Speaker 1: Get ready, okay April three, twenty twenty six, allegedly according
Speaker 1: to that thing we call a calendar. This is the
Speaker 1: Ocelly effect. So normally I have Larry on lately on Wednesdays,
Speaker 1: but today I have Larry Hancock with me. Of course,
Speaker 1: he is the great author of a great many books.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to list them all, but I do
Speaker 1: have them all, and so should you go to the
Speaker 1: links in the show description follow up on Larry's work,
Speaker 1: his discussions of the security state, the national security state
Speaker 1: of the United States, as well as global politics, history
Speaker 1: in general, of course, the JFK assassination, and various other
Speaker 1: focuses of his research, and well what shall we call it?
Speaker 1: He is a historian of record in my mind, who
Speaker 1: has gone back, revised some history, and given us all
Speaker 1: new stuff. And I might have a sidebar conversation with
Speaker 1: him very soon about my recent interesting interaction on the
Speaker 1: Monday Morning AM wake Up show where I was confronted
Speaker 1: with a JFK author who complained that Larry ignored him.
Speaker 1: And I may have a discussion with Larry at some
Speaker 1: point in the near future about that, And I don't
Speaker 1: know if we're going to do it. On air just saying,
Speaker 1: but I will get to it, because not only is
Speaker 1: Larry a remarkable author and somebody who has done, like
Speaker 1: I say, a great deal of work responsibly, in a
Speaker 1: sober fashion, in an effective way as a researcher, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: But he's also a friend of mine, so I'm going
Speaker 1: to have a friendly conversation with him about that. Don't worry,
Speaker 1: but tonight that's not the topic. The topic, unfortunately, is
Speaker 1: the current conflict with Iran and the United States and
Speaker 1: Israel and everything else. And quite frankly, I mean I've
Speaker 1: got a starting point. I don't know where Larry wants
Speaker 1: to begin, but we're going to try and condense an
Speaker 1: update on this into less than an hour's discussion. We'll
Speaker 1: see if I can accomplish it, because I'm the long
Speaker 1: winded one who does not know how to surmise things
Speaker 1: often without running off at the mouth into slight Let's
Speaker 1: call them off roading excursions verbally now and then, so
Speaker 1: I'll try and keep that to a minimum. Larry, First
Speaker 1: of all, Larry Hancock is who I'm talking about, and
Speaker 1: you should follow his blog as well and have all
Speaker 1: his books. But you should know that already and if
Speaker 1: you don't, Now you do, Larry, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing fine this evening, Chuck.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: The cherry trees blooming and making.
Speaker 1: You know, the cherry blossom festival is happening. So we
Speaker 1: have the cherry blossom trees and all that, and that
Speaker 1: is a big thing here. I'm surprised, you know that
Speaker 1: a lot of people we don't know that about Making Georgia.
Speaker 1: You know, most people find it relatively funny that our
Speaker 1: minor league baseball team is the Macon Bacon. But you
Speaker 1: know that is true. They're an independent minor league baseball team.
Speaker 1: And I've actually gone to a game anyway. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: the cherry blossom thing. Things are blooming. It's getting warm again,
Speaker 1: although it was freezing cold not so long ago, which
Speaker 1: was strange. But the seasons are seasoning Making Georgia at
Speaker 1: the moment. How is weather good with you?
Speaker 2: We finally, we have had a horrible drought.
Speaker 3: We've have probably the worst drought and recorded history winter drought.
Speaker 3: We had our first rainfall in like five months, wow,
Speaker 3: but half an inch. So the situation around here, agriculture wise,
Speaker 3: is desperate. It's spraying good. Trees are trying to leaf out.
Speaker 3: I hope they got enough moisture to continue. So we
Speaker 3: are coming into spring ourselves and looking much nicer. But
Speaker 3: it's been an extremely dry winter, and as far as
Speaker 3: making goes, my wife and I attended the cherry festival
Speaker 3: there one time, came down from Atlanta, really enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: So you bet we know what it looks like.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, cool. I didn't know that. But hey, listen,
Speaker 1: the good thing about your half inch of rain is
Speaker 1: that it had a chance to wash away the treacherous
Speaker 1: levels of pollen that were probably deposited on every surface
Speaker 1: where you were, because they certainly were here until we
Speaker 1: started getting some rain again. And it was pretty pretty extreme.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, people that don't have breathing problems
Speaker 1: suddenly had breathing problems. Here is just the way of
Speaker 1: the world. Except my son, who seems to survive everything,
Speaker 1: but everybody else seemed to be affected. You know, you
Speaker 1: couldn't breathe for a little bit and you're wondering why,
Speaker 1: and it might because there was more things in the
Speaker 1: air than air a little too often when you were
Speaker 1: taking a breath. But anyhow, now that we've checked in
Speaker 1: on all of that, let's get to the world conflict.
Speaker 1: The issue that may in my mind, and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm told that that's more of a liberal panicking talking
Speaker 1: point become a World War three type event if it
Speaker 1: continues on. But other people want to strongly disagree with me,
Speaker 1: and one of them is certainly the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, who gave a remarkable statement last night. And
Speaker 1: I want to begin there because why is it remarkable?
Speaker 1: Because he bragged because he stated that, you know, we
Speaker 1: the United States, and of course our coalition with Israel
Speaker 1: and whoever else we can convince to send us some supplies.
Speaker 1: I guess, you know, are definitely you know, banging all
Speaker 1: over and actually have launched some weapons on Tehran, not
Speaker 1: just hitting a remote, you know, weapons base, allegedly things
Speaker 1: like that. But he claims that, you know, regime change
Speaker 1: has already pretty much happened. All that good stuff and
Speaker 1: hyperbole is definitely just the cost of doing business if
Speaker 1: you want to listen to this guy talk. But it
Speaker 1: was very concise. It was very precise, even the language
Speaker 1: he didn't run on, He didn't take a lot of
Speaker 1: time with it. It was very quickly done. He did
Speaker 1: find time to congratulate himself because if he wasn't doing
Speaker 1: that his well, he wouldn't be breathing in his mouth,
Speaker 1: wouldn't be moving if he wasn't congratulating himself and his accomplishments.
Speaker 1: But it was done in a very shorthand kind of manner,
Speaker 1: and so much so that I found it almost disturbing
Speaker 1: that we didn't get normal Donald Trump in a speech
Speaker 1: where he takes on the airwaves, which used to carry
Speaker 1: a lot more gravity when the president used to do that,
Speaker 1: because there were only three networks at the time, and
Speaker 1: he would, you know, the president at the time, would
Speaker 1: take over all of them and later on, you know
Speaker 1: that plus gable if the announcement and the news was major.
Speaker 1: So he does that sort of thing where the president says,
Speaker 1: taken over all the networks for a moment live to
Speaker 1: give a speech, and he doesn't give a Donald Trump
Speaker 1: ish speech, very almost not presidential, but very direct, almost
Speaker 1: seeming like somebody else wrote it for him. In my mind,
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to launch conspiracy theories here, but
Speaker 1: I will also say I question whether it was live
Speaker 1: because I was watching the President's YouTube channel, the White
Speaker 1: House YouTube channel, which doesn't have commentators, doesn't have commercial breaks, okay,
Speaker 1: except for what YouTube shoves on you. And therefore it
Speaker 1: went straight from a feed almost directly like within moments
Speaker 1: of the live presidential speech allegedly live presidential speech to
Speaker 1: him on Air Force one. And to my mind, the
Speaker 1: clothes he was wearing did not look like they aged
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes. They looked like they aged some hours. And
Speaker 1: he went out to basically say to the press, she
Speaker 1: got any questions about what I just said, that would
Speaker 1: be the shorthand way to put it. And then of
Speaker 1: course there were other things that happened there, but I
Speaker 1: don't care. I want to focus back on the speech,
Speaker 1: and you know, take a little look at that, because
Speaker 1: that was supposed to tell us update us as to
Speaker 1: where we are or were as of last night. Do
Speaker 1: you have any thoughts about the presidential address? And do
Speaker 1: I sound completely crazy to you when I'm saying something
Speaker 1: is odd? I'm not sure if that was live. And
Speaker 1: also I won't believe, no matter how many times you
Speaker 1: tell me that he authored it, because it was way
Speaker 1: too short, it was way too efficient in its communication style,
Speaker 1: and it was I'll say it again, way too short
Speaker 1: for the guy who set two consecutive records on State
Speaker 1: of the Union, addresses to Congress, where he ran on
Speaker 1: and on, repeated himself, continued to go back over the
Speaker 1: points he wanted to, you know, beat like a team
Speaker 1: of dead horses. And this is not what we got
Speaker 1: last night at all. It was very not Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in its trump Ish ways, even though it had some
Speaker 1: of the elements, they were all how shall I say, restrained, limited,
Speaker 1: and quite frankly, he can't even limit himself when he's
Speaker 1: given a time limit on a debate stage. He overruns,
Speaker 1: talks over people, interrupts, pushes into things, and pushes past
Speaker 1: and even insists on answering questions that he wasn't even
Speaker 1: asked during a debate, you know, which I guess is
Speaker 1: good form for him. But when he's completely seemingly in control,
Speaker 1: has taken over all the networks, has the time if
Speaker 1: he wanted to go on for an hour, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's almost like me. If you ask me
Speaker 1: a question and I have a microphone, you're going to
Speaker 1: get an answer and it's going to be more than
Speaker 1: you know, three words. It's a promise, no matter what
Speaker 1: it is. So weird this speech was to me. But Larry,
Speaker 1: how do you interpret that? Speech and the update and
Speaker 1: the nature of things before we even get into the
Speaker 1: reality of the circumstance. As best you can tell us,
Speaker 1: what do you think about this, the speech and our
Speaker 1: progress and what that stated, and you know, and also
Speaker 1: my idea that quite frankly, hey, he didn't write it.
