good.
Speaker 8: Store that provides a good, good gas, then check each
Speaker 8: day for like two weeks and we'll know whenever they
Speaker 8: are the lowest bike and carors I go.
Speaker 6: I go to a Maverick, which, thank god, has a
Speaker 6: really good gas.
Speaker 8: There can sometimes be a sixty six zero cent difference
Speaker 8: between sudden and Monday. Damn, but holy shit, it's it's
Speaker 8: gone from like two thirteen to two seventy nine and
Speaker 8: then like and then a couple of days later it'll
Speaker 8: drop like you know, twenty cents or thirty cents, but yeah,
Speaker 8: so definitely do some shopping around on days.
Speaker 6: That way, you don't screw yourself over holy shit.
Speaker 1: Now to your point about Walmart having watered down gas, agreed,
Speaker 1: which is why whenever I do go to Walmart, I
Speaker 1: try to get a little octane booster in a little
Speaker 1: bit some sea phone, you know what I'm saying. Just
Speaker 1: if you're gonna go for the cheap gas, try to
Speaker 1: take care of your vehicle. But they also have a
Speaker 1: couple of gas stations around my area that sell non
Speaker 1: ethanol gas, which is way better for your engine just
Speaker 1: in totality. But that's also because we're so close to
Speaker 1: the water and boat motors do not do well with
Speaker 1: ethanol gas. So it's it's they're a little more expensive,
Speaker 1: but also it's better for your engine. And honestly, I
Speaker 1: have no idea what the price on that is because
Speaker 1: the last time I filled up was a Walmart. I
Speaker 1: need to see.
Speaker 6: That because they do have so that's say.
Speaker 8: Maverick also sells like I think e eighty five, but
Speaker 8: I've never known whether or not I should or should
Speaker 8: not put.
Speaker 9: That in my dodge, So depends on how new it is, yeah,
Speaker 9: twenty seventeen, yellow or green, or if it's yellow, you
Speaker 9: should be good.
Speaker 6: It's definitely not green.
Speaker 10: I mean, if it's yellow, you want to run your
Speaker 10: fuel all the way almost empty, because there's a sensor
Speaker 10: in your fuel tank that's going to sense whether the
Speaker 10: alcohol level in it.
Speaker 11: So ethanol versus gasoline. Yeah, so if you want to
Speaker 11: run ethanol, run ethanol. But I'd say either stick to
Speaker 11: one or the other.
Speaker 1: And it also depends on the type of motor too.
Speaker 1: I mean, every car that's made these days are fuel injected.
Speaker 1: But if you're fucking around with a older carbureted engine,
Speaker 1: do not put ethanol in that vehicle. My god. I
Speaker 1: learned that the hard way with my first motorcycle because
Speaker 1: it was carbureted. It was a little Yamaha v Star
Speaker 1: one thousand or eleven hundred rather and I didn't know,
Speaker 1: see Jacob learned some lessons the hard way. After eight
Speaker 1: months of riding that thing as my daily commuter vehicle,
Speaker 1: I had a solid inch layer of gel that had
Speaker 1: formed on the inside of my carburetor and I couldn't
Speaker 1: figure out why. And you know, I talked to some
Speaker 1: mechanics like no, get you a little one of those
Speaker 1: little three dollars. It looks like a five hour energy drink,
Speaker 1: but it's for your fuel. Throw that in as an
Speaker 1: added of and it will help clean that out. But
Speaker 1: at that time I was living in Virginia and I
Speaker 1: couldn't find a gas station to sell non ethanol gas,
Speaker 1: so just it was what it was. But the next
Speaker 1: bike I got was fuel injected, and even still it
Speaker 1: was better. But yees, smaller engines, lawmers, boats, whatever the
Speaker 1: case is, don't put ethanol. Don't don't even play that
Speaker 1: game unless you unless you really want to start working
Speaker 1: on motors on every single weekend you have available, then
Speaker 1: like get after it. You know, that's that's a you thing.
Speaker 1: But yeah, like you said, if it has a yellow cap,
Speaker 1: it's made for the e eighty five. If it has
Speaker 1: a green cap or a black cap, use it at
Speaker 1: your discretion. But also if you're going to do that,
Speaker 1: run some sea phone through it, you know, once every
Speaker 1: month to give or take just kind of clean out everything.
Speaker 1: At least that's my my advice. Uh, Sam, I'm sorry Royce,
Speaker 1: what you say, no, because I just said thank you, Yeah,
Speaker 1: no doubt, I lest say hex s head am I
Speaker 1: am I about on the money on this.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yep, you're exactly on the money.
Speaker 1: Okay, good ship, good ship, Sam, what you got dog?
Speaker 2: So it's kind of off topic, but it's something really
Speaker 2: cool about the human body or do you know? Did
Speaker 2: you ever hear about the name Daniel kesh k I
Speaker 2: s h.
Speaker 1: I can't say that I have, but yeah, how off topic.
Speaker 1: We're talking about Venezuela and oil and engines over here.
Speaker 1: You what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Dude was born blind, but yet he used he legitimly
Speaker 2: used human eco like location to see and everything like it.
Speaker 6: Not the guy that would click his tongue. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just watched a thing about him, and apparently even
Speaker 2: stan Lee had him on Stanley's Superhumans, and dude was
Speaker 2: legit daredevil.
Speaker 3: I just think that's kind of cool.
Speaker 1: That is really cool. And also I'm glad you gave
Speaker 1: the heads up that it was going to be super
Speaker 1: off topic because I ain't had nothing to do. We
Speaker 1: were talking about it.
Speaker 2: It popped in my head and I thought you would
Speaker 2: enjoy the fact that, hey, there's literally somebody that can
Speaker 2: walk my faith and not by sight.
Speaker 3: That is dope as ship, that is true, that is true.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's about as good a time as
Speaker 1: any to steer away from the Venezuela conversation and go
Speaker 1: on to the next one. Well, actually, we're kind of
Speaker 1: still on Venezuela a little bit here, But it's more,
Speaker 1: it's not so much the oil tanker situation. This I
Speaker 1: thought was gonna is an interesting article. It's from the
Speaker 1: Times here. Venezuela was embarrassing for China. Did Putin fail
Speaker 1: to tip them off? Moscow knew a raid was coming,
Speaker 1: but ge was kept in the dark. So that's another thing.
Speaker 1: I think Maduro knew that this was coming. I think
Speaker 1: that he willingly handed himself and his wife over, and
Speaker 1: apparently so did Putin. Now why is that so important? Well, again,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about the old tankers and their shadow
Speaker 1: fleet and how that's how you know they've been getting
Speaker 1: oil to and from Russia and selling Russian oil with
Speaker 1: different banners and different numbers and different flags on the back.
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of important that Putin knew that
Speaker 1: a raid was coming and he was about to lose
Speaker 1: his plug. But g and China has also been making
Speaker 1: some pretty size well plays in Venezuela in the past.
Speaker 1: Few months and years. How was she left in the dark.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about it here. More details have started to
Speaker 1: emerge about the American raid that sprite spirited Nicholas Maduro
Speaker 1: out of Venezuela two weeks ago. There have been reports
Speaker 1: that US forces used new weapons, including sonic devices or
Speaker 1: ones with directed energy capabilities, to overcome a Duro's security. Again,
Speaker 1: it's not people are losing their minds about that. I
Speaker 1: cannot tell you how many content creators and news media
Speaker 1: people have heard. I can't believe they use sonic weapons
Speaker 1: on these people. They're all still alive. That is a
Speaker 1: better alternative than catching a suppress three hundred blackout to
Speaker 1: the dome piece. I'm just saying, And it's still not
Speaker 1: even confirmed if they did or did not use that.
Speaker 1: It's also equally possible that these Venezuelan guards quote unquote
Speaker 1: security forces heard the choppers coming in, knew that what
Speaker 1: in theirs, and they went and hid until they no
Speaker 1: longer heard the bombs and the choppers, and then they
Speaker 1: came out and was like, oh, it was a sonic
Speaker 1: weapon that did it to me. Both of these are
Speaker 1: very very viable possibilities, but even still America's had this
Speaker 1: tech for decades. We may not have had an occasion
Speaker 1: to play with our new toy in a while, but
Speaker 1: I think this was a pretty If this was accurate,
Speaker 1: and if they did use it, this is a pretty
Speaker 1: awesome way to get a test run in a field
Speaker 1: usage out of it. But all right, Sam, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Before I get into the reading here, it's almost you kind.
