Speaker 1: On Lieutenant General Kellogg. I mean he I don't think
Speaker 1: we should be taking any directions from Russia on who
Speaker 1: we're going to send to this He has extraordinarily long
Speaker 1: history and in national security obviously retired three star, but
Speaker 1: also Vice President's National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration.
Speaker 1: So he is incredibly knowledgeable, I think, fully respected by
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians, which matters. And you know the fact that
Speaker 1: he might be a bit pro Ukrainian Okay, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, yeah, exactly. How is that a big deal?
Speaker 1: Right? Yeah? I mean you remember at one time the
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor, national Security Advisor was his biggest criticism
Speaker 1: is we weren't given Ukraine enough fast enough. Yeah. Right,
Speaker 1: So I think the history of most of our people
Speaker 1: in national security and Rubio as well, a secretary of Ruvio,
Speaker 1: they're all pro Ukrainian. I mean it's our partner, you know,
Speaker 1: so they and as soon as we start bowing to
Speaker 1: their demands, then all they're gonna.
Speaker 2: Do is make demands, right, Yeah, you know.
Speaker 1: It's it's you know, we should just not even acknowledge.
Speaker 1: It's like, yeah, we're gonna send our team. This is
Speaker 1: our team. We don't need, We didn't tell you who
Speaker 1: you just said.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes
Speaker 2: on mc mulroy. Of course myself, Dmitri, Thank God mix
Speaker 2: here because I couldn't do this by myself. Uh Andy Milberg,
Speaker 2: Jason Lyons are, They're here. We love them and we
Speaker 2: miss them. Lock Cooking Today. Over the last you know,
Speaker 2: week or so, there's been quite a bunch of news.
Speaker 2: First and foremost, what's going on with Ukraine. The US
Speaker 2: and Ukrainians met in Saudi Arabia a few days ago,
Speaker 2: came up with a ceasefire plan for thirty days, and
Speaker 2: it seems like the Russians have rejected and kind of
Speaker 2: slipped in their own cease fire deal or what looks
Speaker 2: like a ceasefire deal not exactly something that is shocking
Speaker 2: to most people that they wouldn't go for it.
Speaker 1: Mick, what are you thinking?
Speaker 2: Also a big point in that was Kellogg got kind
Speaker 2: of put on the back burner. I guess Russians didn't
Speaker 2: like him being involved.
Speaker 1: So just that was just my yess. Yeah, I'll have
Speaker 1: to discuss their day, but I'll start with happy almost
Speaker 1: Saint Patrick's day to America and Irish around the world. Obviously,
Speaker 1: but had to point that out. I am I have
Speaker 1: my contribution to ready to go to green spot. I
Speaker 1: don't how many investments in this, but I I recommend
Speaker 1: it you haven't had a green spot. And fun fact
Speaker 1: for in honor of our national security bend of our
Speaker 1: podcast in the Irish Irish are about nine percent of
Speaker 1: the US population Irish Americans. That is how many what
Speaker 1: percentage do you think of Medal of Honors d were
Speaker 1: awarded to Irish Americans. I'm going to say nine percent.
Speaker 1: Remember they're only nine percent of the population.
Speaker 2: I'm going to say for.
Speaker 1: Fifty eight percent? Oh wow, almost sixty percent. And I
Speaker 1: think if they updated it, I think it would be
Speaker 1: over sixty percent. You guys can check me out. But
Speaker 1: that's your Irish propaganda for today. I got a lot
Speaker 1: of it. So to your question on Ukraine, obviously, several
Speaker 1: big things. I think it's important to point out it's
Speaker 1: good that we are now what appears to be on
Speaker 1: the same sheet with Ukraine. Need to recognize that it
Speaker 1: was a little mess of getting there, but you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is, and this is a US
Speaker 1: proposed ceasefire. So I think that is what we need.
Speaker 1: The US to focus on is that now this is
Speaker 1: the US wanting a seafire, and there has to be
Speaker 1: not just you know, everybody has to compromise as supposed
Speaker 1: in any negotiation, but there needs to be consequences to
Speaker 1: Russia if they don't agree to the ceasefire. And there's
Speaker 1: reports now and although it's like it's a secret, but
Speaker 1: that as an FSB report, apparently that's been reported that
Speaker 1: their plan is to essentially continue to fight, make completely
Speaker 1: unrealistic requests of the ceasefire, and basically play US. They
Speaker 1: think they're you know, in the Curse region, they are
Speaker 1: taking back territory early, they're mobilizing to go in the
Speaker 1: Sumi region of Ukraine. They think that they're partly because
Speaker 1: of the disruption and aid and intelligence, but partly just
Speaker 1: because this is a war of attrition and Russia has
Speaker 1: four times the amount of troops that Ukraine has, So
Speaker 1: the longer this goes on, the more territory they'll take.
Speaker 1: I think that's a big concern is that they don't
Speaker 1: see any value from a military perspective of a ceasefire
Speaker 1: right now because they believe they're on the front foot.
Speaker 1: So I think the way the US and Europe as
Speaker 1: supporters of Ukraine to start looking is what can we
Speaker 1: do to make that turn right, to give Ukraine an
Speaker 1: advantage that can start potentially taking territory back from Russia
Speaker 1: or whole territory they currently have, and that rhymes with
Speaker 1: increased security assistance, right, That's what they need to do.
Speaker 1: We need to do, and we don't have to have
Speaker 1: a press conference about it. We don't have to you know,
Speaker 1: leak our deliberations on it. We just need to do it,
Speaker 1: I think, and that is what Russia will understand that
Speaker 1: we're doing that and so not just turn back on
Speaker 1: what we had, but actually increase it and potentially, if
Speaker 1: that doesn't work to get them into the ceasefire negotiations,
Speaker 1: then the releasing of Russian assets that are frozen in
Speaker 1: Europe three hundred and twenty five billion, it's my understand
Speaker 1: that's another point moving. I mean, obviously Europe is been awoken,
Speaker 1: which is a good thing, and I think President Trump
Speaker 1: would take some credit for that. They're building out their military,
Speaker 1: They're spending more on their own national offense than they
Speaker 1: have potentially some of these countries. Ever, so that's going
Speaker 1: to keep increasing, which Russia doesn't want to see and
Speaker 1: that's too bad. You know, they shouldn't be invading countries
Speaker 1: in Europe. They didn't want to see that. So I
Speaker 1: think that's what the US needs to do to really
Speaker 1: leverage our inn sanctions. Of course, sanctions can be increased,
Speaker 1: you know for talking to some economics, except and and
Speaker 1: you know what and when when Russia says we don't
Speaker 1: like European forces to be there after the ceasefire, we
Speaker 1: need to hold the line on that because that is
Speaker 1: what that's the security guarantee sure for you for Ukraine, Right,
Speaker 1: that's it. If not, then it's if if Russia doesn't
Speaker 1: want them there, then that's basically telegraphing to us if
Speaker 1: they intend to yet again rate the ceasefire. Yeah right,
Speaker 1: that's why they don't want them there, because why would
Speaker 1: it matter if they if they would, they are fighting
Speaker 1: with stop so uh in Europe, Europe doesn't need to
Speaker 1: have permission from Russia to send European forces to European countries.