Speaker 1: That's not his words. Okay, he didn't script it, he
Speaker 1: didn't craft it. It wasn't his decision. He definitely if
Speaker 1: he wasn't working with notes live or as it was
Speaker 1: being recorded, he definitely was working off of a set
Speaker 1: of bullet points. And there was a clear indication that
Speaker 1: he was, you know, restraining himself, roping it in. So
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on those two things that maybe
Speaker 1: it wasn't live and also the almost way out of
Speaker 1: character on Donald Trump's style of restraint and limiting oneself
Speaker 1: and limiting oneself's words. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Well, the first thing astrayed me is there's no doubt
Speaker 3: that it was totally uncharacteristic. I mean, nobody has ever
Speaker 3: seen that before. Nobody has ever seen Donald Trump passed
Speaker 3: the opportunity to take major credit for things that were
Speaker 3: going on.
Speaker 1: It's like nothing you've ever seen before. Larry, like nothing
Speaker 1: you've ever seen. Sorry, I had to do that. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you look at where I could not
Speaker 3: fathom where there would have been another fifteen to twenty
Speaker 3: minutes on the Moon mission, right, I mean, where was
Speaker 3: the Moon mission, first first launch to the Moon in
Speaker 3: fifty years. If you look at the White House statements
Speaker 3: about that, he's making prolific remarks and making huge claims
Speaker 3: about being totally responsible for turning the space program around.
Speaker 2: I mean it's almost impossible not to see that.
Speaker 3: It worked into the speech because he I mean we
Speaker 3: saw in his National Security Council meeting he was taking
Speaker 3: ten minutes to take credit for a sharp eye discussion,
Speaker 3: right that apparently never happened.
Speaker 2: You know, So how did how did the Moon get
Speaker 2: left out of this? How?
Speaker 4: Just so?
Speaker 3: No, no eight no complaints about anything else, which is
Speaker 3: very uncharacteristic. No, no complaints about birthright citizenship. I mean,
Speaker 3: he had taken the time that day to go to
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, right in an extremely atypical effort to
Speaker 3: intimidate and obviously impress the justices who were not swinging
Speaker 3: his way, and he was complaining about that elsewhere, but
Speaker 3: not in the speech.
Speaker 5: Nothing.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that that that part is very uncharacteristic, and
Speaker 3: I certainly had to flavor you know, well, it's as
Speaker 3: if he can this part and then walked away.
Speaker 1: Can I ask you one thing? Can I ask you
Speaker 1: one thing about this, by the way, because in addition
Speaker 1: to what you said about the Supreme Court, right, and
Speaker 1: anything that's going on currently, regardless of what Trump is
Speaker 1: there to talk about. I mean, even when he goes
Speaker 1: to give a you know, the Presidential Medal to somebody
Speaker 1: who's dead and he's honoring their family, he takes the
Speaker 1: time to tell you about the stock market if he's
Speaker 1: happy with the numbers that day. Okay, So you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like he won't bring things up out of context.
Speaker 1: Not only did he have the whole Supreme Court thing
Speaker 1: going on, but he also fired Pam Bondy. Now, usually
Speaker 1: Trump has a way of dropping hints when he can't
Speaker 1: you know, he can't even contain himself when he's about
Speaker 1: ready to do something major, Right, I don't recall Pam
Speaker 1: Bondi coming up in the presser, you know, in the
Speaker 1: announcement on TV, or even in the back and forth
Speaker 1: with the press after. I see no hint of that.
Speaker 1: So that either indicates that again, he restrained himself greatly
Speaker 1: by not bringing up something that was currently, you know,
Speaker 1: concurrent with the situation, even if it wasn't related, or
Speaker 1: maybe it was, I don't know, but the point is
Speaker 1: either it was a snap decision or he restrained himself. There.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that seem out of character that he wouldn't have
Speaker 1: said something about that and even maybe said, well, you know,
Speaker 1: very soon we're going to have a big announcement about
Speaker 1: you know people. Something would have been said here just
Speaker 1: in passing about the fact that he's getting ready to
Speaker 1: get rid of guess who is attorney general? But nothing.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Sorry again, but the one counter what I offer.
Speaker 3: It's become quite clear in the last few weeks, in particular,
Speaker 3: that there are two subjects that he will walk away from.
Speaker 3: If he's asked the question, he will literally walk away
Speaker 3: from it. He doesn't want to talk. He doesn't even
Speaker 3: to the extent of using it as a platform to
Speaker 3: talk about something else, which is a common practice.
Speaker 2: And one is Epstein. That's clear.
Speaker 3: Okay, So if you talk about BONDI you're going to
Speaker 3: have to get into Epstein because that's this major complaint.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I.
Speaker 3: Can see a pass on that he really really does
Speaker 3: not want to talk about Iran anymore, and I think
Speaker 3: you heard that last night. He really My sense is
Speaker 3: he really wants to walk away from Iran as quickly
Speaker 3: as possible. So in one sense I can see him
Speaker 3: it being characteristic, true, but it's also uncharacteristic for him
Speaker 3: wanting to walk away from things.
Speaker 2: He likes to engage with him so much.
Speaker 3: But those two subjects at this point in time, I
Speaker 3: can see him mentally walking away from and saying, I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna Last night, he did not really want to
Speaker 3: talk about Iran and people. Actually, I think his advisors
Speaker 3: did not want him to talk about On because if
Speaker 3: you looked at what happened yesterday, two things happened. The
Speaker 3: market bounced yesterday, right because everybody expected that he was
Speaker 3: going to declare victory and walk away today, and that
Speaker 3: he didn't do it.
Speaker 2: He talked too much.
Speaker 3: He just for thirty seconds he couldn't resist saying, oh,
Speaker 3: but we're going to take two or three more weeks
Speaker 3: and drive him back into the stone age.
Speaker 2: And look at what happened to the market today.
Speaker 3: There are people that want him to shut up, not
Speaker 3: people that oppose him, people that are in his court
Speaker 3: who he's hurting financially. That really there are people that
Speaker 3: he listens to that want him to pull back.
Speaker 2: They don't want this, they really don't, but he can't
Speaker 2: help himself. So I think there.
Speaker 3: May be a conflict going on here, like an internal conflict.
Speaker 3: That's like, I know I promised them I wouldn't say
Speaker 3: anything more, but you know, I can't look weak.
Speaker 2: I got it.
Speaker 3: So I don't know how much of that counseled itself
Speaker 3: out to prevent it from being an hour long speech.
Speaker 2: Who knows?
Speaker 1: Okay, Now, look, I don't want to argue about this
Speaker 1: or belabor the point, but let me offer a counter
Speaker 1: to your counter politely. Okay that being the case, Larry,
Speaker 1: then why in the hell do you take the special
Speaker 1: time to make an announcement at all? You See, That's
Speaker 1: the weird thing here is that this isn't just you know,
Speaker 1: his usual mo of well, I'm just going to drop
Speaker 1: some major craziness on truth social and screw you. You
Speaker 1: can deal with it till the morning when I feel
Speaker 1: like answering it again. That's normally what he does. It
Speaker 1: seems like to me when it comes to like all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you know, people are clamoring for an
Speaker 1: answer on Epstein or you know, hey, gee, you said
Speaker 1: that this was going to happen, and you've now just
Speaker 1: did the opposite. He says, stuff on truth sold your
Speaker 1: bunch of losers. You don't understand what's going on, and
Speaker 1: now you can just have fun with that in the
Speaker 1: news meeting and read my truth post for the next
Speaker 1: you know, twenty four hours until I feel like answering
Speaker 1: you again. That seems to be his mo. That's not
Speaker 1: what happened here, though. This is a special arrangement to
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, not super special in that you know, okay,
Speaker 1: they only do this when we're going to war or
Speaker 1: something like they used to. But I mean, in a way,
Speaker 1: this is extra effort to make no point, which means
Speaker 1: I don't buy the argument of this is just him
Speaker 1: trying to walk away from it, because it's more like,
Speaker 1: instead of walking away from the dangerous thing, you walk
Speaker 1: into it. You know, well, I didn't want to bump
Speaker 1: my head on that thing that was hanging down, so
Speaker 1: I walked straight in its direction, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: And talk about a guy who doesn't know how to duck.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm getting out of here? Or do
Speaker 1: I make no sense to you?