Speaker 3: Of have to ask a question.
Speaker 2: They are they happy to be alive and discombobulated or
Speaker 2: would have it been more dignified today following your orders
Speaker 2: to protect your president? But so they're they're alive, discombobulated
Speaker 2: and dishonored, or would have been more dignified dignity, dignified
Speaker 2: for them to take the three hundred blackouts to the dome.
Speaker 1: Take Yeah, And from what everybody is saying, they're not
Speaker 1: even worth about the dignity of these soldiers. They're saying
Speaker 1: that it was like inhumane to use it, and it's like,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry again, they got a little disoriented. Some are
Speaker 1: claiming they had a nosebleed. All this is unverified. It's
Speaker 1: still like just kind of talk.
Speaker 2: But at their point, I think they should have just
Speaker 2: went with the three on a blackout and it'd just
Speaker 2: be done with.
Speaker 3: Well that's just the pestimus semi So no, no, I mean.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. But and this is another crazy point.
Speaker 1: So thirty two thirty four Cuban born guards were killed, right,
Speaker 1: the allegedly three hundred Venezuelan soldiers that got hit with
Speaker 1: this energy weapon are all still alive. It's almost as
Speaker 1: if they wanted the death toll of this to be
Speaker 1: three hundred and thirty two. It's mind blowing out loud.
Speaker 1: But whatever did anyway, And now also seems that the
Speaker 1: Venezuelan military had not con their Russian made S three
Speaker 1: hundreds and bulk into surface to air missile batteries to
Speaker 1: radar networks, which effectively meant that they were non operational
Speaker 1: when America struck. So two things. One, if they were
Speaker 1: connected to a radar, the growler that they had in
Speaker 1: the air would have knocked out that radar and rendered
Speaker 1: them non functional anyway, So even if they were connected
Speaker 1: and were improper for working order, it would have meant
Speaker 1: nothing point A point B if they weren't connected. That
Speaker 1: further shows how this wasn't a they were such a
Speaker 1: viable military I can't believe no, dude, it was Venezuela.
Speaker 1: It's okay, they're not. Nobody is scared of the big
Speaker 1: bad Venezuela military coming after them, So I mean it
Speaker 1: is what it is. The build up of pressure on
Speaker 1: Maduro's regime was not exactly easy to miss. A month ago,
Speaker 1: President Trump himself said that Venezuela is completely surrounded by
Speaker 1: the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America,
Speaker 1: including his deployment of the world's largest and most advanced
Speaker 1: aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R.
Speaker 6: Ford.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that bit is huge. A few weeks earlier, the
Speaker 1: US had reopened the Roosevelt Roads, a naval base in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico that had been closed for more than twenty years,
Speaker 1: and installed a high tech radar unit at an R.
Speaker 1: Robinson Airport in Tobago. That's of Trinidad and Tobago. That
Speaker 1: and intervention was imminent, was understood by Russia, one of
Speaker 1: Venezuela's most enthusiastic partners over the last two decades. Towards
Speaker 1: the end of the last month, Moscow began pulling diplomats
Speaker 1: and their families out of the capitals in Caracas, which
Speaker 1: we did talk about that months ago, right when Russia
Speaker 1: started pulling their people out of there. The riding was
Speaker 1: on the walls, And I honestly wouldn't be shocked if
Speaker 1: Trump gave Prutin a phone call or something akin to that,
Speaker 1: his people got with their people and was like, hey,
Speaker 1: big dog, we about to go in there and grab
Speaker 1: you boy. So just so you know, just so there's
Speaker 1: no collateral. If you want to ixnaure people out of there,
Speaker 1: now would be the time. Who knows. Russia's assessment of
Speaker 1: the situation and its withdrawal of personnel were not shared
Speaker 1: with Beijing. According to well placed sources in China, this
Speaker 1: has caused eyebrows to be raised about what it means
Speaker 1: for a relationship between the two countries that is supposed
Speaker 1: to be comprehensive, quote unquote, mutually beneficial quote unquote, and
Speaker 1: eternal quote unquote. These are their words, not mine. So
Speaker 1: whenever we say about how Russia is doing all these
Speaker 1: things with Ukraine and China and Russia are inseparable and
Speaker 1: they're linked in all these things. This goes back to
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union and the CCP, Communism and the Marxism
Speaker 1: and all the things. Still to this day, their words
Speaker 1: say that the relationship between Russia and China are supposed
Speaker 1: to be comprehensive, mutually beneficial, and eternal. I feel like
Speaker 1: that can't be overstated. Honestly, Beijing was not simply blindsided
Speaker 1: by the US operation. It was in rist by it.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna even try to pronounce that Chinese name,
Speaker 1: but china special envoy to Latin America had arrived in
Speaker 1: Caracas and met Madurou hours before the latter was captured. Yeah,
Speaker 1: remember hearing about that, y'all, Remember hearing that Russia had
Speaker 1: just sent some emissaries to Caracas and they had just
Speaker 1: met with Madurou. They had just got done with dinner.
Speaker 1: These dudes had the worst work trip ever. They just
Speaker 1: had this talk with the president. They're in their hotel room,
Speaker 1: they're getting all the five star accommodations. All things are good.
Speaker 1: Next thing, you know, they got bombs dropping, sirens going off,
Speaker 1: and now the president they just met with has been
Speaker 1: bagged and tagged is in New York. That's the worst
Speaker 1: fucking business trip that a politics or political figure can
Speaker 1: even fathom, aside from them being you know, arrested them damnselves.
Speaker 1: But anyway, shortly before Wang Yee Yvonne Gill and two
Speaker 1: country foreign ministers. Wow Wang Yee, what an unfortunate name. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the two countries foreign ministers had spoken by phone to
Speaker 1: a firm China's quote solidarity and firm support for Venezuela
Speaker 1: in defending its sovereignty, independence and stability. They made that
Speaker 1: call right before Maduro was just joint which again I
Speaker 1: think that's great. These words would serve less as a
Speaker 1: show of resolve than a measure of how limited China's
Speaker 1: ability was to translate diplomatic language into meaningful protection or
Speaker 1: leverage on the ground. Yeah, because China sucks, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that's crazy. They are so out of the loop on
Speaker 1: so many things. And this is also something that needs
Speaker 1: to be accounted for as well as they keep talking
Speaker 1: about Taiwan and what they're going to do and all this.
Speaker 1: They were this out of the loop when it came
Speaker 1: to something that they were literally meeting with the guy beforehand.
Speaker 1: And that's not because the US was super secretive about this.
Speaker 1: The CIA has been operating in Venezuela for months. It
Speaker 1: was very clear that something big was about to go down.
Speaker 1: China is that far out of the loop on one
Speaker 1: of their homeboys nations like that. It's not it's not
Speaker 1: a good look. China stands to lose out from the
Speaker 1: many billions of dollars of loans it has made to
Speaker 1: Venezuela in return for its oil. Yeah, they ain't getting
Speaker 1: that money back on me. I'm sorry, Go ahead and
Speaker 1: call those defunct. It also stands to lose the half
Speaker 1: a million barrels of oil a day it has been
Speaker 1: getting from its ally about four percent of its total
Speaker 1: oil imports. Such was Beijing's confidence and its partnership with
Speaker 1: Maduro and his regime that it invested an estimated nine
Speaker 1: billion dollars in building a petrochemical plant in Xiyang, Guangdong Province,
Speaker 1: capable of producing twenty million tons of refined oil a year.
Speaker 1: Once again, big shwinging a miss, Big shwinging a miss
Speaker 1: for China, and that sucks, but you know sucks to suck.
Speaker 1: I guess it's easy to make crass comments about the
Speaker 1: significance of losing face in Chinese culture. Oh yes it
Speaker 1: is in this case, though, the fact that Beijing has
Speaker 1: been caught badly out of position, outmaneuvered by the US
Speaker 1: and let down by Russia has sparked vigorous discussion in
Speaker 1: China and in some quarters, speculation that the failure of
Speaker 1: the Russian built defense systems in Venezuela was not a
Speaker 1: coincidence but evidence of high level cooperation between Moscow and Washington.