Speaker 1: So I think we need to hold the line on that.
Speaker 1: The last part that I UH to your question, the
Speaker 1: send to this he has extraordinarily long history and UH
Speaker 1: in national security obviously you turned three star but also
Speaker 1: Vice President's national Security advisor in the first administration. So
Speaker 1: he is incredibly knowledgeable, I think, fully respected by the Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: which matters, and uh, you know the fact that he
Speaker 1: might be a bit pro Ukrainian Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, exactly. How is that a big deal?
Speaker 1: Right? Yeah? I mean you remember one time the national
Speaker 1: security advisor, our national security advisor was his biggest criticism
Speaker 1: is we weren't given Ukraine enough fast enough. Yeah. Right,
Speaker 1: So I think the history of most of our people
Speaker 1: in national security and Rubio as well, a Secretary of Review,
Speaker 1: they're all pro Ukrainian. I mean, it's our partner, you know. So,
Speaker 1: and as soon as we start bowing to their demands,
Speaker 1: then all they're going to do is make demands, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know it's it's you know, we should just not
Speaker 1: even acknowledge it. It's like, yeah, we're going to send
Speaker 1: our team. This is our team. We don't need. We
Speaker 1: didn't tell you who to send, and it's just fasted
Speaker 1: and yes, Europe, Europe is going to send in peace Keeper.
Speaker 1: If you're not for that, that just tells us you're
Speaker 1: essentially already planning to violate the whatever agreement we could
Speaker 1: get to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was interesting. I saw one of the clips
Speaker 2: from like the Russian State TV or whatever where it's
Speaker 2: like it's like their nightly show where they're like, you know,
Speaker 2: hardcore propagandists and they're like, this is a mistake because
Speaker 2: Europe's arming up right, Like Europe's you know, start stepping
Speaker 2: up on their own, you know, Poland is not. I
Speaker 2: feel like it's not to be fucked with. Like they're
Speaker 2: down to bump their military spending, maybe go nuclear right
Speaker 2: or at least kick that kick the tires on that,
Speaker 2: which I can't say I blame them really if i'm
Speaker 2: if I'm Poland, Like, what's the one thing that'll keep
Speaker 2: people off your back? And that's unfortunately nuclear weapons right,
Speaker 2: Like that'll completely, you know, more than likely avoid an invasion.
Speaker 1: Well, if they don't consider the US to be a
Speaker 1: secure ally in NATO, I mean I don't. I mean
Speaker 1: nukes you need, but they are vastly outnumbered by the
Speaker 1: Soviet's like five thousand, five hundred and all the countries
Speaker 1: of my knowledge are in the without the US have
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. UK and France. Yeah, so France is talking
Speaker 1: about expanding their umbrella potentially put it in I think Poland,
Speaker 1: to your point, they requested nukes in their territory, but
Speaker 1: they're also probably gonna in Germany. I mean, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: going to be countries that acquire their own and they're
Speaker 1: probably there might be a nuclear arm trace here. I mean,
Speaker 1: they might want to be on par with the you know,
Speaker 1: the Russian threat. So yeah, they for whatever is, don't
Speaker 1: feel they can rely on us. So that means they're
Speaker 1: going to literally five thousand additional nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: Just I mean listen, if you're Germany or Poland, right, like, sure,
Speaker 2: it'd be great if France extended out the nuclear umbrella,
Speaker 2: maybe place some nukes in their in their country, but
Speaker 2: who's got command and control of those?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So if I'm a country like Poland, it's more like
Speaker 2: if I want to guarantee completely guarantee my security, It's
Speaker 2: like I want my own arsenal, even if it's a
Speaker 2: deterring one whatever, a couple hundred you know, one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty nukes or whatever it is, you know, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and it won't.
Speaker 1: Won't be difficult for these countries to develop it. I
Speaker 1: mean it was some of the most technologically sophisticated countries
Speaker 1: on the planet. It wasn't it wasn't a lack of
Speaker 1: either funds or knowledge. It was just a belief that
Speaker 1: you know, collectively, Yeah, you know, especially with the US,
Speaker 1: we had them covered when it came to nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: and that's just they don't believe that anymore. And there
Speaker 1: and it's not just nukes they're talking. I mean Poland's
Speaker 1: doubling the size of their military doubling. Yeah, Germany spending
Speaker 1: I think was five hundred billion next year. They're completely
Speaker 1: and they're completely revamping their industrial military industrial base. They
Speaker 1: don't want to be relying on the US anymore, so
Speaker 1: they're going to you can see you every you know,
Speaker 1: every day there's another cancelation of F thirty five.
Speaker 2: So I saw that. I think was it Portugal that
Speaker 2: canceled one?
Speaker 1: Portugal and Canada European country, and Canada just canceled there
Speaker 1: thirty five. So it's going to have a pretty big
Speaker 1: consequences to you know, we promote US defense interest here
Speaker 1: around the world. We the US government, Yeah, partly because
Speaker 1: you know, it's the US, it's US jobs, but also
Speaker 1: because it's in our own interest national security interests, to
Speaker 1: have our partners compatible with US using our equipment right right,
Speaker 1: but for reasons both because of their concern about our
Speaker 1: you know, alliance with NATO and our but also some
Speaker 1: of the things they saw happening in Ukraine when they
Speaker 1: started shutting down stuff that's going to have a big
Speaker 1: effect on the future of US dominance in this this area.
Speaker 2: One more thing about that. I've seen a couple of
Speaker 2: places over the last week or so where the reason
Speaker 2: why the US is pulling away from Europe and the
Speaker 2: UK and Ukraine's pecifically and NATO is because they're doing
Speaker 2: a hard pivot to the Pacific to China. And I'm
Speaker 2: kind of having a hard time really like squaring that
Speaker 2: circle a little bit, because like, there's no way we're
Speaker 2: not able to do both right where we were. Our
Speaker 2: main focus obviously is going to be on China. They're
Speaker 2: the next, you know, strongest economy in military and a
Speaker 2: Taiwan issue. But we can't do both.