Speaker 3: I don't know that. We can no check because my
Speaker 3: speculation would be that some one is influencing him. Okay,
Speaker 3: and we're not We're not just talking. I'm not talking
Speaker 3: about pulling. Someone is influencing him and literally saying, you know,
Speaker 3: we the royal We because there are he does have influencers,
Speaker 3: influencers that are telling him that we need to wrap
Speaker 3: this up. You know, we lost five thousand points in
Speaker 3: the market. Okay, Now now's the time. You need to
Speaker 3: move on to a victory statement. So you need to
Speaker 3: and and a victory statement of Trump on board a carrier,
Speaker 3: you know. And it needs to be prominent. It needs
Speaker 3: to be something to move the needle, which it almost did.
Speaker 2: It could have.
Speaker 3: Everybody was expecting it to move the needle. I think
Speaker 3: the market was prepared and there there are people playing
Speaker 3: the market with him. I got to tell you, I
Speaker 3: just there is no doubt, including the Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 3: that there are people that are playing the market them
Speaker 3: and I think they had imprimed to say something that
Speaker 3: would have shot it up two thousand points in a day.
Speaker 3: And he messed it up. He just couldn't he couldn't resist,
Speaker 3: you know, it couldn't look weak. So I think it
Speaker 3: was a big deal, but not in the sense that
Speaker 3: you're talking. I think that was a big deal for
Speaker 3: his influencers. I will not put out the somebody wants oil.
Speaker 2: Prices to be big, right, of course they.
Speaker 3: I mean he's done three things that have helped Iran
Speaker 3: and Russia. Okay, the invasion actually helped rest here, certainly,
Speaker 3: the oil price, the withdrawing of the sanctions.
Speaker 2: I mean, who in.
Speaker 3: The world would withdraw sanctions on Iran when you just
Speaker 3: went to war with them on oil? Now to the
Speaker 3: point that okay, and they're letting the Russian Okay, we
Speaker 3: withdrew our sanctions on all oil transportation for both the
Speaker 3: Iranian shipping and the Russian caring. You know, somebody is
Speaker 3: winning here. And then he comes through the speech and says,
Speaker 3: and this is this is the most important.
Speaker 2: I saw this in local news. That's sort of saying, but.
Speaker 3: We're okay, it's not going to hurt us because we've
Speaker 3: got all the oil we need.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 3: If you think about that for a minute, it's like
Speaker 3: what I saw in print was the person at the
Speaker 3: gas station who's paying three point fifty to four dollars
Speaker 3: is going to be asking, if we have all the
Speaker 3: oil we need and we don't have to worry about
Speaker 3: the rest of the world, why is my price up?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, see, that's the thing is, if it didn't
Speaker 1: really matter, then oil wouldn't have reached one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars a barrel, right, you know this is this
Speaker 1: is counterintuitive profit taking.
Speaker 2: So I not I'm conspiratorial in a different way.
Speaker 3: I do think Trump can be influenced by political and
Speaker 3: business interests.
Speaker 1: Oh no, it can be influenced.
Speaker 5: To the.
Speaker 2: And I think that's what we saw.
Speaker 3: I think people came to him and said we need
Speaker 3: you to and he did, and it just didn't And
Speaker 3: in the end it really didn't change anything.
Speaker 1: No, but there was real I think there was a shock.
Speaker 1: There was a real effort to land it the way
Speaker 1: you wanted to though, because he even put the context
Speaker 1: of it on. You know, we had these other conflicts
Speaker 1: and here's what happened. And it took a long time,
Speaker 1: and that was to drive home the point that hey, look,
Speaker 1: we're only a couple of weeks and it's going to
Speaker 1: be over soon, so don't worry about it yet. Okay, anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't want to keep going on this because this
Speaker 1: is not actually the most important point. But don't forget that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that little nuance was in that speech. Guaranteed he did
Speaker 1: not author that where he gives you a progressive view
Speaker 1: of well, you know, here's what happened with World War one,
Speaker 1: world War two. I mean you caught that part right,
Speaker 1: world War one, world War two? What was the next one?
Speaker 1: Did he say Korea? Next? I think so? Then he
Speaker 1: went Vietnam, and then he went you know, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and don't worry. I'm not going to have these belabored,
Speaker 1: costly things happen and it'll be all over with soon,
Speaker 1: so don't worry about it. There was an effort to
Speaker 1: do that in a way that Trump doesn't do that,
Speaker 1: so that was present as well. So I guarantee that
Speaker 1: there was something very much up with this. And at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, by the way, I also
Speaker 1: almost be a liking you don't need to answer this, Larry,
Speaker 1: But I suspect, because there's always these little itches in
Speaker 1: the back of my brain, that something else was attempted
Speaker 1: to be communicated here other than what was on the
Speaker 1: you know, public facing side of it. But who knows.
Speaker 1: And as you said, the influencers there, whether they bought
Speaker 1: their way in or they're on team Trump for real,
Speaker 1: is irrelevant. They are definitely present and exerting their force
Speaker 1: one way or another. So that is the obvious point
Speaker 1: to take away, for sure. But I still say somebody's
Speaker 1: gonna come up with the idea, probably make it popular
Speaker 1: for a moment that that speech was, as you said,
Speaker 1: canned ahead of time, pre canned, let's say, for consumption.
Speaker 1: But maybe not. Maybe things will just disappear like they
Speaker 1: usually do, and we'll get back to business as usual,
Speaker 1: where people are still screaming about Epstein and not really
Speaker 1: getting all the information straight about what's actually happening. And look,
Speaker 1: I pray that it's correct that this conflict ends quickly.
Speaker 1: But given the fact that you know, ground troops are
Speaker 1: being maneuvered into position for use, and Iran, regardless of
Speaker 1: what people think, has been destroyed, still have a lot
Speaker 1: more cards to play in the game. I think there's
Speaker 1: you know, stay tuned more to come. Anyway, let's talk
Speaker 1: about stay tuned more to come. With the conflict itself,
Speaker 1: I sort of you know, referenced a couple of things here.
Speaker 1: But since we last spoke about this. I know you
Speaker 1: speak to a lot of people about a lot of things.
Speaker 1: But where do you think the have you know, changed,
Speaker 1: gone forward, changed direction, maybe gone in a different way
Speaker 1: than you first predicted regarding this, or gone exactly as
Speaker 1: you predicted regarding this situation. Where do we stand now
Speaker 1: as opposed to only maybe two weeks ago, when last
Speaker 1: we might have referenced this, Larry, I mean, and when
Speaker 1: last we discussed it? What do you think has happened
Speaker 1: in the very recent days going forward in this? Again?
Speaker 1: What type of conflict are they going to call it? Now?
Speaker 1: Is it a war? Really? It's definitely combat based. There's
Speaker 1: definitely shots being fired. There is definitely parts of different
Speaker 1: places that are being attacked that previously were not. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the people that even you know, give
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt to al Jazeer, well, finally
Speaker 1: al Jazeera is doing something right. It's called self interest.
Speaker 1: They're based in Katar, and of course they're going to
Speaker 1: report on this. And you know who side do they
Speaker 1: want to be on? Well, probably the biggest guy with
Speaker 1: the biggest gun, who has protected Katar for various reasons.
Speaker 1: And again go back and look at maybe the motivations
Speaker 1: as to why you give somebody a multi million dollar
Speaker 1: you know, pleasure plane, whatever you know, as a present.
Speaker 1: There might be a good reason. You know, you often
Speaker 1: want to give your protector treats, whether it's a dog
Speaker 1: or it's you know, a violent husband who keeps you
Speaker 1: safe in a neighborhood that is not necessarily safe for you.
Speaker 1: It's always good to bring him a cake, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, Or to give your dog a bone,
Speaker 1: because that's who will protect you. But anyway, enough of
Speaker 1: my strange thoughts about the dynamics and power dynamics or
Speaker 1: lack thereof. What do you see about this conflict? What
Speaker 1: can we you know, responsibly ascertain in the past I
Speaker 1: don't know ten days in your opinion, what has changed,
Speaker 1: what has progressed, what is not progressing, and what are
Speaker 1: the circumstances yet to come.
Speaker 3: Well, I think there are three things that jumped out
Speaker 3: of me when we when we last talked about this
Speaker 3: back then.
Speaker 2: We we've gone.
Speaker 3: Through several phases of what our primary and secondary objectives
Speaker 3: were supposedly, but regime change was just as in Venezuela.
Speaker 3: I mean, a lot of people are around here and
Speaker 3: a lot of people I know, you know, would would
Speaker 3: be more comfortable with the fact that these these countries, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, have dictated dictatorships.
Speaker 2: We want to do away with dictatorships. We don't like dictatorships.
Speaker 3: We like democracies, of course, and we like democracies that
Speaker 3: are comfortable with us. So the idea of regime change
Speaker 3: is good for countries that speak out against us. We like,
Speaker 3: we like regime change. So in Venezuela and in Iran,
Speaker 3: we're both looking to do regime change.
Speaker 2: And and two.
Speaker 3: Weeks ago when we talked, we talked about, you know,
Speaker 3: there there might be regime change in Iran. You know,
Speaker 3: there there were massive street demonstrations.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 3: We were talking to the supposedly talking to the Kurds.