Speaker 1: That's possible. I don't really think so. And the only
Speaker 1: reason why I'm saying that is because, and again I
Speaker 1: don't mean to sound shitty. Then the systems that were
Speaker 1: being used, the M two and the S three hundred,
Speaker 1: have been used by both sides Ukraine and Russia in
Speaker 1: the conflict over the last four years of this two
Speaker 1: week special military operation, four years, they have both been used,
Speaker 1: which means that every frequency that these systems know to
Speaker 1: look for, right, if you look at how these radars are,
Speaker 1: how they look for aircraft, if you look at the
Speaker 1: guidance systems on these ground to air defense systems, the
Speaker 1: frequencies that they are using to be able to actually
Speaker 1: target and strike air targets, right, it's we already knew
Speaker 1: the entire playbook to these systems. So once again, even
Speaker 1: if they were online, and even if they were fully
Speaker 1: operational and fully functional, we've been getting all this data
Speaker 1: from Ukraine for four years there's nothing that they could
Speaker 1: have possibly done to prevent this from happening. Even if
Speaker 1: we gave them a twenty four hour advanced notice, it
Speaker 1: would have been a lot more deadly on their part.
Speaker 1: There would have been way more bodies. But there's nothing
Speaker 1: that could have been done to stop this at all.
Speaker 1: To say that this means that there was cooperation between
Speaker 1: Moscow and Washington, that's, in my opinion, a bit of
Speaker 1: a stretch. In testimony before Congress in twenty nineteen, Fiona
Speaker 1: Hill twenty nineteen, seven years ago, but all right, Fiona Hill,
Speaker 1: Trump senior advisor on Russia during his first term in office,
Speaker 1: recounted a conversation that at the time seemed like a
Speaker 1: geopolitical oddity. Hill said that Russian officials repeatedly floated a
Speaker 1: very strange swap arrangement whereby Moscow might ease back its
Speaker 1: support from Aduro if the US gave Russia a freer
Speaker 1: hand in Ukraine. So again, this special military operation. Russia
Speaker 1: was already trying to grease the wheels on that in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, long before they ever actually stepped foot into Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But okay, this was not a formal offer, Hill stress,
Speaker 1: but a hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink wink. How about
Speaker 1: doing a deal? This was out of the question, according
Speaker 1: to Hill, who was sent to Moscow in April that
Speaker 1: year to underline that Ukraine and Venezuela are not related
Speaker 1: to each other, but especially these days, perhaps they are.
Speaker 1: Perhaps there's a little bit more of a money exchange
Speaker 1: that can be exploited. Over the last few years, the
Speaker 1: question of whether Russia is both a reliable and a
Speaker 1: good ally has become one of the key talking points
Speaker 1: among policymakers, advisors and thinkers in China. They don't really
Speaker 1: do much thinking there actually. Professor Jia Chingwu, Yeah that's
Speaker 1: a name, former dean of the School of International Studies
Speaker 1: at Peking University and one of the most well known
Speaker 1: figures in Chinese strategic thinking, noted that while Russia's isolation
Speaker 1: because of the war in Ukraine had brought economic benefits
Speaker 1: to China, these have come at a cost. That is
Speaker 1: a really hot take from one of the most well
Speaker 1: connected strategic thinkers in China. Yeah yeah. Being a homie
Speaker 1: of Russia during this conflict has come at a cost.
Speaker 1: Whoa In particular, he noted in an interview just before
Speaker 1: the Maduro Operation that Moscow's defense or dependence on China
Speaker 1: has meant that the latter's current and future relations with
Speaker 1: Europe have been compromised. As such, he added, a solution
Speaker 1: to the war in Ukraine would be of benefit to China. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of the going consensus, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't take some sort of a brainiact from China to
Speaker 1: acknowledge this. The war has run its course. The people
Speaker 1: that were out to make money have made whatever money
Speaker 1: they were gonna make. The military industrial complex of many
Speaker 1: nations have made some money. It's good things. It's time
Speaker 1: to wrap it up. It's time to call it quits.
Speaker 1: But that really and truly will all depend on Putin right,
Speaker 1: because Zelensky has been willing to come to the negotiating
Speaker 1: table for three years, but more more adamantly, for the
Speaker 1: last two years. Putin has consistently rejected every time that
Speaker 1: a possibility of coming to the table has been proposed,
Speaker 1: and he has made. It depends on which interview with
Speaker 1: him and which speech he's given. Some are saying that
Speaker 1: he wants all of Ukraine. Some are saying he just
Speaker 1: wants the Oblasts, that he's already taken. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know at what line he's gonna decide enough's
Speaker 1: enough or if it's an attrition thing. I don't know.
Speaker 1: But yeah, even China, their eternal homeboy there where it's
Speaker 1: not mine, is saying that, Yeah, if ending this would
Speaker 1: be really beneficial for even US. Bro, So, I think
Speaker 1: that's something that's kind of important here. That is a
Speaker 1: view that started to gain currency in recent months in Beijing,
Speaker 1: where more questions are being asked about the wisdom of
Speaker 1: an alignment with Russia's supposed to be based on shared interest,
Speaker 1: but which in practice has become increasingly asymmetrical and uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Russia's willingness to ignore the UN Charter, to rely on
Speaker 1: military force as a first resort, and to use the
Speaker 1: threat of nuclear escalation and coercion as diplomatic tools sits
Speaker 1: uneasily with China's preferred self image as a stabilizing power
Speaker 1: that works through institutions, rules and long term balance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: China does have that self image right, that they are
Speaker 1: a stabilizing power. But all right, for Chinese strategists, the
Speaker 1: problem is not simply reputageational damage in Europe or the US,
Speaker 1: but the deeper risk of being tied to a partner
Speaker 1: whose way of doing things cuts directly against China's own
Speaker 1: instincts about order, predictability, and control. On Friday, China Trust
Speaker 1: struck a deal with Canada to reduce tariffs on Chinese
Speaker 1: electric vehicles and on Canadian agricultural products. The significance of
Speaker 1: this agreement lies less in what it says about the
Speaker 1: Western countries hedging against the US under an aggressive and
Speaker 1: seemingly erratic Trump, and more in what it signals back
Speaker 1: to Beijing itself. The deal, while modest in scale, is
Speaker 1: a reminder that China still sees value and engagement with
Speaker 1: advanced economies that operate within established legal and institutional frameworks,
Speaker 1: and that there are alternative pathways open to it beyond
Speaker 1: dependence on a sanctioned, militarized Russia. For policymakers in Beijing,
Speaker 1: the contrast is stark. One partner leads on force, disruption
Speaker 1: and intimidation, and the other offers markets, rules and negotiated stability.
Speaker 1: The question increasingly being debated inside China is not whether
Speaker 1: Russia is useful in pushing back against American pressure, but
Speaker 1: whether following Russia's example leads China towards the kind of
Speaker 1: global role it actually wants to play. And again, honestly,
Speaker 1: when you look at China making their own military push,
Speaker 1: or at least wanting to in Taiwan, you know, I
Speaker 1: could see it going both ways. That was already being
Speaker 1: discussed before Maduro was spirited to a courtroom in New York.
Speaker 1: But the significance of the US operation is not limited
Speaker 1: to what it means to Venezuela or even to oil,
Speaker 1: but to a profound reshaping of the global order. I
Speaker 1: really do hope that this leads to some sort of
Speaker 1: drama between China and Russia that would just that would
Speaker 1: make twenty twenty six just one of the best years,
Speaker 1: you know. Anyway, all right, moving on to the next topic. Here.
Speaker 1: We were talking about Davos earlier, and apparently hundreds of
Speaker 1: protesters in Davos were forming up ahead of Trump's visit.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about it here. Hundreds of protesters are hundreds
Speaker 1: of protested in Davos ahead of President and Trump's visit
Speaker 1: to the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the
Speaker 1: global business elites. It comes as OXFAM released a report
Speaker 1: Monday warning that the collective wealth of billionaires hit a
Speaker 1: record eighteen point three trillion dollars, and that the total
Speaker 1: number of billionaires surpassed three thousand for the first time
Speaker 1: in history. Last year. OXFAM also reported that high unequal
Speaker 1: countries are seven times more likely to experience the erosion
Speaker 1: of the rule of law and the undermining of elections.