Speaker 1: I mean exactly. That's like the biggest false argument in DC.
Speaker 1: It's always like an either or right, Like, we can't
Speaker 1: there's there's a war, a raging war in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: there's a raging war in Europe, and we're going to
Speaker 1: say that we're only going to focus on the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 1: I mean that would be uh, you know, not in
Speaker 1: our interest, but it politely and the more we show
Speaker 1: a weakness when it comes to NATO, which is maybe
Speaker 1: there's there's certainly some complaints with our partners in them, sure,
Speaker 1: but it is the best military alliance in history. I mean,
Speaker 1: I won the Cold War and you know it actually
Speaker 1: activated to help us after nine to eleven. If we
Speaker 1: show a weakness to that, what do you think China
Speaker 1: is going to think? Yeah, you know, what about our
Speaker 1: partners in the Pacific. You know, we have treaty allies
Speaker 1: out there in Japan, for example, South Korea, I think
Speaker 1: the Philippines. It just it sends the wrong message. I
Speaker 1: mean a strong NATO, especially at the end of this
Speaker 1: is going to be even stronger, right because we have
Speaker 1: energized the Europeans, and I do think that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: That that would make it less likely, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: that China would look to do anything toward Taiwan, whether
Speaker 1: it's a blockade or a you know, an actual invasion.
Speaker 3: Hey guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to
Speaker 3: you for a moment about how you can support the show.
Speaker 3: If you've been watching it enjoying it, but you'd like
Speaker 3: to get a little bit more involved and help us
Speaker 3: continue to do this, you can check out our Patreon.
Speaker 3: It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for
Speaker 3: five dollars a month you can get access to all
Speaker 3: of these episodes of The Teamhouse ad free. The same
Speaker 3: goes with our affiliated podcast, eyes On with Andy Milburn,
Speaker 3: Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one, you will also get all
Speaker 3: of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel
Speaker 3: and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon
Speaker 3: members are literally what has helped this company, this small
Speaker 3: business survive, especially during our early years, and you are
Speaker 3: what continues to help this thing going even as we
Speaker 3: navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really
Speaker 3: appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a
Speaker 3: link down in the description to that Patreon page, and
Speaker 3: there is also going to be a link to our
Speaker 3: new merch shop, so if you guys want to go
Speaker 3: and get some Teamhouse merchandise, we got stickers and we
Speaker 3: also have patches, and I should mention if you sign
Speaker 3: up for Patreon at ten dollars a month, we will
Speaker 3: mail you this patch as well, so we really appreciate that.
Speaker 3: But they're also for sale on the merch shop and additionally,
Speaker 3: they got t shirts up there, water bottles, a tote bag,
Speaker 3: coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and
Speaker 3: check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you, And like if we show
Speaker 2: that we're like staunch allies with our actual allies and
Speaker 2: we're willing to invest and whether it's tech or anything
Speaker 2: else and everything from intelligence to hardware. Yeah, China's gonna
Speaker 2: balk at a full scale invasion of Taiwan. It just
Speaker 2: is like, right now they see what's going on. If
Speaker 2: I'm China, I'm like, maybe we can get it going
Speaker 2: by twenty twenty seven, because I have a feeling that
Speaker 2: the US won't respond, and if they do, it might
Speaker 2: be economically, but it won't be kinetically.
Speaker 1: Right, and we're not and we're we haven't been clear.
Speaker 1: I mean there's this thing called strategic ambiguity. When it
Speaker 1: comes to Taiwan. I don't really tell them what we're
Speaker 1: going to do. We have a law that requires us
Speaker 1: to support them, but not direct military. You know, I
Speaker 1: think you could make the argument we should be strategically
Speaker 1: clear and say we are going to or why not.
Speaker 1: We just don't make the decision at the time, and
Speaker 1: it will be a difficult decision to try to convince
Speaker 1: Americans that you know that we're going to go to
Speaker 1: war with China to save Taiwan. I think that would
Speaker 1: be tough. But yeah, But one of the ways to
Speaker 1: prevent it from even being an issue for us to
Speaker 1: have to decide is to show great strength in NATO
Speaker 1: and to build up our partnerships and alliances and to
Speaker 1: have some version of an Indo Pacific NATO. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: I think we could. We could do that, and it
Speaker 1: would be to our benefit because oftentimes alliances military alliances
Speaker 1: lead to trade, uh and economic benefits. I mean it's
Speaker 1: tied completely, which is another reason why we got, I
Speaker 1: guess get a little concerned about who we're picking place
Speaker 1: with economically. Sure.
Speaker 2: Also another bit I saw about like kind of like
Speaker 2: our allies moving away from American hardware. I mean, this
Speaker 2: has been a long back and forth with Turkey, Like
Speaker 2: Turkey hat was going to get the F thirty five,
Speaker 2: but they both asked four hundred and we didn't. We
Speaker 2: kicked them. We stopped that purchase. But Turkey hit up
Speaker 2: the UK Ministry of Defense about purchasing forty Eurofighters typhoons.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: So also I understand why they are a little apprehensive
Speaker 2: all the rest of Europe, Like there was talk about
Speaker 2: a F thirty five kill switch and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: where it's like, yeah, we to make sure we're secure.
Speaker 2: We need to make you know, we need to be
Speaker 2: able to trust our allies, historical allies, right, eighty ninety
Speaker 2: year allies.
Speaker 1: It just yeah, yeah, they have to consider we certainly
Speaker 1: would I mean how I switched to I mean one
Speaker 1: of our closest allies that was Japan. Yeah, so I
Speaker 1: mean you don't know, I mean I would hope that
Speaker 1: we maintain our allies and they don't become adversaries. But
Speaker 1: from any country's perspective, you want to have ultimate control
Speaker 1: of your strategic weapon systems at all your weapon systems,
Speaker 1: but certainly the big ones.
Speaker 2: For sure. I'm trying anything else on this Ukraine to
Speaker 2: cease fire and the you know what happens next, maybe
Speaker 2: a little bit of like some speculation at least.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think the way to force Russia
Speaker 1: to really come to the table and into an agreement
Speaker 1: is to make it in their advantage, for their advantage, right,
Speaker 1: in the sense that we have to start taking stronger measures.