Speaker 3: We were talking to a former son of the former
Speaker 3: Shaw King of Iran. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: stuff coming from the White House that we're you know,
Speaker 3: we're talking to people that want to do deals and
Speaker 3: there will be real regime change and you know, a
Speaker 3: more liberal attitude towards the West and Tehran, and you know,
Speaker 3: so we were talking about that as an opportunity, and
Speaker 3: at one point in time when we started all of
Speaker 3: this that that was the goal. It was regime change,
Speaker 3: so Tehran would stop threatening everybody and stop being a
Speaker 3: you know, potential danger to everybody. I mean, quite frankly,
Speaker 3: other than Israel and our bases in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: they weren't. I mean, at that point in time, they
Speaker 3: had not been a danger to Bat Dubai or Kuwait
Speaker 3: or the UAE or anybody.
Speaker 2: Else in the region. I mean, there was no active conflict.
Speaker 3: So two weeks ago we were talking about the possibility
Speaker 3: regime change. Regardless of what the President said last night.
Speaker 3: Eliminating the top twenty guys in an infrastructure or religious
Speaker 3: by the way, strongly religious based infrastructure like that is
Speaker 3: not regime change.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, blunt lead, it's a theocracy.
Speaker 3: Decapitation, that's the right word for it. Is decapitation. That's
Speaker 3: not regime change.
Speaker 1: But it's a theocracy with a hierarchy of individuals that
Speaker 1: are tied to that religion and that overseeing power structure.
Speaker 1: You didn't remove it, you just took off the top layer.
Speaker 1: There are people that are groomed to succeed those that
Speaker 1: were on top. I mean unless I misunderstand the structure,
Speaker 1: you know, the infrastructure, or am I incorrect.
Speaker 2: And they know this is coming.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is no spride but sure a theocracy,
Speaker 3: it's a very it's a very structured religious system for
Speaker 3: one thing. It's a very structured military system for another.
Speaker 3: I mean, both of these are not there. I don't
Speaker 3: like the Runian Revolutionary Guard. They are very professional, They're
Speaker 3: very structured. You know, they may not be Masad class,
Speaker 3: but as far as the other military is in the
Speaker 3: Middle East.
Speaker 2: They're pretty good. And they have been. They've proven themselves
Speaker 2: very resilient.
Speaker 3: We have decapitated their leadership over and over again. How
Speaker 3: many times have we knocked out the top two or
Speaker 3: three or israel Is knocked out the top two or three? Okay,
Speaker 3: now we knocked out the top fifteen or twenty, okay.
Speaker 3: But decapitation is not regime change. So we possibly had
Speaker 3: an opportunity if we had committed ourselves militarily when all
Speaker 3: of those people well out in the street. Maybe, if
Speaker 3: we had agreement with the Kurds in advance or anybody
Speaker 3: else in advance. Maybe Apparently we did not. That all
Speaker 3: slipped through and we struck too late. And now what
Speaker 3: appears to have happened is the opposition has literally been
Speaker 3: the opposition has been decimated. That they killed them, thousands
Speaker 3: of them.
Speaker 2: That's so.
Speaker 3: So, you know, regime change doesn't if it looked like
Speaker 3: it might be in the cards two weeks ago, I
Speaker 3: certainly don't see it being in the cards now. The
Speaker 3: other thing we're talking about that was our primary objective
Speaker 3: was we would prevent Iran from being.
Speaker 2: Able to project force.
Speaker 3: Okay, and last night we wrapped that up with a
Speaker 3: statement that said, well, we destroyed their navy, and we
Speaker 3: destroyed the air force, and we destroyed their capability and
Speaker 3: launch missiles. Clearly, that third point is not true, because
Speaker 3: there's still quite frankly, the missile strikes that occurring today, yesterday,
Speaker 3: day before yesterday are much less but much more accurate.
Speaker 3: Israel is taking much more punishment now from when they
Speaker 3: were allobbing hundreds of missiles in the last exchange. Their
Speaker 3: strikes are becoming more and more accurate. Whether or not
Speaker 3: that's targeting info from the Russians or Chinese, not gonna say.
Speaker 3: But the reality is when they can knock out an
Speaker 3: E three W setting on a runway in Saudi that's
Speaker 3: a darn accurate strike for ballistic missile. When they can
Speaker 3: knock out a tanker setting in a port somewhere in
Speaker 3: the Middle East, that's a really effective strike. So they're
Speaker 3: becoming more efficient with both missiles and drums as far
Speaker 3: as projecting force. But we have taught them something. We
Speaker 3: have essentially taught them that all the money you guys
Speaker 3: spent on your navy was wasted. You don't need cruisers,
Speaker 3: you don't need destroyers. You need lots of little boats
Speaker 3: with drones and with mines, and you need to get
Speaker 3: in touch with your buddies the Hawthy's because there's there
Speaker 3: are other gulfs.
Speaker 2: The Gulf of Aiden is.
Speaker 3: A choke point, Bob the beb I can't pronounce it anyway.
Speaker 3: The strait, the straight down in the Gulf of Aiden
Speaker 3: is a choke point. The traffic across the east coast
Speaker 3: of the continent is a choke point. There are lots
Speaker 3: of places where they can dramatically project power.
Speaker 5: They don't have.
Speaker 2: Projecting power is attacking resources. Could you just give a
Speaker 2: brief well tankers, Yeah, could you just give.
Speaker 1: A brief description for the listener to have them understand
Speaker 1: why these other waterways, straits are relevant when it comes
Speaker 1: to disruption, Like why they're important because everybody is, you know,
Speaker 1: very much, even in recent news reports focused on the
Speaker 1: Straight of Woor moves, which no doubt is very important
Speaker 1: due to the fact that a lot of the start
Speaker 1: points for many oil tankers that are relevant to that
Speaker 1: area of the globe and getting oil to countries or
Speaker 1: to places where they can it can be refined or utilized.
Speaker 1: It's a very important start point and choke point. But
Speaker 1: why are these other places, Like if you can give
Speaker 1: a basic description as to why these other places you
Speaker 1: mentioned that are not being mentioned in news reports, et cetera,
Speaker 1: why they're important, and just a quick idea about that
Speaker 1: and how the Iranians have the ability to choke these
Speaker 1: things off. Please.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think what it boils down to is it's directional.
Speaker 3: If you look at the oil flow, I think it's
Speaker 3: estimated twenty to thirty percent of the oil it's across
Speaker 3: the Pacific. That means up to China, up through the
Speaker 3: Philippines down to Australia is coming out of from Iran
Speaker 3: and the countries that are on the Gulf that are
Speaker 3: fed through the Strait of Promos so it's that straight
Speaker 3: and that path is very important for oil and stuff
Speaker 3: that's being shipped across the Pacific, which is why right now,
Speaker 3: and again it's not getting much coverage, but the Philippines
Speaker 3: is declared an emergency. Australia is suffering terribly from the closure.
Speaker 3: They're the ones that are feeling the pain right now.
Speaker 3: The other shipmentths the Gulf of Aden and the straits
Speaker 3: down there off Yemen.
Speaker 2: Feeds through the Red Sea, feed through.
Speaker 3: The canals, but off the coast of Yemen, you also
Speaker 3: have the pathway that's going to take you around the
Speaker 3: Horn of Africa and go to go west. I mean,
Speaker 3: if I can't go east, okay, I've got to ship around,
Speaker 3: and it's got to be a lot more expensive, right
Speaker 3: so I can't.
Speaker 2: If I can't ship east.
Speaker 3: I'm going to have to ship all the way around
Speaker 3: the world and go the other way. Going to be
Speaker 3: a lot more expensive. And the problem for me is
Speaker 3: that the Hothies are in position. They're they're allied with
Speaker 3: the Irradians religiously, and there's a faction there. They can
Speaker 3: mess around with that as right now. Right right now,
Speaker 3: that is area has been subject to pirate attacks there've
Speaker 3: been movies about that. There's actually a combined force that's
Speaker 3: operating there with Asian and European there's a there's a
Speaker 3: it's called the.
Speaker 2: Red Sea Force. Okay, they're solely trying to contain them.
Speaker 1: Yes, So just to give the shorthand for dummies, if
Speaker 1: you don't mind, I just want to add this. What
Speaker 1: you're saying essentially is that the entire area that I
Speaker 1: often refer to as Oceania, which is you know, Australia
Speaker 1: and the parts of Asia and those island nations, et
Speaker 1: cetera that are reliant on foreign oil for certain aspects
Speaker 1: of their system of energy and the consumption of resources
Speaker 1: can be choked off because there is a disruption in
Speaker 1: the seafaring travel places for oil tankers coming out of
Speaker 1: that area number one. Number two, a disruption of the
Speaker 1: oil that ultimately takes care of part of Europe for
Speaker 1: its foreign imported energy needs of oil are also choked
Speaker 1: off easily if there is a disruption again in the
Speaker 1: shipping lanes if you will, that have to go around Africa,
Speaker 1: that have to travel west. So I mean this is
Speaker 1: a significant part of the map that is getting its
Speaker 1: energy affected, its flow of continuous, and it is continuous.
Speaker 1: It's like a twenty four seven three sixty five constantly moving,
Speaker 1: you know, seafaring. It might as well be a pipeline,
Speaker 1: but it is tankers that distribute. This aspect of foreign
Speaker 1: imported oil from various nations can all be choked off
Speaker 1: from a couple of these let's call them sea lanes
Speaker 1: of travel. Is that an accurate, oversimplified kind of description,
Speaker 1: where you're at good?