Speaker 1: This is oxfam's executive order. But anyway, moving on into this,
Speaker 1: So we talked about Trump threatening to impose tariffs. I
Speaker 1: thought it was interesting at least for the whole protest thing.
Speaker 1: So basically these protesters they were forming up just because
Speaker 1: of the wealthy elites that were showing up. And it's
Speaker 1: very liberal. It's very acronym people, you know, it's of
Speaker 1: that screaming libtard variety. Hell, you can see a flag
Speaker 1: right here in the middle with all of the different
Speaker 1: quote unquote genders, all seventy four of them are somehow
Speaker 1: in that picture. I don't understand it, but whatever. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So they were protesting already before Trump got there. Now
Speaker 1: that he's there, they have ramped up the protest on
Speaker 1: in Davos for the World Economic Forum, So I mean
Speaker 1: just wanted to bring that up. Not everybody around the
Speaker 1: world is a fan of what's going on. Some people
Speaker 1: are just out there losing their collective shit over it.
Speaker 1: So Poland, Now, let's shift gears a little bit here.
Speaker 1: Poland's prime minister praises cyber defenses after attempted attack on
Speaker 1: energy infrastructure was foiled. Yeah, for anybody who didn't hear
Speaker 1: about this, Poland had a cyber attack that was targeting
Speaker 1: their energy infrastructure and apparently their cyber defenses were good
Speaker 1: enough to actually stop it in its tracks, which is
Speaker 1: I mean, that's pretty bad ass to me personally. But
Speaker 1: let's get into it here. Poland Prime Minister Donald Tusk
Speaker 1: praised the country's intelligence services on Thursday for foiling an
Speaker 1: attempted cyber attack on energy infrastructure that could have left
Speaker 1: up to half a million consumers without heating during Poland's
Speaker 1: bitter winter. Now where could that have come from, you
Speaker 1: might ask. I don't know. I'm not speculating, but there
Speaker 1: is one country that has been eyeing Poland and invading
Speaker 1: their airspace and all these things in the past few weeks.
Speaker 6: But I have that.
Speaker 1: We'll read the article. It does bring them up. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it, Jacob's not speculating they will Speaking after
Speaker 1: meeting with the energy officials and security agencies in Warsaw,
Speaker 1: Tusk said that Poland had successfully defended itself and that
Speaker 1: the critical infrastructure was not compromised. The attempted attack targeted
Speaker 1: two combined heat and power plants and wind farms and
Speaker 1: happened in December of twenty twenty five. I just found
Speaker 1: this article two days ago, though, so I mean it
Speaker 1: stopped in December, but I'm just now hearing about it.
Speaker 1: So I felt like it was important to bring up.
Speaker 1: Tusk blamed Russia. Yeah, there it is, and urged the
Speaker 1: Polish parliament to swiftly pass new cybersecurity legislation to strengthen
Speaker 1: protection against foreign interference. Poland's Deputy Prime Minister and Digital
Speaker 1: affairs Minister Gaukowski Chris Christoff CHRISTI is off, Chriss is tough.
Speaker 1: Gaukowski Jesus christ Poland said Poland came very close to
Speaker 1: a blackout and called the cyber attack one of the
Speaker 1: most serious in recent years. Digital tanks are already here,
Speaker 1: he said to RMFFM radio, emphasizing that modern warfare is
Speaker 1: being waged in cyberspace. So who was behind the cyber attacks?
Speaker 1: Tuss said that so far there is no definitive evidence
Speaker 1: to identify the perpetrator, but he did say that much
Speaker 1: of what had been gathered points to the involvement of
Speaker 1: groups connected to the Russian security services. I mean again,
Speaker 1: I'm color me shocked, Color me shocked, But again we
Speaker 1: don't know that purely in the speculative route, allegedly, allegedly
Speaker 1: Russia may have had something to do with this. He
Speaker 1: said that as in earlier attempted cyber attacks to Polish infrastructure,
Speaker 1: the key was early detection and robust response mechanis. European
Speaker 1: allies of Ukraine said in December that Russia is waging
Speaker 1: a campaign of hybrid warfare through sabotage, assassinations, cyber attacks
Speaker 1: and disinformation to sow division in Western societies and undermined
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine. Yeah, and of all the countries are
Speaker 1: going to try that with poland little European Texas who
Speaker 1: are gearing up waiting for Russia. They're not gearing up
Speaker 1: to because they think Germany is about to attack them again.
Speaker 1: They're gearing up and buying every single armament that any
Speaker 1: country will sell them specifically because of Russia. So you know,
Speaker 1: he and maybe that has something to do with it.
Speaker 1: Maybe the cyber attack really had nothing to do with Russia.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was a hacker group, it's one of these,
Speaker 1: you know, mercenary hacker groups or something like that. But
Speaker 1: perhaps they want to dependent on Russia. That's very possible too.
Speaker 1: That comes after a series of incidents in countries such
Speaker 1: as France, Denmark and Sweden in which critical infrastructure has
Speaker 1: been targeted. European intelligence agencies say investigations into Russian interference
Speaker 1: now consume as much time as terrorist threats. Wow, a
Speaker 1: coordinated international operation has hit the infrastructure of a pro
Speaker 1: Russian cybercrime network linked to a string of denial of
Speaker 1: service attacks targeting Ukraine and its allies, the European Union's
Speaker 1: police police agency EUROPOLE said in July. Code named Eastwood,
Speaker 1: the operation targeted the so called No Name zero five
Speaker 1: seven sixteen group, which Dutch authorities identified last month as
Speaker 1: behind a series of denial of service attacks on several
Speaker 1: municipalities and organizations linked to a NATO summit in the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: Europoles said that the cybercrime network was also involved in
Speaker 1: attacks in Germany and Switzerland, so again Poland's readiness for
Speaker 1: similar threats In recent years of attacks on critical infrastructure
Speaker 1: have become increasingly sophisticated and dangerous, making cybersecurity in the
Speaker 1: energy sector crucial to Poland security. As Derata not gonna
Speaker 1: try to pronounce that name, an editor at the Defense
Speaker 1: twenty four portal told euro News effective protection requires not
Speaker 1: only technology, but also cooperation between the public and private sectors.
Speaker 1: In response to growing threats, we need to prioritize the
Speaker 1: development of safeguards. Attacks are taking ever new forms, so
Speaker 1: we too must move with the times and strengthen our defenses,
Speaker 1: she said. She also pointed out that poland cyber defense
Speaker 1: systems function correctly. During December's attempt to attack on power plants. Well,
Speaker 1: good good. I'm happy that Poland was able to defend themselves.
Speaker 1: And again, we don't know if Russia had anything to
Speaker 1: do with it. We are saying that it is very
Speaker 1: very likely and very probable at this time, but you know, hey,
Speaker 1: we'll see how that shakes out. I don't know. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm happy that their cybersecurity has been beefed up, especially
Speaker 1: with Russia waging the hybrid war that they have been
Speaker 1: for quite some time now because they are losing the well,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna go there anyway, Sam, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, is it all?
Speaker 6: I know that?
Speaker 2: Aren't they're trying to buy like the the aren't they
Speaker 2: still trying to buy the F twenty twos.
Speaker 3: But we can't legally sell them.
Speaker 1: Oh we could sell them, but we're not gonna sell them.
Speaker 1: That's our that's our ace.
Speaker 6: In the hole.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But even then, I don't even have them.
Speaker 3: Didn't we use them in a war game?
Speaker 2: And even then we had them, like not even at
Speaker 2: twenty five percent ornament or whatever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it still smoked the fuck out of them.