Speaker 1: We have to start giving Ukraine, as many said in
Speaker 1: the last administration, the ability to win, not to survive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that means leaving the restrictions or cutting the restrictions
Speaker 1: on our weapon systems and how far they can fight
Speaker 1: into or be used into Russia and just start giving
Speaker 1: the more material period. That's you know, again, you don't
Speaker 1: have to rub at anybody's face. It doesn't service a
Speaker 1: purpose to do that. Just do it. And then you know,
Speaker 1: as they start realizing that they're not going to win,
Speaker 1: it comes to a complete standstill, then they'll come to
Speaker 1: the table. And then when they do, we need to
Speaker 1: just ignore the ridiculous over the top because that's how
Speaker 1: everything is maximized. On theirs. They'll last for maximum amounts
Speaker 1: of concessions and they'll try to turn us against each other.
Speaker 1: So we just need to know that's the playbook and
Speaker 1: just not fall into it.
Speaker 2: They've been doing a decent job of it. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to lie to you over the last month or so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, they think right now everything's going in the
Speaker 1: direction their direction, which yeah, I don't think they're ready
Speaker 1: to come to the table.
Speaker 2: Also, does Russia really think that Ukraine, even if they
Speaker 2: did collapse and they were able to take up more
Speaker 2: more territory that like the Ukrainian people, that wouldn't be
Speaker 2: like the craziest insurgency in the hit like ever.
Speaker 1: And that last part again it cut off.
Speaker 2: So if like let's say, let's say US backed up
Speaker 2: and Russia really made some huge games where they were
Speaker 2: able to maybe even get to Kiev again, right like
Speaker 2: the early days in the war, you don't like they're
Speaker 2: not thinking of like the insane insurgency that would happen afterwards,
Speaker 2: and what would like what that would be like to
Speaker 2: be fighting street to street urban warfare?
Speaker 1: Yeah, sorry, they don't want to come in and clay my room. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the idea. I mean, let's look how tenacious
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians have been so far, Right, so we most
Speaker 1: analysts like myself, you know, they're like three days, three weeks,
Speaker 1: three days, and you know in February twenty second when
Speaker 1: they cross the line, now we're we're over three years'reun
Speaker 1: our fourth year and.
Speaker 4: They're taking twenty percent of the train and now they're
Speaker 4: trying to take back terrain that was the that the
Speaker 4: Ukrainians actually took in Russia. So let's let's not be
Speaker 4: so quick to lose faith.
Speaker 1: Not that you are, but what the Ukrainians can do,
Speaker 1: They've proven they can fight. Yeah, be you know, this
Speaker 1: is a David Golias type scenario literally, and the idea
Speaker 1: that you could have a long term occupation in Ukraine
Speaker 1: without like the worst to your point insurgency. Ever, they
Speaker 1: got to realize that's just not going to happen, and
Speaker 1: there could be a point where Europeans actually go in
Speaker 1: without a seasfire. I mean, that's a plausible scenario, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and just say, okay, well, we're gonna man the line
Speaker 1: here and you're not going any further, and if you do,
Speaker 1: you're going to be fighting, you know, European forces that
Speaker 1: are in NATO. And I mean, whether that be a
Speaker 1: NATO or situation, I don't know, but it certainly would
Speaker 1: changed the discussion from the from the Russian perspective.
Speaker 5: Yeah, gosh, man, all right, swinging over segue into another
Speaker 5: sunny part of the world, Gaza and the extension of
Speaker 5: Phase one, US Israeli citizen is being released, and there
Speaker 5: I think they're also releasing a couple of bodies as well,
Speaker 5: and all the other big one that like.
Speaker 2: Stood out for sure was like there was talk of
Speaker 2: like relocating Palestinians in African countries. I think Somalia being one,
Speaker 2: Sudan another one where places where like I don't know
Speaker 2: if they are influx of refugees is exactly the best
Speaker 2: thing for countries like that right now, Yeah, what are
Speaker 2: you tracking with that?
Speaker 1: So the the extension of the first DACE seems to
Speaker 1: be continuing at least as far as the pause in
Speaker 1: the fighting, but there does seem to be not all
Speaker 1: the parts, right. So the other parts of the first
Speaker 1: phase was increased humanitarian assistance, which has now been essentially
Speaker 1: cut off to a population that you know, we we
Speaker 1: do some humanitarian work there, so we tend to know
Speaker 1: the statistics, but it's essentially one hundred percent, like ninety
Speaker 1: seven percent of all Palestinians are you know, at risk
Speaker 1: of starvation. Right, So if you cut off the supplies,
Speaker 1: eventually the stockpiles at an extent there was much are
Speaker 1: going to run out. And they cut off electricity to
Speaker 1: most Gaza, which not only of course affects the ability
Speaker 1: of hospitals to be hospitals, but also essentially to make
Speaker 1: clean water that you need power for the desalinization plants.
Speaker 1: So they're down to no food coming in and not
Speaker 1: being able to make clean water, which is super critical
Speaker 1: to any population. So I think the request on the
Speaker 1: part of the Israelis right now is and you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of legalities with cutting off humanitarian assistance
Speaker 1: to a civilian population, so you can't use that as
Speaker 1: a means of warfare, so to speak, exactly that, so
Speaker 1: they if they can extend it where the hostages are
Speaker 1: still coming out from the exchange of Palestinians and the
Speaker 1: humanitarian assistance is better for everybody. So hopefully AMAS does that.
Speaker 1: They claim to care about the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Speaker 1: I think there's little evidence to support that they do.
Speaker 1: But this would be like the basic level, right, do
Speaker 1: you want to keep releasing hostages for Palestinian prisoners to
Speaker 1: be really east and for humanitarian assistants to go back
Speaker 1: to high levels. I think that this should happen. And
Speaker 1: your other point, yes, the reports that the US has
Speaker 1: gone to I think with Somalia, Sudan and Somaliland, which
Speaker 1: is part of Somaliaba would like to be its own country,
Speaker 1: and asked about whether they would take Palestinians. I can't.
Speaker 1: I still think it seems to be completely impractical. I mean,
Speaker 1: how do you forcibly relocate two million people that don't
Speaker 1: want to? Of course, many of them are armed, so
Speaker 1: I mean think about how difficult of a military problem
Speaker 1: that would be, and it would be obviously extraordinarily bloody.
Speaker 1: And of course the legality is and forcibly relocating the
Speaker 1: population from our own land and forcing them into a country.