Speaker 3: The bottom line is the Gulf of Aighten, which goes
Speaker 3: around Yeman, Okay, is a key transport point for shipment
Speaker 3: across the Pacific, especially southeast across the Pacific and to Europe.
Speaker 3: So it is it's important a choke point for those
Speaker 3: kind of those kind of wild shipments, as amaz straight
Speaker 3: is going northeast Okay. So both of them are key
Speaker 3: choke points. And essentially the interesting thing is at this
Speaker 3: point in time, the Iranians are only really messing aggressively
Speaker 3: with one of them.
Speaker 2: They've held back. The Hawthys have not engaged.
Speaker 3: They fired a couple of missiles at Israel, but they
Speaker 3: have they have not returned to the kind of attacks
Speaker 3: on shipping passing their areas that they did a couple
Speaker 3: of years ago.
Speaker 1: And you've gotten very used to Yes, sorry, you've gotten
Speaker 1: very used to reading the Hawthey's. Uh, most people pronounce
Speaker 1: that the Hooti's just for the point of reference, So
Speaker 1: I know that's it looks like the Hawthy's though on
Speaker 1: paper or the haughtiest.
Speaker 2: Oh well, what can I tell you?
Speaker 1: It's okay. I just want to make sure nobody gets confused,
Speaker 1: like who are the Hawthys versus the Hoothies. But it
Speaker 1: is relevant because a lot of people, even fairly smart people,
Speaker 1: get a little lost on the geography. So that's why
Speaker 1: I'm trying to break it down to a simpler level
Speaker 1: here and make sure that what you're saying is not
Speaker 1: lost on somebody who goes yes. So what this is
Speaker 1: extremely significant, And even more significant is that what you're
Speaker 1: also saying is that they haven't messed with easily half
Speaker 1: of this. You know of this sea lane that might
Speaker 1: as well be a pipeline of ships that moves along
Speaker 1: and makes this oil, this resource travel. One. Two, they
Speaker 1: haven't even fully caused the problem with the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 1: Regardless of this discussion about well they let some tankers go,
Speaker 1: they didn't let other tankers go. They haven't even begun
Speaker 1: to exert full force that they are capable of. That
Speaker 1: is a point of vulnerability in this. You know, again,
Speaker 1: in this commerce, these international international commerce that takes place
Speaker 1: as a matter of just the practice that the world
Speaker 1: is engaged in constantly, there is a h there are
Speaker 1: trade routes here that are vulnerable to anybody who'd want
Speaker 1: to disrupt them. But the Iranians are capable, have the equipment,
Speaker 1: have the manpower, have the ships to do a hell
Speaker 1: of a lot more to disrupt this than they are
Speaker 1: currently doing. And then it seems like they have the
Speaker 1: potential to easily just change their mind and really create
Speaker 1: serious problems that would have a greater impact, even if
Speaker 1: they were only temporary. They would cause you know, a
Speaker 1: temporary disruption, could cause a lot of things to go
Speaker 1: sideways temporarily. I mean like it would have a serious impact,
Speaker 1: even if just temporary. Sorry, I ran out of breadth there,
Speaker 1: Even if just temporarily, sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Temporary is not the right word.
Speaker 3: See what we're totally missing And I'm afraid what we
Speaker 3: missed with this attack we still haven't learned, or the
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense hasn't learned or some I think our
Speaker 3: military has learned, but we actually it may have been
Speaker 3: a favor for the Iranians. Like I said, they didn't
Speaker 3: need those ships. They didn't need those old jet aircraft
Speaker 3: that they're trying to maintain after thirty forty years. They
Speaker 3: weren't using those anyway. They had never used their ships
Speaker 3: or their aircraft to project force. Okay, they had used missiles,
Speaker 3: they hadn't used groans in any you know, they're the
Speaker 3: ones that gave the Russians the shaheeds, the whole warfare
Speaker 3: that's going on in Ukraine and Russia, where now Ukraine
Speaker 3: can strike oil depots fourteen hundred miles from their orders.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I bet a lot of people forgot. I bet
Speaker 1: a lot of people forgot that the Iranians were capable
Speaker 1: of supplying the Russian army with drones for their arsenal
Speaker 1: I want to Yeah, I think that's the point. You're
Speaker 1: right that people may have sort of let go already
Speaker 1: because it was sort of part of the news. And
Speaker 1: the Iranians have made a deal to supply the right
Speaker 1: Think about that for a second. They had enough, and
Speaker 1: they had something that was capable of, you know, not
Speaker 1: saying that the Russians have had a great deal of success,
Speaker 1: but they have in a sustained way now utilized a
Speaker 1: lot of drones in an active war with Ukraine that
Speaker 1: they were supplied with, you know, from their ally. Don't
Speaker 1: forget that that their ally is Iran. They have a
Speaker 1: they have agreements, they have all sorts of paperwork there
Speaker 1: stating that you know, their allies they I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know how else to put it, you know. And
Speaker 1: that's another weird thing that I keep asking myself, is
Speaker 1: is there a point at which Russia's supposed to intervene here?
Speaker 1: Because I remember reading some time ago that there was
Speaker 1: an agreement about that that if they were literally attacked
Speaker 1: Iran in a significant way, the Russians were under some
Speaker 1: sort of I don't know if you'd call it a
Speaker 1: treaty or a pact or whatever, they had an agreement
Speaker 1: to go in there on their behalf and assist them
Speaker 1: if they were being attacked. And quite frankly, now they're
Speaker 1: being attacked.
Speaker 2: And they are assisting them, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: But do you hear anybody discussing it? You know? What
Speaker 1: I'm saying is you do.
Speaker 3: You don't hear it in the mainstream media, but if
Speaker 3: you do in the right places. A part of this
Speaker 3: what I discussed earlier, the targeting. Why is the targeting.
Speaker 1: Targeting is improved.
Speaker 3: We're attacking Israel and we can't hit anything. Now we
Speaker 3: can individual ships. We can hit at a tanker in
Speaker 3: a rock, at a port. We can hit a tanker
Speaker 3: in the UAE in a port. Targeting is getting a
Speaker 3: lot better. How is this targeting any better? Iran doesn't
Speaker 3: have satellites. They don't have satellites surveillance. Russia and China do.
Speaker 1: So they've been given access to resource resources and literal
Speaker 1: data for intelligence purposes, which has increased their accuracy and
Speaker 1: efficiency when it comes to counter strikes. Is what you say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is a new type of warfare that we
Speaker 3: didn't we're not catching onto And as you pointed out earlier,
Speaker 3: Iran is a big place right to fight the war
Speaker 3: that the Ukrainians are fighting now and taking it to
Speaker 3: the Russian oil and gas and manufacturing infrastructure. You need
Speaker 3: truck mounted drones that can fly fifteen hundred miles. You
Speaker 3: don't need ballistic missile bases. It's a big Iran is
Speaker 3: a big place you put them out there. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: you lose without a doubt. We're pretty good at that.
Speaker 3: But all you need to do is maintain a cadence.
Speaker 3: And that's where I said the temporary where temporary isn't right.
Speaker 2: You need a cadence.
Speaker 3: You need a cadence of being able to get a
Speaker 3: couple of drones through every day or so so that
Speaker 3: nobody is going to risk a tanker. You need to
Speaker 3: get a couple of drones through every day or so
Speaker 3: so that the UAE and Dubai I mean, who were
Speaker 3: never struck before, nobody had projected any force against them.
Speaker 3: Now the Iranians are making it quite clear that you know,
Speaker 3: you really shouldn't have.
Speaker 2: Invited the Americans.
Speaker 3: You guys, you know they are out of control and
Speaker 3: now it's on you. So we've got projection of forced
Speaker 3: all of a sudden in places there wasn't any before.
Speaker 2: Now it's there.
Speaker 3: Can they maintain it? How long can they maintain it?
Speaker 3: I don't know, but the most recent reports I'm saying,
Speaker 3: if they shift from you know, the high value resources
Speaker 3: like ships and planes to drones. Uh, you've maintained that
Speaker 3: for a long time, okay, And they've got a lot
Speaker 3: of drones left even best astract I sent you a
Speaker 3: leak that you can post from croiters that have some estimates.
Speaker 3: So if if they can maintain a cadence, all they
Speaker 3: really have to do is maintain a cadence of risk. Okay,
Speaker 3: And the only way you're going to use you're going
Speaker 3: to have region to settlement at some point. And I
Speaker 3: guess I'm going to make an argument that a lot
Speaker 3: of people are not going to like. But yes, we
Speaker 3: have destroyed a lot of wren and we've made a
Speaker 3: lot of bitter enemies, but we have actually put them
Speaker 3: in the position of showing that they can project force
Speaker 3: in a way that hurts us more hurts us the
Speaker 3: world more than the missile strikes they were carrying out
Speaker 3: against Israel.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing as well.
Speaker 2: We're talking about projecting economic force.