Speaker 1: So depending on the war game itself. So, and I
Speaker 1: just heard HLC talk about this. So if you have
Speaker 1: five F twenty twos and five F thirty fives go
Speaker 1: against each other, the F thirty fives are gonna take
Speaker 1: the win. If you have one F twenty two versus
Speaker 1: one F thirty five, the F twenty two is gonna
Speaker 1: smoke check that every single time. And the reason why
Speaker 1: is because the F thirty five has so many on
Speaker 1: board computers and systems. They are made to work off
Speaker 1: of each other and make the airspace a more dynamic battleground.
Speaker 1: The F twenty two is more brute force. It's the
Speaker 1: it's the oh shit, like all else has failed, so
Speaker 1: send in the send in the thing that's here to
Speaker 1: eat everyone's ass kind of thing. So that's why we've
Speaker 1: never launched the F twenty two. We've never it was
Speaker 1: over Venezuela. It was in the wing just in case
Speaker 1: something got off the ground. The F twenty two is
Speaker 1: gonna attack it, but it has still to this day
Speaker 1: not gotten its first intercept, and with any look, it
Speaker 1: never will. Dude. Honestly, if we continue to dominate the
Speaker 1: airspace in the way that we do, when we never
Speaker 1: have to use our secret weapon, that is a that's
Speaker 1: an optimal situation for us. But yeah, with that being said,
Speaker 1: Poland has bought a solid number of F thirty five's
Speaker 1: and they've ordered more.
Speaker 6: So yeah, call me.
Speaker 1: It might just be the marine in me.
Speaker 3: But can we make the A T and hog even
Speaker 3: more deadly and faster?
Speaker 1: I mean it shoots red bull can size bullets at
Speaker 1: a rate of mock fuck. So, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know how much more DELI you want it, but I
Speaker 1: like where your head's at.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Let it be able to shoot chainsaws?
Speaker 1: What that might be the most marine Corps answer I've
Speaker 1: ever heard in my life.
Speaker 2: I love it, or or we could have like if
Speaker 2: it's for anti personnel, we could also throw out the ship.
Speaker 1: See that. Now, with that, we are getting into what
Speaker 1: might classify as a war crime. I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: saying because Flashetts.
Speaker 3: But think about it. It's going at mock fuck. It's
Speaker 3: just a very fancy shotgun shell.
Speaker 1: I hear you, dude, But I mean the fact that
Speaker 1: somehow the fucking samurai sword jade Am is not considered
Speaker 1: a war crime, which is impressive, But also it's a
Speaker 1: It's a bomb that just spring loads samuraized swords and
Speaker 1: takes out one individual target as opposed to the entire
Speaker 1: vehicle that the person's riding in, and it's badass. That's okay, Flashetts,
Speaker 1: it does. But Flaschets might hit an innocent bystanderd and
Speaker 1: that's something that we are trying to avoid in our
Speaker 1: modern day and age. We try to avoid that.
Speaker 2: But if you put it on a compound full of
Speaker 2: the enemy, are they really innocent?
Speaker 1: There's not many well of our enemies that we have
Speaker 1: right now, and not many of them congregate on compounds
Speaker 1: like that, right if we were going to some sort
Speaker 1: of a kinetic war with a respectable military China, for instance. Hypothetically,
Speaker 1: if we were to go to an actual kinetic warfare
Speaker 1: with China and we knew that these all of the
Speaker 1: moving things on the radar are guaranteed Chinese military assets, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: sure we could do that. That's the same reason why
Speaker 1: Trump only dropped one moab because the diameter or the
Speaker 1: radius I should say, of destruction off of that one moab.
Speaker 1: You're not dropping that in any old city because you're
Speaker 1: gonna fuck up a lot of civilian population.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: The only time he dropped it was when it was
Speaker 1: a guaranteed Isis training ground, and every single person within
Speaker 1: that diameter or radius, I just say, excuse me, everybody
Speaker 1: within that radius was a confirmed bad guy. So he's like, wait,
Speaker 1: we have a thing that's almost a nuke, but it's
Speaker 1: not a nuke. Send it. And so that was dope.
Speaker 1: But it's that's not something that you know, we just do.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I am personally in favor of linebacker two.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, but again that was.
Speaker 3: I understand. But change the topographical map.
Speaker 1: We we have been known to do that from time
Speaker 1: to time that does happen?
Speaker 2: What was the boat that they made it all the
Speaker 2: way through World War Two without getting an entire without
Speaker 2: getting hit. Then they got hit by the VC with
Speaker 2: the fucking anti aircraft thing. I want to say it
Speaker 2: was anti aircraft, but they hit it with the essentially
Speaker 2: hit it with an artillery. It splintered its deck, so
Speaker 2: it started yeating all it turned all nine.
Speaker 3: Sixteen inch guns. God. Yeah, they said, hey, you see
Speaker 3: that heel?
Speaker 2: Uh uh sir, I don't want to see that heel
Speaker 2: then completely wiped that mitch off the face of the earth.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, well, we have the we have the
Speaker 2: power and the technology. Why don't why don't we just
Speaker 2: say fuck it? Dad has come home. You're all in
Speaker 2: time out go.
Speaker 1: I forgot about that one. Yeah, we changed the topography
Speaker 1: of that one section of Vietnam. When they act they
Speaker 1: they they were trying to hit our boat. Yes, nobody
Speaker 1: thought they were actually to hit it, and so they did,
Speaker 1: and it was like got you, got you. So we
Speaker 1: gave a proportional response.
Speaker 3: And uh, entire dealership of flaming cars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I forgot I forgot about that. I don't know
Speaker 1: the name of the ship I'm drawing a blank, but yeah, Iowa. No,
Speaker 1: mm mmmmm, because Iowa. I'm thinking that's a class of submarine.
Speaker 3: Morgan, I don't know, it's some fucking Midwest state.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, it was. It was a seemed like a
Speaker 1: riff snorton good time. To be honest, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I just I don't know.
Speaker 2: I just feel like people they keep forgetting don't fuck
Speaker 2: with our boats.
Speaker 1: So it's a thing.
Speaker 3: Why don't we care about our planes as much as
Speaker 3: our boats.
Speaker 1: Because our planes do not guard the seas and our
Speaker 1: international commerce like our boats do.
Speaker 3: But there's really expensive as fuck they are.
Speaker 1: But hear me out. Alfred Tayler Mahan, the father of
Speaker 1: the modern navy, wrote a book and I've read the book.
Speaker 1: I agree with pretty much everything that he said, be
Speaker 1: the way, But he wrote this book. He wrote this
Speaker 1: book before planes were invented. Basically, what he said was
Speaker 1: whatever nation has the largest navy will rule the world.
Speaker 1: And he's been correct throughout the course of human history.
Speaker 1: That has been a true statement America. And I know
Speaker 1: if people are going to argue and say China as
Speaker 1: a larger navy, no, no, they exactly exactly No. If
Speaker 1: we're talking about actual naval assets. America runs this shit
Speaker 1: hand over fist, there's no question about that. Because of that,
Speaker 1: we are the global police on the seas, and because
Speaker 1: of that, international trade can happen primarily unimpeded, right, and
Speaker 1: we get really good deals on things because of that.
Speaker 1: If that's this is the same reason of how like,
Speaker 1: why don't you shoot at a cop because the cops
Speaker 1: keep the law and order and you could do that.
Speaker 1: But if you if you kill a cop, you just
Speaker 1: signed your own death warrant. There's no way around that.
Speaker 1: It's the same concept.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Also, don't try to hit them with a car.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that woman found out see, well that was an agent,
Speaker 1: not a cop. But SAME's you know, air changeable dialogue. Yeah, Royce,
Speaker 1: your hands been raised for a hot minute, brother, go ahead.
Speaker 6: So true things.
Speaker 8: First of all, the A ten warhog is awesome, but
Speaker 8: it is slow as shits. So I used to have
Speaker 8: to tdy with those things. And the only way to
Speaker 8: bring those bitches across the pond is through the KC
Speaker 8: ten and CASEY one thirty five, And those bitches are
Speaker 8: very very slow.
Speaker 12: They're awesome, amazing aircraft, but they're warmer tent slow. Second
Speaker 12: of all, I don't remember if I told you the story,
Speaker 12: but the very first so the Casey Tens were the
Speaker 12: first ones to bring the F twenty two across the
Speaker 12: pond and across the Internet dateline. I had a flying
Speaker 12: crew chief who was actually on the on the KTY.