Speaker 1: Even if one of those countries agreed, like we already
Speaker 1: know Egypt and Jordan said no, how, no way, it's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. I don't know obviously that at
Speaker 1: least in the reports I read, it didn't say anything about,
Speaker 1: you know, whether they replied positively to that. But if
Speaker 1: they did, to your other point, d I mean, somebody
Speaker 1: would have to pay for all. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: countries that like Sudan's. Actually, if there's one place worse
Speaker 1: than Sudan, I mean then Gaza. Right now, when it
Speaker 1: comes to humanitarian crisis, it's Sudan, Right, So taking two
Speaker 1: million people into a country that's having a very because
Speaker 1: we worked there as well, a very difficult time feeding
Speaker 1: its own population would be that would work, but I
Speaker 1: guess somebody would have to pay the bill, I suppose.
Speaker 1: And Somalia they're expecting a drought. Just met with the
Speaker 1: Somalis the other day about ours the stuff we do,
Speaker 1: and they are expecting a pretty substantial drought with six
Speaker 1: million people would be at risk food and security. So
Speaker 1: these are two countries that you know, not only couldn't
Speaker 1: just absorb it, they can't necessarily deal with their own.
Speaker 2: Make I got a question, right, because you've been in
Speaker 2: these rooms where strategies talked about this idea of like forcibly,
Speaker 2: moving two million people to another country. Are they just
Speaker 2: sitting in a room with a whiteboard and they're like, guys,
Speaker 2: give me any ideas, any ideas, and let's put it
Speaker 2: out there and try it, because that's fucking insane.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's you know, when when the policy process,
Speaker 1: which I don't know if it's I assume it's still
Speaker 1: being the same, you have like the deputies, which is right,
Speaker 1: not that I mean you have different levels the PCB
Speaker 1: the policy coordination but.
Speaker 2: It starts at a lower level where people get cooking
Speaker 2: and they talk about things and recommend it to the
Speaker 2: next level. I can't see this being vetted months and
Speaker 2: months where they're like, you know what, this is a
Speaker 2: good idea, Let's kick it up to the deputy assistant
Speaker 2: and the assistant then whatever you know what I mean like,
Speaker 2: and then we'll be in the NSC with the principles
Speaker 2: all talking about it. Like I cannot imagine that's how
Speaker 2: it went.
Speaker 1: Down, right, But just yeah, it's called a PCC, I think,
Speaker 1: the Policy Coordination Committee, and I was on that for
Speaker 1: the Pentagon, right. And the reason why I break it
Speaker 1: up is that if everybody agrees on that doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: have to go up. You know, it doesn't have to
Speaker 1: go to the deputies or the principles or the felnacy
Speaker 1: if everybody agrees, and obviously most cases you've already coordinated
Speaker 1: with your particular secretary, so you're not just a free
Speaker 1: will in it. But from the DoD perspective, we are
Speaker 1: always with uniform usually with our uniformed counterpart at the
Speaker 1: Joint stat Right, So why now they don't propose policy
Speaker 1: but they are there to keep keep people in the
Speaker 1: realm of reality. Like, you know, somebody comes up with
Speaker 1: a great idea to move two million people that don't
Speaker 1: want to be moved, then the military is going to
Speaker 1: be asked, like, tell us how this would happen, If
Speaker 1: it could happen, what would be the concerns we'd have,
Speaker 1: and et cetera. The agency, the CIA, also plays a
Speaker 1: similar similar role in that they they will they're there
Speaker 1: to provide input on the sadness of a policy direction,
Speaker 1: not to say whether we should do it, but just
Speaker 1: the consequences, pros and cons if you will, of doing
Speaker 1: it or not doing it, so that there is there
Speaker 1: is healthy doses of reality, even to people who might
Speaker 1: you know, not know you know what they're asking for. Uh,
Speaker 1: they get that injection with And that's one of the
Speaker 1: key reasons we have uniform military and the intelligence services
Speaker 1: in these policy committee meetings because oh, in the intel
Speaker 1: community obviously up sets the facts. So we're all supposed
Speaker 1: to be operating on the same bats.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm, yeah. I thank god somebody leaked it, I
Speaker 2: guess to show everybody how stupid it is of an
Speaker 2: idea they'll even like bring up in any kind of meeting,
Speaker 2: and at least it got to like the news kind
Speaker 2: of dovetailing a little bit towards what's happening a little
Speaker 2: bit here at home in terms of like the revocation
Speaker 2: of visas for some of the protest students that are
Speaker 2: protesting Columbia and different universities. The kid, his name was
Speaker 2: Khalil what was it? I don't remember his last name. Sorry,
Speaker 2: He got arrested, sent to an ICE detention center in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: As far as I know, they were trying to charge
Speaker 2: him with stuff in Louisiana rather than in New York,
Speaker 2: where Columbia University is where he was detained. His attorneys,
Speaker 2: it's a bit, it's a shit show. The guy's are
Speaker 2: green he has a green card, he's a permanent resident.
Speaker 2: He has a wife wife that are a girlfriend or
Speaker 2: fiance that's eight months pregnant, who is a citizen. And
Speaker 2: in America, you should be able to fucking protest something
Speaker 2: you don't like. That's where I stand. I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know what you're thinking, Mick, uh protests not violently,
Speaker 2: not violently?
Speaker 1: Yeah right, yeah, So my understanding is that every person
Speaker 1: in the country, not just citizens, have rights under the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. I think it's the Bridges case. A lot
Speaker 1: of time ago, I was actually a lawyer, so that
Speaker 1: that gives me any special Uh. I usually want to
Speaker 1: tell people that because then I just get lawyer jips.
Speaker 1: But I believe that is the case. There's certain exceptions.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. There's certain exceptions even for citizens. Right. You
Speaker 1: you can't promote miles. Yeah, like it's speech, but I
Speaker 1: ain't free. Right, you can't sit there and say you
Speaker 1: could try to tell people they should go and.
Speaker 2: Run, run into a theater, yell fire, that kind of Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of plenty of exceptions. We're not plenty, but
Speaker 1: there is exceptions. And I think inside the immigration laws
Speaker 1: that cover this, what the administration is saying is that
Speaker 1: if it harms US foreign relations, that you can revoke visas.