Speaker 1: Well, right, because here's the thing that is being missed
Speaker 1: in the conversation in my opinion, as far as all
Speaker 1: the reports on this, and that's why you're getting a
Speaker 1: propaganda free discussion here regarding this with Larry, and I
Speaker 1: hope people appreciate it, because again, down to the last
Speaker 1: dozen minutes, I want you to get to the rest
Speaker 1: of what we're missing so far. But just recognize and
Speaker 1: I will put in the show notes the links that
Speaker 1: Larry is referencing that he shared with me in preparation
Speaker 1: for this discussion. He gives me a couple of articles
Speaker 1: sometimes to take a look at. One of them was
Speaker 1: last minute. I didn't see it, but I understand where
Speaker 1: we're going. I think this is something relevant though, to
Speaker 1: keep in mind. And I want you to go ahead
Speaker 1: and lay down the last of what you have on
Speaker 1: this and we'll close out this thing in an hour
Speaker 1: in total, which is barely enough time to do it right.
Speaker 1: But of course Larry gets it done even with me
Speaker 1: distracting and causing interruptions. The thing is that this is
Speaker 1: not just about force projection. What we're seeing here, which
Speaker 1: is quite different from any of the recent conflicts that
Speaker 1: the United States has found itself involved in. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to be generous and even handed about this. The thing is,
Speaker 1: it's not just about force projection. There is the projection
Speaker 1: of economic pressure in addition to threat projection. There is
Speaker 1: a great deal of this conflict being played out on
Speaker 1: many different levels that quite frankly, I think the current
Speaker 1: leadership is incapable of fully understanding. The only reason we're
Speaker 1: not completely losing in this conflict at this moment, I believe,
Speaker 1: is because there are others beneath the heads of the organizations.
Speaker 1: Even though go very slowly and without a lot of fanfare,
Speaker 1: some people are getting dismissed from Homeland Security and DJ
Speaker 1: I predict there will be some heads rolling elsewhere because again,
Speaker 1: the upper echelon of leadership I don't think is capable
Speaker 1: of understanding that there is threat projection, there is economic
Speaker 1: pressure being exerted, there is force projection, and all of
Speaker 1: them do not match the descriptions by the upper echelon
Speaker 1: of leadership. The overall conflict is being played out in
Speaker 1: many ways that are being ignored oversimplified by the majority
Speaker 1: of the mainstream media, for sure, and I do believe
Speaker 1: that we are still yet to have an accurate description
Speaker 1: of the action that is occurring in real time. Now,
Speaker 1: those are my opinions, for sure, and Larry Hancock doesn't
Speaker 1: have to share them and may not, But either way,
Speaker 1: that is the point that I do believe Larry is
Speaker 1: making in a extremely precise and let's call it a
Speaker 1: pithy manner, and he's getting it done with an elegant
Speaker 1: simplicity here where he's laying out a lot of detail
Speaker 1: and giving you a look at what's really happening here
Speaker 1: without any hyperbole, without any cheerleading or any you know, politicized,
Speaker 1: polluted leaning that's meant to project a narrative that doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily match what's happening. So I just want to tell
Speaker 1: you that I truly appreciate it, Larry, that you're doing
Speaker 1: this with me and walking through it and allowing me
Speaker 1: to do my oversimplified descriptions of some of the things
Speaker 1: you're saying. But I'm sure that we missed a few
Speaker 1: things so far. And I want to give you the
Speaker 1: last say, ten minutes here, unless you want to take
Speaker 1: it a little longer or whatever, up to you entirely
Speaker 1: to give us the rest of the story up to now.
Speaker 1: What is it that we need to know going forward,
Speaker 1: anything that we need to know about what's going to
Speaker 1: happen in the future, what's currently happening, or what has
Speaker 1: already happened that maybe we're under informed about. There's a
Speaker 1: deficiency maybe in the information that has been gathered and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, related publicly thus far. What else do you
Speaker 1: think we're missing or is there something that we should recognize,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. The floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Well there, I think there are two things that we're missing,
Speaker 3: and one is an hour on discussion by itself, and
Speaker 3: that we're we're missing the fact that we have basically
Speaker 3: given up our ability to be a partner. We we
Speaker 3: we don't partner. Well we we did, you know when
Speaker 3: we we we fought wars in the Middle least before
Speaker 3: we build up coals. We didn't move until the coalition
Speaker 3: was established. Could we have built the coalition up here, possibly.
Speaker 2: But we didn't.
Speaker 3: In fact, it doesn't look like there was any any
Speaker 3: effort to do so until after the fact.
Speaker 1: Well, quickly, I want to ask something about that, just
Speaker 1: real fast. I need to ask something about that, because
Speaker 1: I would contend that in the past we did build real, working,
Speaker 1: legitimate coalitions at certain times in order to take on conflicts,
Speaker 1: whether we required it or not, in order to effectively
Speaker 1: achieve our objectives. It was done in the past for
Speaker 1: certain Then there were also times when it was fagned
Speaker 1: and it was kind of a joke. The coalition of
Speaker 1: the willing that Bush had for a rock kind of
Speaker 1: a joke. Some of the Coalition of the Willing the
Speaker 1: partners listed, you know. I'm sure you remember the scene
Speaker 1: from fair Night nine to eleven, you know where I
Speaker 1: mean one nation agreed to send us I don't know
Speaker 1: what was it. Landmine detecting monkeys, you know, and things
Speaker 1: like that, and one of our you know, willing coalition
Speaker 1: of the of the willing partners, you know, sent a ship,
Speaker 1: you know, things like this, weird things where the Coalition
Speaker 1: of the Willing was sort of more window dressing than reality.
Speaker 1: But there were legitimate coalitions in the past where there
Speaker 1: was partnership. And even when there wasn't legitimate, full fledged partnership,
Speaker 1: there was at least the attempt to project that there was.
Speaker 1: That's no longer it unless you want to count Israel,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying, where yeah, they're definitely a
Speaker 1: partner of sorts.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Sorry, the point and I I remember giving
Speaker 3: speeches about the Coalition of the Willing Vietnam back in
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty eight, so we won't go back that char
Speaker 3: But the point is, even when you had a coalition
Speaker 3: of the willing that wasn't significant for military purposes, at
Speaker 3: least you were maintaining your partnerships. Okay, you weren't cutting
Speaker 3: yourself off with the knees. Now we're in a mode
Speaker 3: that we're our president is is happy to literally disregard
Speaker 3: people that have been allies for decades and make remarks about, well,
Speaker 3: the British didn't really fight well in Afghanistan, you know.
Speaker 3: But basically there's a difference. I'm not saying that we
Speaker 3: haven't done some things that were coalitions that were just
Speaker 3: coalitions for show, but at least.
Speaker 2: They didn't hurt anything.
Speaker 3: We didn't destroy anything, or we're going to go in
Speaker 3: on our own, but we didn't like cut everybody off
Speaker 3: with the knees, so that, you know, Okay, So that's
Speaker 3: another story itself, and there's tons of implications that go
Speaker 3: along with that.
Speaker 2: But the smaller thing that I'd like to bring out.
Speaker 3: That it's strictly got to do here with in the
Speaker 3: last three weeks, we have used up the vast majority,
Speaker 3: regardless of what you hear of our are anti missile systems,
Speaker 3: anti missile inventories, not for just us, but what we
Speaker 3: supplied to all those partner nations in you know, in
Speaker 3: the Gulf.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's that's not a good thing to chew up.
Speaker 3: And we're we're taking a lot of credits for this
Speaker 3: for having high precision, high technology, extremely effective weapon systems,
Speaker 3: which are also extremely costly.
Speaker 2: We've chewed through that.
Speaker 3: Okay, Now we're looking at years and new new production
Speaker 3: lines and whatever to replace those expensive weapons. But we're
Speaker 3: not facing up to the fact that, yeah, those are
Speaker 3: good and they're effective, and they're highly you know, high technology,
Speaker 3: but so were those little drones that are taking out
Speaker 3: the individual ships and factories, and they're not anything like
Speaker 3: a comparable cost, and they can be manufactured a lot quicker,
Speaker 3: and they require to oppose them. You need to, you know,
Speaker 3: if they're going to send five hundred drones at you,
Speaker 3: you can't afford five hundred ten million dollar missiles.
Speaker 1: Right now, I was going to say this do yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: I was going to save this till the end, Larry,
Speaker 1: but you're begging me to bring it up here. So
Speaker 1: this is the last thing I'm going to ask you.
Speaker 1: Because my thought about this since the opening, you know,
Speaker 1: the opening volleys, let's say, a weapons discharge, okay, in
Speaker 1: the conflict. My initial thoughts immediately were that I really
Speaker 1: am rooting for Trump to be right about this will
Speaker 1: be over quick. And the declarations from Hegseth about this
Speaker 1: is going to be over real quick anyway, don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. I really want to believe them, because here's
Speaker 1: the reality that I think is also being ignored, and
Speaker 1: that is that if this is a prolonged conflict, if
Speaker 1: this is in any way going to be something that
Speaker 1: a circumstance of attrition is part of the equation. Not
Speaker 1: only is it going to cost us more, but due
Speaker 1: to the speed of our manufacture, the overwhelming expense to
Speaker 1: answer they're cheaply manufactured and quickly manufactured weapons, we are
Speaker 1: looking at a circumstance where we don't win if this
Speaker 1: goes long term and they can maintain any level of
Speaker 1: answers to us every It's almost like my gun has
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars bullets in it and yours cost a nickel.