Speaker 8: Ten during that first flight, and what he said is,
Speaker 8: as soon as the F twenty two crossed it, all
Speaker 8: of their equipment went ballistic and they needed to make
Speaker 8: it basically an emergency landing, and they were down for
Speaker 8: like I don't know how long, it said, whether it
Speaker 8: was a day or a week or so, because like
Speaker 8: they just the computers did not know apparently how to
Speaker 8: deal with it. Which is really really funny because I
Speaker 8: know that you talk about the F twenty two a lot,
Speaker 8: but in actuality, the first time it crossed the international dateline.
Speaker 6: It fucked itself up.
Speaker 1: What about it fucked up?
Speaker 6: I don't know. So, first of all, I wasn't there,
Speaker 6: so I'm just hearing this secondhand.
Speaker 8: But basically what he said is that like all all
Speaker 8: of the equipment went ballistic because of the the dateline
Speaker 8: and the time change. What it caused, I'm not entirely
Speaker 8: sure but it was enough to where they need there
Speaker 8: needed to be an emergency landing and maintenance done on
Speaker 8: end of the people that.
Speaker 6: Built it, be like, we need to fix this.
Speaker 1: And that was give or take what year was this.
Speaker 8: Whenever the F twenty two is first came out the
Speaker 8: very first time that they ever crossed the international date line.
Speaker 1: Oh that was that was a good ways back then.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so I was not recent by any means, but
Speaker 8: just the fact that it happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, hell, now they have AI drones or
Speaker 1: AI drone jets that are being allegedly able to be
Speaker 1: controlled by the F twenty two, So I mean, I
Speaker 1: have a feeling that they've probably beefed up the computer
Speaker 1: systems on that air platform. But I mean still, the
Speaker 1: F thirty five is seen as the smart jet in
Speaker 1: the grand scheme of shit. I know, we and I
Speaker 1: talk of the too, but it's mostly on it's untested,
Speaker 1: so who's to say what would actually happen. They've done
Speaker 1: war games with it, they've done mock dogfights and ship
Speaker 1: like that, and it was it's really case by case.
Speaker 1: It's not the end all, be all best aircraft. Ever
Speaker 1: it is for its intended purpose. I would argue, But yeah,
Speaker 1: and yeah, the A ten wardog it is slow as
Speaker 1: far as its speed goes, but like you said, it's
Speaker 1: it's also really good for its purpose for sure. Yeah, Sam,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 3: I love y'all, but y'all disrespect that A ten. I said,
Speaker 3: we need to make it more dead, new man.
Speaker 6: Yes, literally, no. Hold because you have the front cannon.
Speaker 8: It's so powerful that it literally stalls the airplane like.
Speaker 2: Back up jet engine on that bitch. And also we
Speaker 2: can figure out how to put what is it called?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure we have deathways that straps
Speaker 2: of fucking evasions to the goddamn thing.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, we get Maybe that's what we do, right.
Speaker 1: We replaced the cannon at the front with a real gun.
Speaker 2: We keep we keep the cannon, but we we have
Speaker 2: well guns on the mounted on the side and smaller
Speaker 2: fifty cows underneath beside the bombs.
Speaker 3: It's a wind fucking win.
Speaker 6: Well that's.
Speaker 1: Two people talking the same time.
Speaker 3: Hold on, all right, go.
Speaker 6: No, you're good. All right.
Speaker 11: So that's why the eight tent is so deadly. It's
Speaker 11: because it can slow down and shoot. I mean, yeah
Speaker 11: red bullcans with the yeah send you to heaven red bullcans.
Speaker 6: They can pick it up and go.
Speaker 1: They give you the real wings. If you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, dude, what.
Speaker 3: Let's make it gets give it a bigger caliber.
Speaker 1: Sam, we're talking about flying red bull cans of hatred.
Speaker 1: Most of them, if I'm not mistaken, have depleted uranium
Speaker 1: in them. What it is so powerful that it literally
Speaker 1: slows the jet down fired. If we up the caliber
Speaker 1: we're making it work, that would make it slow.
Speaker 8: Well, but thinking with this woman, there is one other
Speaker 8: aircraft that shoots very very large bullets, but it's also
Speaker 8: very very slow, and it also moves the aircraft to
Speaker 8: the side.
Speaker 6: Would be the C one thirty, the the H I
Speaker 6: believe Whi's what it was, and.
Speaker 8: Those that caliber is also very very large, because you
Speaker 8: have two different kinds of guns, and they will fuck
Speaker 8: some shit.
Speaker 1: Up for sure.
Speaker 3: I love our planes. They make me so happy.
Speaker 1: And this is when it kills me. Whenever anybody I
Speaker 1: hear talking like, well, you know, if America went to
Speaker 1: war against this country, we wouldn't stand a chance. It'd
Speaker 1: be a real fight. No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't like
Speaker 1: at all. We would get every war game that I've
Speaker 1: seen and people have disagreed with me on this. It's fine,
Speaker 1: it's fine.
Speaker 6: The we.
Speaker 1: Do, Oh my god, we do. But also if we
Speaker 1: were to actually go the last one that I watched,
Speaker 1: it was like if the entire world went to war
Speaker 1: against America all at once. Best case scenario for us,
Speaker 1: we would run the world in seventy two hours. Worst
Speaker 1: case scenario, and by worst I mean like a few
Speaker 1: very critical things fell through. Our forces were already deployed
Speaker 1: somewhere else since we had to bring them home and
Speaker 1: do something. Whatever the case, it would take at worst
Speaker 1: case scenario thirty days. That we're kind of unmatched on
Speaker 1: a military stance, and that's the way that we should be.
Speaker 1: But also, yeah, to hear people talk about the naval
Speaker 1: assets and the planes and how oh well, you know,
Speaker 1: the Russians just came out with this thing. Oh well,
Speaker 1: the Chinese are doing this thing. It's like, that's funny,
Speaker 1: that's cute.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 1: The last time Russia's claimed that they had a helicopter
Speaker 1: that could go against our cobras, it was essentially held
Speaker 1: together with duct tape, hopes and dreams. China has gotten
Speaker 1: so many things, and basically it's like a legitimate wish
Speaker 1: dot com knockoff of something that they think they saw
Speaker 1: once from America. And that's also why we keep having
Speaker 1: military members get arrested for selling secrets to China. If
Speaker 1: China was so much more advanced than us, then they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be offering our lower enlisted thousands of dollars, not
Speaker 1: a lot of thousands, but some thousands of dollars to
Speaker 1: sell them secrets, and they wouldn't be using war thunder
Speaker 1: to as an actual litmus test for what our platforms
Speaker 1: can actually do. So, yeah, it's it's actually pretty funny
Speaker 1: from our perspective. Go ahead, Sam, So about these traders, Yeah,
Speaker 1: another one just got caught a couple weeks ago.
Speaker 2: I believe there's only one course of action for that,
Speaker 2: and then have won penalty for that. I say, make
Speaker 2: it public, and this is what happens to traders.
Speaker 1: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but I will say,
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to defend the traders. Before I say,
Speaker 1: I'm about to say, understand, I am not defending these dumbasses.
Speaker 1: Pretty much all of them have been under twenty three
Speaker 1: years old, and most of them I don't believe knew
Speaker 1: that they were selling this to China. Now selling it
Speaker 1: to anybody is treason, even if you're selling these things
Speaker 1: to France. Like I'm with you one hundred percent. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to downplay it. But most of these kids
Speaker 1: were being all for like twelve thousand dollars for these secrets.
Speaker 1: It's it's not even like they're trying to set themselves
Speaker 1: up for life. They were they were dumb. They got
Speaker 1: offered something and they probably thought, oh, well, this is
Speaker 1: the platform we've had for years and years. Whoever's looking
Speaker 1: for this probably already could find it, but like, sure,
Speaker 1: i'll make some quick cash, real quick. And they didn't
Speaker 1: realize that they were selling secrets to the CCP and
Speaker 1: then got caught.
Speaker 2: They sold out, They sold information that could get their
Speaker 2: brothers and sisters killed.