Speaker 1: So and I don't know what this young man did,
Speaker 1: so I'm not I'm not like, if he's just against
Speaker 1: the Israeli operation in Gaza. Yeah, that obviously any Americans
Speaker 1: should be able to be for it or against them.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't just if not, then even with people that
Speaker 1: are here on visas, you know, you have to agree
Speaker 1: with the current administration, right, sure. If not, you could
Speaker 1: under that theory, you could just be launched. The question
Speaker 1: is whether he was promoting a Moss Hamas is a
Speaker 1: is a U s U E U U N designated
Speaker 1: terrorist organization who proved that it is in spades on
Speaker 1: October seven. So I don't know he was he promoting Hamas,
Speaker 1: which to me would be promoting uh, obviously a terrorist
Speaker 1: organization by the facts, or was he just in disagreement
Speaker 1: with the US policy on you know, O of the
Speaker 1: twesdate solution, et cetera. If it's if it's promoting a Moss,
Speaker 1: and I could see attending to what level anybody uh,
Speaker 1: you know, not being able to do that, but certainly
Speaker 1: somebody who's a visitor. If it's just a political question,
Speaker 1: then we're going down up, as they say in the law,
Speaker 1: slippery slope. Yeah, you know, you disagree with me, so
Speaker 1: I'm gonna bootschat on the country. Sure, that's going to
Speaker 1: be highly subjective if that's allowed and it's not actual
Speaker 1: promotion of a terrorist ideology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, what constitutes promotion
Speaker 2: of a terrorist organization? Right? Like he's not I mean,
Speaker 2: if he's raising money and sending it to hamas things
Speaker 2: and that nature, like I understand why, Like you can't
Speaker 2: fucking do that, and there should be consequences to that.
Speaker 2: I mean, if he's organizing a anti Israel protests and
Speaker 2: Columbia universities one, I think he's one of the organizers
Speaker 2: of it, right, right, and whatever their chance might be
Speaker 2: outside of death to America or death Israel, if it's
Speaker 2: like a lawful protest, Yeah, I'm really having a hard
Speaker 2: time wrapping my mind around like being able to snatch
Speaker 2: him and toss him even if he's not an actual
Speaker 2: US citizen, a permanent resident with a green card.
Speaker 1: Right, and that there is a provision that allows the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State to do that, So I guess the
Speaker 1: legality might be there, But the question is we start
Speaker 1: down that road, then it's gonna literally people that are
Speaker 1: in our country at our permission are now expected to
Speaker 1: be everything they say is has to be consistent with
Speaker 1: the current administration. I mean, that's not American all. But
Speaker 1: the question is, was he actually and I don't know
Speaker 1: that he was.
Speaker 2: I don't know either.
Speaker 1: You know part of it and they think, God, thank
Speaker 1: you very much, I appreciate it. Have a runderful day. Uh,
Speaker 1: it was perfectly bad timing, right, What am I gonna do? Season?
Speaker 1: Super nice?
Speaker 2: Yeah, she was good, she was quiet.
Speaker 1: I have to be America. You can maybe if I
Speaker 1: get out of the way, you can see the Yeah, money,
Speaker 1: you see it. Yeah there, it is so cloudy here, Lucy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's tough. I guess. I guess they need to
Speaker 1: really show what he did or did not do, and
Speaker 1: what he said did not say. I think one of
Speaker 1: the things that is really concerned people who have seen
Speaker 1: these protests. I mean, we have a long history of
Speaker 1: college protests, which is I think a good thing, uh is,
Speaker 1: but some of them really don't know what the hell
Speaker 1: they're talking about. You know, when when you've got people
Speaker 1: like saying, you know, you know LG you know, lesbians
Speaker 1: for Hamas, it's like, yeah, I mean this is this
Speaker 1: is one of the that organization is is completely against
Speaker 1: any form of individual human rights on any right, whether
Speaker 1: it's First Amendment, freedom of religion, women's rights, obviously gay rights.
Speaker 1: I mean, you couldn't get a group that's probably further
Speaker 1: from supporting Western you know, ideas of individual liberties than
Speaker 1: Hamas right. So it's it's part of it you know,
Speaker 1: you can always disagree. I mean you always have that
Speaker 1: between younger people and older people. But some of it's like,
Speaker 1: come on, I mean, if you're gonna, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: spend this much time and dedicate your life to something,
Speaker 1: y'attall really find out what you're talking about, because that's embarrassing.
Speaker 1: It's embarrassing to see people say stuff like that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: because they obviously have done no research on that topic.
Speaker 2: If that's if that's and just think about it. Hey,
Speaker 2: you know, if you're a gay person or you know anything,
Speaker 2: and you go to Gaza, you think they're cann you know,
Speaker 2: you think you can find like the gay Pride parade
Speaker 2: where they do that. No, you know what I mean, Like,
Speaker 2: it doesn't exist there doesn't.
Speaker 1: It doesn't in Tel Aviv though, just so you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: it doesn't tel Aviv. Right, So I think that's a
Speaker 1: whole different, different issue. But I think to your point,
Speaker 1: the is it really depends on what this young person
Speaker 1: did or didn't. Yeah, if it's just purely disagreeing with
Speaker 1: US born policy, which clearly US Americans disagree all the
Speaker 1: time with each other, I would hope that that would
Speaker 1: not fall into the category that somebody.
Speaker 2: Could be Yeah, yeah, like you called it, it's a
Speaker 2: slippery slope. I mean if he's like a facilitator to
Speaker 2: that level, I get it, right, I get it. You
Speaker 2: you know, you can't be cannot be screwing around like that.
Speaker 2: But if you're just some intellectual who's you know, organizing
Speaker 2: a protest and there happens to be a girl like
Speaker 2: a lesbians per Hamas or whatever their slogans might be, yeah,
Speaker 2: I can't. There's like degrees to it, right, It's a
Speaker 2: spectrum of like yeah, are you or aren't you?
Speaker 1: And there's also the harassment apt you know part of
Speaker 1: this Jewish student. Yeah, Jewish students should feel like they're
Speaker 1: under threat at their own college for sure, anywhere in
Speaker 1: the US. Right, And that that was uh, And I
Speaker 1: don't Again, I don't know this person did any of that.
Speaker 1: But that's another reason why I think these colleges and
Speaker 1: universities are under some much criticism is they're basically allowing
Speaker 1: the speech they agree with. You know you and I
Speaker 1: can understand why you wouldn't, but you set a neo
Speaker 1: Nazi on on Columbia University and see how long they
Speaker 1: last and their protests and see how long they and
Speaker 1: you know, obviously not promoting your Nazis. But if you're
Speaker 1: totally cool with you know, vandalism and taking over buildings
Speaker 1: and all that with with speech and activity you agree with,
Speaker 1: you know, it should be content neutral for them too.
Speaker 1: If it's not, then they're just actively promoting one particular side.
Speaker 1: But and if they want to do that, then they'll
Speaker 1: they'll have the consequences when they can see right now,
Speaker 1: you know, huge amounts of federal fundings getting cut off
Speaker 1: to a lot of these universe I saw that as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so it's something to keep an eye on, uh,
Speaker 2: for sure, for a multitude of reasons. Last bit was
Speaker 2: we smoked an isis a mere top guy in ISIS.