Speaker 1: You can send somebody the store and go buy you
Speaker 1: plenty more before I can go get a hold of
Speaker 1: my five hundred dollars bullets. At some point, you're going
Speaker 1: to outpace me, even if I'm bigger and stronger in
Speaker 1: a conflict, and that I'm talking about one gun and
Speaker 1: the price of bullets, because again I'm trying to oversimplify.
Speaker 1: But is it or is it not true that in
Speaker 1: a prolonged conflict here we would lose economically, we would
Speaker 1: lose as far as the speed of manufacture without some
Speaker 1: sort of change in our current system, etc. Etc. Doesn't
Speaker 1: this put us in a vulnerable position if this conflict
Speaker 1: continues to drag on and our participation continues to be
Speaker 1: run the same way? Or is that something that I
Speaker 1: have wrong here?
Speaker 3: Well, not only this conflict, but any conflict. I mean,
Speaker 3: the logic now, it is kind of like if you
Speaker 3: were to go to war in China, you would either
Speaker 3: win or lose in two weeks because nobody has the
Speaker 3: ability to resupply. Right, You're not going to fight to
Speaker 3: four year war anymore. It's not going to happen, not
Speaker 3: with those kind of weapons, which leads you down two
Speaker 3: different pets, Okay, And I think that the most interesting
Speaker 3: path is not being discussed at all in the mainstream media.
Speaker 3: Is the Gulf nations are pretty sharp and they see
Speaker 3: that the threat that has revealed, and so guess what
Speaker 3: are they going to continue to spend money bying the
Speaker 3: number of anti missile missiles that they have from the US,
Speaker 3: especially when we claim we've knocked out all the Iranian missiles,
Speaker 3: so there's no you know, what are they going to buy? Well,
Speaker 3: Ukraine made an offer to us to supply to them
Speaker 3: the Gulf States anti drone weapons, which Ukraine is building
Speaker 3: and which are increasing and successful. Our president turned down
Speaker 3: the offer. So Zelenski went directly and made a sure
Speaker 3: of each of the Gulf nations and they've all made
Speaker 3: contract deals with Ukraine to buy anti drone weapons. You
Speaker 3: may well see shipments of you know, multimillion dollar anti
Speaker 3: ballistic missiles reverting to purchases of anti drone weapons. There's
Speaker 3: there's going to be a bit. This is this is
Speaker 3: this is showcase the shift in weapons.
Speaker 1: And also the mistake. Sorry, but also in my opinion,
Speaker 1: and this may be my opinion alone, but the mistake
Speaker 1: that it was to not engage with Ukraine as a
Speaker 1: friendly nation, and it may have been against our best
Speaker 1: interests in the long run to treat them like, well,
Speaker 1: you need our help, so too bad and you ought
Speaker 1: to be thankful for what you've gotten already. Perhaps not
Speaker 1: the wisest posture to take with a nation that could
Speaker 1: have been you and putting a position to truly be
Speaker 1: grateful in the future. That's my note on this. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but I saw that coming a mile away, and it
Speaker 1: isn't because of you know, magic chemical plants that I
Speaker 1: believe exist or other criminal operations that absolutely had to
Speaker 1: be exterminated. And good for the Russians for doing it.
Speaker 1: According to one side of this equation, I really felt
Speaker 1: like it was a grand mistake for our benefit, not
Speaker 1: just benevolent handing something over to Ukraine because we love
Speaker 1: them so much, but a matter of it was a
Speaker 1: strategic mistake in my mind. But people didn't see.
Speaker 2: That technology partner for the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3: So if you're going to pick and choose, what partner
Speaker 3: do you want, Yeah, it was you want the people
Speaker 3: that were building missiles and providing computer technology to the Soviets.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's my point is that it's not a
Speaker 1: matter of emotion, it's a matter of cold calculation. It
Speaker 1: was wiser to assist them and to take advantage of that,
Speaker 1: because it's not all about the money we put there
Speaker 1: or how much we were propping them up necessarily, But
Speaker 1: you know what, if you're going to do that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, maybe decide to do it with somebody that
Speaker 1: can be to your benefit afterwards. I mean, I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: but I've always shaken my head at that because like, oh,
Speaker 1: you just have trumped arrangement syndrome. And I'm like, no,
Speaker 1: that's poor strategy. I don't care who's doing it, but no,
Speaker 1: I was wrong and anything.
Speaker 3: Sorry, if you looked at the Soviet Union and looked
Speaker 3: at what resources were were were, and we're totally objective, it.
Speaker 2: Would be I, as the US, I do not need
Speaker 2: their oil. I got oil.
Speaker 3: What I need is you know what was coming from
Speaker 3: what was coming from the Ukraine, what was coming from Kiev.
Speaker 3: They were building their subs, they were you know the react.
Speaker 3: It's like it wouldn't have been hard to do.
Speaker 2: But be that as it may. But I guess the third.
Speaker 3: Point I was going to make is this, this conflict
Speaker 3: has really revealed, regardless of how much the President boast
Speaker 3: about it, it's not that those extremely expensive high precision
Speaker 3: weapons aren't don't have their uses, but to use them
Speaker 3: totally for fighting a new type of conventional war. Nobody
Speaker 3: can afford a long war that way. And I think
Speaker 3: that's the point you were bringing up. What it brings
Speaker 3: out is that the future really kind of has two paths.
Speaker 3: The super high tech weapons, you know, have their applications
Speaker 3: to take out very specific targets bunker busters.
Speaker 2: Okay, fine, but there's going to.
Speaker 3: Be a whole generation of low tech, highly accurate stuff
Speaker 3: that we're going to have to learn to cope with.
Speaker 3: So that leads you down two different paths. Entirely, it's
Speaker 3: it's frightening, but the two different paths that leads you
Speaker 3: down to our high precision, low tech in one direction
Speaker 3: and back to nuclear in the other direction.
Speaker 2: And if you look at the.
Speaker 3: Article today on the new analysis of what China's doing
Speaker 3: to their nuclear weapons infrastructure, it's frightening. Have they made
Speaker 3: that decision like they know they can't win a three
Speaker 3: week war either.
Speaker 2: With you know, high tech weapons. I don't know.
Speaker 3: But we're bragging about what we're doing now. Is what
Speaker 3: worries me in regard to the amount of hubris. You know,
Speaker 3: you're not going to see what you should be doing
Speaker 3: if you don't recognize what's happening to you now. And
Speaker 3: it appears that we're claiming victory now is you know,
Speaker 3: it's fine, and the military deserves extreme praise, but you
Speaker 3: need to be you need to be learning some lessons too,
Speaker 3: and I'm afraid we may not be learning them right.
Speaker 1: So in order to tie a bow on this one,
Speaker 1: like I often say with you, Larry, a final thought
Speaker 1: comes to me, and that is, ultimately big picture wise,
Speaker 1: over the longer term, let's say, regardless of what's happening
Speaker 1: in this conflict and how you want to break it
Speaker 1: down or which part you want to analyze, here in
Speaker 1: my opinion, and I want to see if you agree
Speaker 1: or disagree. And this is a weird thing because I
Speaker 1: usually don't do this with you, But my overall opinion
Speaker 1: is as follows. The biggest winners here according to the
Speaker 1: way things are just going in general, and I am
Speaker 1: talking about not just the Middle East, but the plans
Speaker 1: to maybe deal with Cuba next. What's happening, you know
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. The overall geopolitical let's call them spheres of
Speaker 1: influence and pressure. The overall game winner at the moment,
Speaker 1: in my mind is China is the Russian Federation. Those
Speaker 1: two are going to benefit the most if things continue
Speaker 1: as they are without some changes here, I feel as
Speaker 1: though the United States, even if we win in the
Speaker 1: next handful of conflicts, are putting ourselves in a position
Speaker 1: of vulnerability here that is allowing those two greater powers
Speaker 1: in the world to benefit immensely in the future. That's
Speaker 1: what I see happening. Whether that's being done intentionally or not.
Speaker 1: Whether it's being done you know, consciously or not by
Speaker 1: their opponents is another story. But I think the real
Speaker 1: brain trusts in both of those places in the world
Speaker 1: are looking at this and saying, oh, we have just
Speaker 1: been handed gifts for the future. We're going to have
Speaker 1: presence to open up in the you know, in the
Speaker 1: theoretical Christmas of long term when it comes down to it,
Speaker 1: sometime from now. These are gifts that we're going to
Speaker 1: be given where our stature, our position of power on
Speaker 1: the planet is literally going to be well elevated, and
Speaker 1: we're going to be stronger and better in the near
Speaker 1: and further future because of what's currently happening. Do you
Speaker 1: see it that way or is it just me?
Speaker 3: This The last six months to me have been a
Speaker 3: real shift. I might not have thought that strongly before,
Speaker 3: but if you look at I mean, look.
Speaker 2: At today you mentioned Cuba.
Speaker 3: Today we have a Russian tanker docking with months of
Speaker 3: fuel for Cuba, and it's okay. The President just said,
Speaker 3: it's fine, it's it's like humanitarian.
Speaker 2: Well wait a minute, I mean.