Speaker 1: There no, no, again, I'm not defending them. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that they were also really stupid and ignorant. There's
Speaker 1: there's definitely punishments there being doled out, but I don't
Speaker 1: think that they knew. I think one of them might
Speaker 1: have known exactly what he was doing and to who
Speaker 1: the information was being sold in all that, but it's
Speaker 1: not like state secrets as far as like where our
Speaker 1: nukes are being housed or like what our launch codes are.
Speaker 1: It was like certain capabilities of certain air platforms public.
Speaker 1: I'm not mad at that. I'm not mad at that.
Speaker 3: And I said, like full on like British style navy flogging.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the thing that definitely could come back into
Speaker 1: the regular Zeitgrist corporal punishment would be, you know, yeah.
Speaker 2: Like yeah, fine, we won't kill you this time, but
Speaker 2: you you get one hundred and fifty lashes.
Speaker 1: But that's inhumane. It's well maybe not one hundred and fifty, yo,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty.
Speaker 2: At fifteen, you have fifteen buddies on a on a
Speaker 2: standard uh I say standard, depending on what type of
Speaker 2: whif you can have fifteen lashes on it.
Speaker 3: Not really whippid. That's more of a kind of nontails.
Speaker 1: We're not trying to beat them. Like Jesus dude, holy shit,
Speaker 1: I was. I was gonna suggest whatever amount of money
Speaker 1: you got paid, it's one lash per one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: or one lash per ten dollars, and like we work
Speaker 1: it out that way.
Speaker 3: You gotta make you have to improve a point and
Speaker 3: make an example.
Speaker 2: A public lashing sends a message, bro, they sold out
Speaker 2: a government, a national secrets to the en.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't deny that that's a thing that definitely
Speaker 1: took place.
Speaker 3: Perfect.
Speaker 2: I think either they should get the lashing or exclusifixion.
Speaker 1: I mean, granted, even when I was nineteen, like twelve
Speaker 1: thousand dollars wasn't enough to make me go weak in
Speaker 1: the knees. I mean just just speaking on behalf of
Speaker 1: myself here. But I don't know, Perhaps perhaps these kids
Speaker 1: are in those kind of financial straits and they're that
Speaker 1: dumb to realize, like, wait a minute, who would want
Speaker 1: to pay to learn about what new radar systems are
Speaker 1: on our f thirty fives. That's a strange thing to
Speaker 1: specifically ask me. But yeah, no obtect for real for
Speaker 1: sure anyway, anyway.
Speaker 3: But I hope everybody has a good day.
Speaker 1: Noh, for sure, for sure. All right, moving on, we
Speaker 1: are going to go to Spain now. A train driver
Speaker 1: killed in second deadly Spain rail crash. In days second
Speaker 1: fatal train crash shocked Spain as death toll from the
Speaker 1: first collision rises to forty three. Yeah, Spain has had
Speaker 1: two different train derailments happen within days of each other.
Speaker 1: Some are speculating it might be something along the lines
Speaker 1: of some saboteurs. Some are saying that it's just a
Speaker 1: really bad chain of events. I don't know, but let's
Speaker 1: read into it here. So commuter rail service in Spain's
Speaker 1: northeast Catalonia region was suspended Wednesday after a Barcelona commuter
Speaker 1: train crashed the night before, killing one person and injuring
Speaker 1: thirty seven others. The crash came two days after Spain's
Speaker 1: worst railway disaster since twenty thirteen, which left many Spaniards
Speaker 1: in disbelief. The death toll in that crash in southern
Speaker 1: Spain rose to forty three. So in a matter of
Speaker 1: three days they have had forty four people killed and
Speaker 1: thirty seven people injured from train crashes and derailments. The
Speaker 1: commuter train on Tuesday night hit a retaining wall that
Speaker 1: fell onto the train the Catalonian town of Galita Jelitam.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they pronounce it. There arout thirty
Speaker 1: seven kilometers outside of Barcelona or twenty three Freedom units.
Speaker 1: Officials said. It's very strange.
Speaker 6: All of this.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense, said Antonella Miranda a barista in Madrid.
Speaker 1: A barista, maybe that means something else in Spain. They
Speaker 1: went to the local Starbucks to ask what this person
Speaker 1: thought about it. Okay, the man who died from Tuesday's
Speaker 1: crash was a conductor in training. Regional authority said most
Speaker 1: of the injured road in the first train carriage. Reil
Speaker 1: disruptions on Wednesday caused significant traffic jams on roads leading
Speaker 1: into Barcelona. Catalonia's regional authorities asked people to reduce unnecessary
Speaker 1: travel and companies to allow remote work until service was resumed.
Speaker 1: This is very bad. If the infrastructure was already faulty
Speaker 1: and there were complaints, they should have done something earlier.
Speaker 1: Delores Sogas said in a commuter town where hundreds of
Speaker 1: people were delayed or stranded on Wednesday. Spanish Prime Minister's
Speaker 1: Pedro Sanchez offered his condolences on X, writing all my
Speaker 1: affection and solidarity with the victims and their families. That's
Speaker 1: a weird thing to say. If it was in fact
Speaker 1: that the infrastructure was faulty and that's what caused these deaths,
Speaker 1: all of my affection and solidarity with the victims. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: word word, your solidary could have been with making sure
Speaker 1: that your infrastructure was done properly to where this wouldn't
Speaker 1: have happened, you know, seeing as how that was what
Speaker 1: you were elected to do. But like word. While Spain's
Speaker 1: high speed rail network generally runs smoothly at least until Sunday,
Speaker 1: had been a source of confidence, commuter rail networks are
Speaker 1: plagued by reliability issues. However, crashes causing injury or death
Speaker 1: aren't common, which is true Spain's railway operator Adith said
Speaker 1: that the containment wall likely collapsed because of heavy rain
Speaker 1: fall that swept across the northeastern Spanish region this week.
Speaker 1: A retaining wall concrete barrier fell onto the railway track
Speaker 1: because of rain. Yeah again, I'm gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: blame infrastructure issues on this one, but all right. Sunday
Speaker 1: evenings crash happened when the tail end of a train
Speaker 1: carrying two hundred and eighty nine passengers on route from
Speaker 1: Malaga to the capitol Madrid derailed and crashed into an
Speaker 1: inner incoming train traveling from Madrid to Huelva Wuevla, I
Speaker 1: don't know, another southern city. According to Edith, the collision
Speaker 1: took place near Adamuz, a town about three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy kilometers or roughly two hundred and thirty Freedom units
Speaker 1: from Madrid. The front of the second train, which was
Speaker 1: carrying one and eighty four people, took the brunt of
Speaker 1: the impact, which knocked the first two carriages off the
Speaker 1: track and down a four meter thirteen foot slope. Bodies
Speaker 1: were found hundreds of meters from the crash site, according
Speaker 1: to the regional president juanma Morino. Damn. So yeah, that
Speaker 1: was a solid hit anyway. So yeah, Spain has had
Speaker 1: these two big trained derailments take place within days of
Speaker 1: each other. Our prayers are actually going out to these
Speaker 1: families who that's horrible, but also Spain's got to get
Speaker 1: their infrastructure back up and running. Dude, my god. All right,
Speaker 1: moving on or Sam, I'm sorry your hands raise, go ahead, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll get it all right, moving on to South America.
Speaker 1: I should have brought this up when I was talking
Speaker 1: abou Venezuela earlier, but I just kind of found out
Speaker 1: about this one a little bit earlier. Honestly, this is
Speaker 1: from NASA. Yes, I understand like NASA or hate NASA
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, but that doesn't take away from the fact
Speaker 1: that wildfires have erupted in South central Chili or Chile
Speaker 1: however you want to pronounce it. Wildfires broke out amid
Speaker 1: a hot and dry conditions in the south central Chile
Speaker 1: in mid January twenty twenty six, prompting evacuations and causing
Speaker 1: extensive damage to infrastructure. As of January twenty eighth, the
Speaker 1: SPA eight of deadly fires had burned more than thirty
Speaker 1: thousand hectares, which is seventy four thousand acres in the
Speaker 1: country's Bobio and Nubla regions, according to Chile's National Forestry Corporation.