Speaker 2: It seems like and this name will allude me till
Speaker 2: the end of time.
Speaker 1: Media is his terrorist name? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Uh, and uh they're like Sangkam released the footage of it.
Speaker 2: He was driving along in a in a car and
Speaker 2: you got smoked by I don't know what, a couple
Speaker 2: of hell fires maybe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so a couple of points on him. He
Speaker 1: was he was essentially in charge of ISIS in Iraq
Speaker 1: and Syria and the deputy overall worldwide. Right, so big success.
Speaker 1: You know, according to reports it was done through working
Speaker 1: with Iraqi intelligence obviously, our intelligency I and our Kurdish
Speaker 1: partners and the US military, uh is the one that
Speaker 1: brought the hammer. So hats off to all of them
Speaker 1: these and they were apparently wearing suicide mess when they
Speaker 1: got them. Yeah, so they probably had that. You know,
Speaker 1: some of them do that because they know that one
Speaker 1: day there could be you know, uh, their door could
Speaker 1: play off the hinges and you know, uh, some US
Speaker 1: soldiers could be storming in there. So sometimes they wear
Speaker 1: those constantly. But hey, good work. The I think the
Speaker 1: big thing to take away from that is isis is
Speaker 1: going to keep going. We can't just unilately declare victory
Speaker 1: or the global war on terrorism. That's not how it works.
Speaker 1: It's going to keep going. It's it's it's more like
Speaker 1: you know, the fight against crime. You never see cops
Speaker 1: like sitting around going, oh, crimes over. Yeah, it's you
Speaker 1: just got to accept that terrorism is not it's gonna
Speaker 1: abb and flow, but it's gonna stay as long as
Speaker 1: the conditions that make it so or the case. And
Speaker 1: we have to be ready to keep fighting and fight,
Speaker 1: and I think the Trump administration things they did since
Speaker 1: coming into office, they've powered down the decision to take
Speaker 1: these strikes. I think that's a good idea.
Speaker 2: And they've given it to commanders in the field.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, so there's four star command you know, general officers,
Speaker 1: whether our capitals or generals that are combatant commanders. Right. So, uh,
Speaker 1: General Carilla is the saidcom commander. I think I think
Speaker 1: we should be fully confident in him and every other
Speaker 1: combatant commander's ability to make an assessment based on the
Speaker 1: policy they've been told by the President and the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense. Yeah right, I think we should trust them
Speaker 1: to do that, and hopefully that same cases is also
Speaker 1: for CEI strikes. These these these are they're not a
Speaker 1: they're not a magic bullet, right, So they're not going
Speaker 1: to end the war on terrorism. But if there's an
Speaker 1: eminent threat, the answer is either we send in you know,
Speaker 1: either military forces Jaysock or my old unit, which puts
Speaker 1: a lot of people at risk, or we take them
Speaker 1: out with ammunition that is specifically designed to kill the
Speaker 1: intended target by nobody around. We've actually done a great job,
Speaker 1: I think getting to a point where we can do that,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna I'm gonna go with the I don't
Speaker 1: I would don't want to risk the force if I
Speaker 1: don't have to. Sure, And if you could take these
Speaker 1: guys off the battle space and we could do it quicker,
Speaker 1: if the combatant commander or you know, their equivalent at
Speaker 1: CI's making that determination that I'm for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, I can't see how anybody would be against it,
Speaker 2: to be frank, even my you know pink O Kami
Speaker 2: asses uh for it too.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Smoke as many isis guy's as gay hands on on
Speaker 2: a scale of one to ten. How good? How ma
Speaker 2: of allies and partner force are the Kurds? I know
Speaker 2: you hate these questions, Well one.
Speaker 1: Ten I am. I spent a lot of time with
Speaker 1: the Kurdish forces, the pesh Marga in Iraq. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: was on the team that went in uh way before
Speaker 1: the war started and helped organize the PESCHEMRGA became essentially
Speaker 1: the Northern Front, right. The idea is we're going to
Speaker 1: have a whole US division there. Turkey wouldnt allow it,
Speaker 1: uh So it was basically just a handful of CI
Speaker 1: folks like myself and Army special forces, particularly tenth Group.
Speaker 1: UH set out to retire Lieutenant Colonel Ken Tobo, who
Speaker 1: was a lieutenant colonel at the dime, he's now a
Speaker 1: lieutenant general retired and all the Kurds, and I got
Speaker 1: to tell you, they fought. They fought like freaking warriors,
Speaker 1: and that's why they're US military and CIA is so
Speaker 1: fond of the Kurds. Quite frankly, they've their partner you
Speaker 1: can trust one hundred percent. And Uh, they were the
Speaker 1: Northern Front, which essentially kept about thirteen Iraqi Suddam, you know,
Speaker 1: Republican Guard divisions into the north to not you know,
Speaker 1: fight the US Army and US Marine Corps coming from
Speaker 1: the south. Well, thank thank thank you Kurds. Uh, and
Speaker 1: they you know, were outnumbered and and essentially didn't have
Speaker 1: anything near the level of modern military equipment as the
Speaker 1: Republican cards, but but not only held them up there,
Speaker 1: but pushed all the way into Baghdad. So I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan of the Peshmerga. Obviously have a lot of
Speaker 1: connections with the Kurds and the SDF. So I think
Speaker 1: the SDF, particularly with the US military and CIA in Syria,
Speaker 1: I mean, they've they've they won, they beat. They defeated.
Speaker 1: Isis right without them, And they're not all Kurds, you know,
Speaker 1: that's some mot of a misnomer. The leadership is primarily
Speaker 1: Kurdish to YPG, and they have a lot of Arab
Speaker 1: soldiers as well, but they that's one of the best
Speaker 1: programs we've run with the partners period. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: basically put very few Americans on the ground, predominantly Jaysock,
Speaker 1: predominantly Jaysock, the army component and the CIA, and they
Speaker 1: did ninety nine percent of the fighting and we're highly effective.
Speaker 1: And you know, yes, it's caused issues with our relationship
Speaker 1: with Turkey, but I think if you talk to most
Speaker 1: military US military and SAI folks, they have the same
Speaker 1: opinion that I do when it comes to their quality
Speaker 1: of a partner, their ability and willingness to fight with us,
Speaker 1: alongside us and for a very common cause. They are
Speaker 1: they're pretty you know, all things considered for the region lined. Yeah,
Speaker 1: with the you know, with the right human rights.