Speaker 1: The MODUS, which is the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro Radiometer
Speaker 1: all RIGHT instrument on NASA's Terra satellite, captured this image
Speaker 1: of smoke billowing from multiple fires on January eighteenth. Dozens
Speaker 1: of active fires in the area prompted the evacuation of
Speaker 1: fifty thousand people and destroyed more than three hundred homes,
Speaker 1: according to a January nineteenth report from Chile's UN Resident
Speaker 1: Coordinator's Office. Aerial and ground based photographs showed neighborhoods in
Speaker 1: Concepcion shard in the aftermath. Gusty winds, along with temperatures
Speaker 1: that exceed thirty eight degrees celsius or one hundred degrees
Speaker 1: freedom in places fanned the flames and hampered firefighters' efforts.
Speaker 1: According to the news reports, Chile's president declared a state
Speaker 1: of catastrophe in the regions, not a state of emergency.
Speaker 1: He declared a state of catastrophe, allowing more resources to
Speaker 1: go toward battling the blazes and assisting affected communities. Other
Speaker 1: parts of South America also face hot and dry conditions
Speaker 1: during the twenty twenty five twenty twenty sixth summer, likely
Speaker 1: priming vegetation to burn. About six hundred and fifty kilometers
Speaker 1: or four hundred miles south of Conceptcyon, firefighters in Argentina
Speaker 1: battled wildfires in and around Los Alaris National Park, home
Speaker 1: to rare stands of long lived cypress trees. Damn, that
Speaker 1: is upsetting. But yeah, so this image was taken from
Speaker 1: space of the fire and the smoke billowing out of
Speaker 1: multiple locations. Yeah. So, thoughts and prayers also go out
Speaker 1: to Chile and all the wildfires they're after to deal with.
Speaker 1: Right now, all right, now, we are going to go
Speaker 1: to Japan. The Japanese Prime Minister has decided to dissolve
Speaker 1: parliament and hold a snap election on only three months
Speaker 1: after she took office. Yeah, let's talk about that a
Speaker 1: little bit. Oh my god, the BBC just did it
Speaker 1: to me again. Look at that. Wow wow wow wow.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Sam. So I've been following her for a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 3: Old girl's going hardy in the paint on.
Speaker 2: She's the very like Japan first Japan for the Japanese
Speaker 2: and all which he would come to expect.
Speaker 1: Because they are the ship.
Speaker 13: They are currently being outbred and everything, and they've they
Speaker 13: they've had Christmas parades and everything, and they couldn't even
Speaker 13: celebrate mill years and all last time I checked, because
Speaker 13: they were afraid of.
Speaker 3: A Muslim attack and all in Japan.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 3: Oh like she's even gotten death threats.
Speaker 1: And everything because she's a woman.
Speaker 2: No that, but because she's going hard after the Islamists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you'll have that. Okay, fair enough, So let's talk
Speaker 1: about it here. From Al Jazeera. Japan's Prime Minister Takashi
Speaker 1: to Keashi, I don't know, will dissolve parliament and call
Speaker 1: snap elections. The vote will decide all four hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five seats in Parliament's lower House and mark Takashi's
Speaker 1: first electoral test since becoming the nation's first female leader. Wow, okay,
Speaker 1: let's get into it here. She says she will dissolve
Speaker 1: Parliament on Friday and call a general election to seek
Speaker 1: voter backing for her spending plans and other policies. The
Speaker 1: snap election announcement on Monday comes just three months into
Speaker 1: her tenure as the nation's first female Prime minister. Today, I,
Speaker 1: as Prime Minister, had decided to dissolve the Lower House
Speaker 1: on January twenty third, she told it in a news conference.
Speaker 1: The snap vote on February eighth will decide all the
Speaker 1: seats of Parliament, all four hundred and sixty five of
Speaker 1: them's Lower House and mark Takashi's first electorial tests since
Speaker 1: become Prime minister. We just said that calling an early
Speaker 1: election she would allow her to capitalize on strong public
Speaker 1: support to tighten her grip on the government's Liberal Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: the LDP, to shore up her coalition's fragile majority. The
Speaker 1: election will test voter appetite for higher spending at a
Speaker 1: time when the rising cost of living is the public's
Speaker 1: top concern. A poll released by the public broadcaster NHK
Speaker 1: last week found that forty five percent of res respondents
Speaker 1: cited prices as their main worry, followed by diplomacy and
Speaker 1: national security at sixteen percent. NHK reported last week that
Speaker 1: Takashi would call snap elections while taking into account her
Speaker 1: diplomatic schedule. On January thirteenth, the Prime Minister hosted South
Speaker 1: Korean President Lee j myong sure in her hometown of
Speaker 1: Nara to discuss the two nations security and economic ties.
Speaker 1: Tokyo shares jumped more than three percent on Tuesday to
Speaker 1: speculation that Takashi would call snap elections to capitalize on
Speaker 1: strong poll numbers. So she's basically trying to strike while
Speaker 1: the iron is hot, you know. And I take that
Speaker 1: for what it is. But yeah, Japan is going through
Speaker 1: a little bit of a transitional period at this moment.
Speaker 1: We will keep our eye out to see what goes
Speaker 1: down with them next, all right. So, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: that this BBC article is gonna do the same thing
Speaker 1: to me. But the photos have been leaked to the
Speaker 1: BBC showing faces of hundreds killed in Iran's brutal protests
Speaker 1: cracked down for anybody who does not know the Yeah,
Speaker 1: I knew that was coming. Basically, the protests in Iran
Speaker 1: have pretty much been squashed. I'm sure there are still
Speaker 1: some remnants that are happening around Iran right now, but
Speaker 1: for the most part they have been quelled and hundreds
Speaker 1: of people have been murdered in the streets and pictures
Speaker 1: of them have been seen not just from satellite, but
Speaker 1: also because they didn't have internet access for a while.
Speaker 1: Right the eye and the and the political arm but
Speaker 1: most of the Ayahtola put them on a media blackout,
Speaker 1: shut down internet and hell, half of the places I
Speaker 1: got shut down electricity as well and cut to Trump
Speaker 1: deployed Elon Musk to get starlink in the sky so
Speaker 1: these people could report on what was going down. So
Speaker 1: again not just from satellite, not just third parties, from
Speaker 1: the people in Iran. Hundreds of people were slaughtered because
Speaker 1: of them protesting the current regime. Again, I was very
Speaker 1: hopeful that the regime change would take hold, and not
Speaker 1: even just for the prince that's living in But there's
Speaker 1: the Maryland right now and whatever. Fine, I don't really
Speaker 1: have any opinion on him strong one way or another,
Speaker 1: but just to get the Iatola out of power, yo,
Speaker 1: that would be phenomenal and most Muslim countries around Iran
Speaker 1: agree with that sentiment. Even the Shia do not want
Speaker 1: him to be in charge of Iran, which that's a
Speaker 1: strong state. But yeah, so thoughts and prayers go out
Speaker 1: to the families of the murdered individuals. I hope that
Speaker 1: this gets more precedence and more press time than whatever
Speaker 1: the hell Trump is doing right now, because this is
Speaker 1: a humanitarian crisis, honestly, but I also have a feeling
Speaker 1: that this will get pushed under the rug like so
Speaker 1: many other things doing iron But anyway, I did want
Speaker 1: to bring that up on this episode, and with that,
Speaker 1: I think we are going to go ahead and wrap
Speaker 1: this episode up. All the good members of the Retinue,
Speaker 1: I want to thank all of you for joining me
Speaker 1: this evening. If you are listening to this podcast, good people,
Speaker 1: and you would like to join in and be a
Speaker 1: part of the Retinue that meets every Wednesday night at
Speaker 1: nine pm Central, go to link in the description to
Speaker 1: patreon dot com slash Cajun Night. It's a good time.
Speaker 1: It's a sharing of information. We thoroughly enjoy these conversations
Speaker 1: and the sometimes you know, derailing of the conversations in
Speaker 1: this regard as well. But it's always a good time,
Speaker 1: and so I am very thankful for all of you
Speaker 1: for helping me grow this to be its own independent thing,
Speaker 1: and I throw enjoy this. It's always a good time anyway.
Speaker 1: I am the Cajun Knight, and as always, God bless