Speaker 2: And they're secular, they're moderate, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yep, they accept other religions. Women are have significant roles
Speaker 1: in their government and in their military. Yeah. They they've
Speaker 1: got some really good soldiers female soldiers, and I think
Speaker 1: there's several books written about so we need to maintain
Speaker 1: our partnership with them for our own interest and you know,
Speaker 1: over time it benefits both us and them. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what any partnership, you know, whether it's strategic
Speaker 1: global nation states to you know, entities like the SDF
Speaker 1: or just personal relationships. You know, partnerships are as good
Speaker 1: as you are both willing to put in the effort.
Speaker 2: Taking that as like a nine point six out of ten,
Speaker 2: I'll say, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know better partners. So I mean if you said, well,
Speaker 1: who's better, I mean I don't. Yeah. Again, I'm biased,
Speaker 1: but I've I've fought alongside many of many of PESCHBURGA
Speaker 1: and I can definitely attribute them to safe in my
Speaker 1: you know, my ass many times.
Speaker 2: So I mean, who's the other partner for us?
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 2: Like the A n A or the A m P.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we had a great partner force, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: you brought that up. So there is an issue right now.
Speaker 1: The for those that aren't tracking, and I imagine most
Speaker 1: of our audience does. But you know, when we withdrew,
Speaker 1: there's this program called the Special Immigrant Pizza so people
Speaker 1: who work really closely with the US could come to
Speaker 1: the United States on this special visa exemption and you know,
Speaker 1: eventually become citizens because I've proven their loyalty to the
Speaker 1: United States. And of course we turned the damn country
Speaker 1: over to the Talib, which is enemy that wants to
Speaker 1: kill them all right, right, so they're not all here,
Speaker 1: and I don't I don't want to give the wrong numbers,
Speaker 1: but I was looking it up because I was talking
Speaker 1: to people about it last week on the Hill.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 1: There's a lot tens of thousands that are still in
Speaker 1: the process of doing that, and there's some talk about
Speaker 1: some new immigration restrictions will cut that off, right, And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, this isn't shouldn't be a political issue,
Speaker 1: and it ain't for me because I'd stay out of
Speaker 1: that stuff. But I would hope that it's particularly the
Speaker 1: Vets that have been involved in this, do let you
Speaker 1: know the representatives know that you expect, you know, the
Speaker 1: United States to honor their pledge to our partners that
Speaker 1: fought in alongside US in Afghanistan, and that any restrictions
Speaker 1: to stop them from being given what they were promised
Speaker 1: should be not happen here. And hopefully that's gonna be
Speaker 1: heard before if it's actually gonna happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, he's got these people
Speaker 2: more than risk their lives. A lot of them lost
Speaker 2: their lives doing this working with us in Afghanistan, and uh,
Speaker 2: they're still there, you know, probably under threat every single day.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I hope you know they're they're allowed to
Speaker 2: come here. I hope it's expedited and there's no like
Speaker 2: roadblocks put up moving forward. That's all I got. You
Speaker 2: got anything else then you want to? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think we I think we covered.
Speaker 2: Of course there'll be more as we go along. Mick
Speaker 2: fog Bo tell everybody what you do at fogg will
Speaker 2: explain it people.
Speaker 1: So we do. We're basically a group that enables humanitarian operations.
Speaker 1: A lot of us are. That's so we take our
Speaker 1: skills that we learned in the past life and you know,
Speaker 1: obviously the mission is different now and the mission's delivering food,
Speaker 1: for example, the people who are a critical need, and
Speaker 1: it might be by maritime, might be by air, might
Speaker 1: be by ground. But that's what we do, and we
Speaker 1: do and we've been in Gata, We've been in Sudan,
Speaker 1: we're looking at expanding to Somalia potentially Syria. That's what
Speaker 1: we do.
Speaker 2: Yes, you can check them out fog Bo. The link
Speaker 2: will be in the descriptions of fog Bo dot com.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the website.
Speaker 2: I have the link in the description. Check them out
Speaker 2: and see what they do. Of course Lobo Institute as well,
Speaker 2: really cool stuff. That link is in the description too.
Speaker 2: If you want to read any of mixed publications, that
Speaker 2: link is also in the description to find them on
Speaker 2: social media as well. All the links will be in
Speaker 2: the description as well.
Speaker 1: Please So I on one thing that I forgot. So
Speaker 1: we also run an NGO called in Child Soldiering. I
Speaker 1: should probably bring that up every week. H It is
Speaker 1: an edgo that supports both requiring the countries don't use
Speaker 1: children to fight their wars, but also the rehabilitation of
Speaker 1: children that were forced to fight. It comes based on
Speaker 1: a documentary we did on a child Soldier that got
Speaker 1: made into a bestselling book called All the Glimmering Stars
Speaker 1: and part of the proceeds of the book goes to
Speaker 1: support our and GEO and we just issued the third
Speaker 1: Opoco word. Opoka is the name last name of the
Speaker 1: the to the man and woman husband wife. We did
Speaker 1: a documentary on both child soldiers to the delayre Institute.
Speaker 1: The delayre Institute is a group that had been doing
Speaker 1: great work. If you remember the movie or book Hotel Rwanda.
Speaker 1: The Canadian un General that was in the movie is
Speaker 1: Romeo de Laire and he started this organization and they,
Speaker 1: I think are one of the most active out there,
Speaker 1: really doing good work to prevent children from being used
Speaker 1: as soldiers in to help those that were. And so
Speaker 1: the third the Pokeo Award that we've issued from and
Speaker 1: John Soldier is going to the Delays. They're great work. Cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm gonna also place I'll put some links in
Speaker 2: the description for that as well, so check them out
Speaker 2: all down there if you want to find out more. Guys,
Speaker 2: I want you to understand some about Mick. He could
Speaker 2: literally be making three or four times more money doing
Speaker 2: almost anything else and he's doing the right thing. So
Speaker 2: that's a little bit about Mick. Just that, FYI, I'm
Speaker 2: doing all right. All the other links are in the
Speaker 2: description as well for Andy and Jason. Check them out.
Speaker 2: Buy some merch if you want package.
Speaker 1: And Irish by the Irish Pub on Monday.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Miami.
Speaker 1: Everybody's irish on Monday.
Speaker 2: Patreon dot com. Yeah, you're just forced to. There's no
Speaker 2: there's no negotiation there. Thanks Mike. This was great. All
Speaker 2: right bro, See you guys next time.
Speaker 1: Thank you for you next time.