Speaker 3: At the at the moment, it just appears that we
Speaker 3: do not have a strategy, and that over the last
Speaker 3: six months, Yes, the the balance is shifting towards having
Speaker 3: a unified strategy that you know, would have would have
Speaker 3: eliminated some at least frozen things in place. But the
Speaker 3: winners at present are undoubtedly China, Russia, and North Korea.
Speaker 2: By that matter.
Speaker 3: It continues to it continues to stun me Iran was
Speaker 3: not a threat to the continental United States in no way,
Speaker 3: shape or form. North Korea is deploying nuclear submarines with
Speaker 3: nuclear ICBMs. They're an outstanding threat, and not so much
Speaker 3: even in themselves that they can they're happy to supply
Speaker 3: that to anybody. So it just it looks like we've
Speaker 3: taken our eye off the ball of who are the
Speaker 3: real potential threats, especially over the.
Speaker 2: Last six months. I don't know how that happened.
Speaker 3: A year ago, when we were sanctioning Russia and at
Speaker 3: least supporting Ukraine vocally to some extent, but it shifted
Speaker 3: and I don't know why, but no, I don't think
Speaker 3: we're in.
Speaker 2: A good space geopolitically. Hit the moment right.
Speaker 1: And you're correct. I did leave North Korea out of
Speaker 1: the discussion because remember this, And I don't mean to
Speaker 1: say this to you, Larry, I mean to just say
Speaker 1: this out loud. North Korea, in its isolation state, has
Speaker 1: developed a parallel set of technologies which are extremely useful
Speaker 1: to guess who their allies. They don't have a long list,
Speaker 1: but they have a consistent list of people who have
Speaker 1: been their allies. So in a pinch, not knowing what
Speaker 1: it is, they have actually fully developed, regardless of their
Speaker 1: demonstrations and their occasional very public and very direct communications
Speaker 1: where they launch missiles toward Japan near Japan, over Japan,
Speaker 1: you know, things like that to make a point. Guess what,
Speaker 1: we don't even know their full potential, at least not
Speaker 1: publicly for sure, And they are willing and working allies
Speaker 1: of Guess who the two adversaries I just said are
Speaker 1: benefiting North Korea to my mind, is one of their
Speaker 1: benefits in this current circumstance is literally not a just
Speaker 1: a beneficiary like they are, but a benefit in and
Speaker 1: of itself as a partner. So I'm glad you mentioned it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't going to bring it up. But definitely a
Speaker 1: significant part of this equation is just that. So, you know,
Speaker 1: while we're worried about the ballroom and calling the Kennedy
Speaker 1: Center the Trump Kennedy Center, even though it says memorial afterwards,
Speaker 1: which I always find funny and nobody else seems to,
Speaker 1: because obviously, if you name something after two things and
Speaker 1: you call it a memorial center, I would assume both
Speaker 1: of those people are dead. But anyway, here we are,
Speaker 1: we're in a circumstance where I almost feel like we're
Speaker 1: handing on not just silver platters, but golden platters, which
Speaker 1: of course Trump would approve of gifts to these adversarial nations,
Speaker 1: and those gifts are definitely things to be opened in
Speaker 1: the future. And they've made investments with North Korea and
Speaker 1: probably some nations that were not even fully thinking of
Speaker 1: that have been ignored, isolated, demonized, you know whatever, that
Speaker 1: are also going to be involved here as of resource,
Speaker 1: as providers of manpower, as providers of technologies that are
Speaker 1: either parallel to existing things or are completely unique from
Speaker 1: some existing things, And once those things are fully developed
Speaker 1: and invested in a little further, they may be unveiled
Speaker 1: in the future as surprises. And like you said, nuclear technology,
Speaker 1: it's not a matter of do you know, does North
Speaker 1: Korea have weapons? It's only a matter of the degrees
Speaker 1: and to what adaptation can that be added to some
Speaker 1: other pre existing technologies. I mean, it would take no
Speaker 1: time at all for there to be enough exchanges.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, God, we know there's ample evidence to show
Speaker 3: that North Korea has been the primary missile and technology
Speaker 3: along with Russia. But actually North Korea has been the
Speaker 3: mentor for Iran on missiles, so there's a strong relationship,
Speaker 3: and nobody.
Speaker 2: Is even.
Speaker 3: Brought that in regard to this conflict. And that's because
Speaker 3: the North Koreans are very good at doing covert technology
Speaker 3: transfer right for money.
Speaker 1: They do that really well, well out of necessity based
Speaker 1: on the way things have run since the you know,
Speaker 1: Armistice of the Korean conflict. Guess what that is the
Speaker 1: circumstance they find themselves in. I sit back and say,
Speaker 1: what do you expect? It's actually quite logical and should
Speaker 1: have been expected, but we see it not being addressed.
Speaker 1: We see a lot of things in my mind not
Speaker 1: being addressed currently and in some cases maybe a little
Speaker 1: too much emphasis on other things we're not looking at.
Speaker 1: I mean, you say there's no strategy. I think they've
Speaker 1: got the wrong read on the situation. You know, they're
Speaker 1: running a great passing play, but they're not seeing all
Speaker 1: the guys that are there to intercept the ball. You know,
Speaker 1: they think their receivers in the clear, they think the
Speaker 1: quarterback is protected, but they don't see the entire field.
Speaker 1: It seems like to me anyway, enough analogies, enough of
Speaker 1: all that, Larry, is there anything you want to say
Speaker 1: in closing before? I recommend all of your books which
Speaker 1: are available and there will be a link in the
Speaker 1: description for people to get them. And they all talk about,
Speaker 1: let's call it the interaction of international elements the various
Speaker 1: aspects of the intelligence apparatus in various places, the interactions
Speaker 1: thereof through things like the King assassination, the Kennedy assassination,
Speaker 1: but also great books like Creating Chaos Unidentified, which we
Speaker 1: discussed recently regarding UAP, etc. Etc. Larry, you are a great,
Speaker 1: you know, historian in that you're recording and re recording
Speaker 1: some things from the past that maybe we're not properly
Speaker 1: recorded in the first place, but you're also recording current
Speaker 1: things and things in the aftermath, as after action reports,
Speaker 1: so to speak, when it comes to some of the mistakes.
Speaker 1: Of course, everybody's heard of the book that we run
Speaker 1: an ad for, and we'll run an ad for at
Speaker 1: the end of this discussion. But all of Larry's work
Speaker 1: is highly recommended. Oh, by the way, is the new
Speaker 1: Oswald puzzle out? Somebody did ask me about that recently.
Speaker 1: They gave me some idea that they weren't sure.
Speaker 2: Sorry, two weeks.
Speaker 3: It's it's not shipping yet. I actually I've got my
Speaker 3: paper kit bat copy. Is actually your your paperback copy
Speaker 3: went in the mail today to you. Wonderful Okay, So
Speaker 3: it's uh, it's it's closed.
Speaker 2: Actually it should be.
Speaker 3: I think Amazon says they're beginning deliveries in two weeks,
Speaker 3: shipments in two weeks, so it's close.
Speaker 1: Okay. So when Larry says two weeks, it's not Trump's
Speaker 1: two weeks. So within a couple of weeks or within
Speaker 1: a month or so, you and I will probably be
Speaker 1: discussing at least, you know, take one conversation. Unless you know,
Speaker 1: things get really crazy and other subjects that we might discuss.
Speaker 1: Will probably take the time to discuss the update on
Speaker 1: the Oswald Puzzle, which I highly recommend. But Larry's written
Speaker 1: about a great many other things, and maybe tonight's discussion
Speaker 1: would relate more to shadow warfare, surprise attack creating chaos
Speaker 1: for various reasons. Did I miss something, Larry.
Speaker 2: Now that covers it pretty well?
Speaker 1: Okay, So any final word before we're done, or do
Speaker 1: you think we've done a good enough job with this?
Speaker 1: I ran you over a little over an hour, and
Speaker 1: I always got to apologize for it. Sorry about that,
Speaker 1: but we also started late. So here I am taking
Speaker 1: up a lot of Larry's time, and I appreciate that
Speaker 1: you granted to me so generously and kindly. But anything
Speaker 1: you want to add before we're all done.
Speaker 3: Now, I just I would encourage people to look at
Speaker 3: some of the like we talked about tonight.
Speaker 2: It's good.
Speaker 3: You know, the mainstream media at this point in time
Speaker 3: is very politically oriented. It's really missing some of the
Speaker 3: I mean, since we're engaged in a war, right, it's
Speaker 3: still primarily talking politics, it's not talking military. So I
Speaker 3: just follow up on some of this dialogue that's going
Speaker 3: and what's really happening in the military domain is important
Speaker 3: for the longer term. You know how, whatever we declare
Speaker 3: in terms of victory right now, there is a longer
Speaker 3: term to be concerned about, and it has to do
Speaker 3: with actually what we talked about.
Speaker 2: This is a new type of projection of force.
Speaker 3: It's a new world in terms of how you're going
Speaker 3: to be projecting power in terms of using actually inexpensive
Speaker 3: long range weapons that are highly, highly selective. It's just
Speaker 3: if you folks haven't been involved in following what actually
Speaker 3: Ukraine is doing to Russia, then you're missing it because
Speaker 3: they are. They are taking them apart at the seams
Speaker 3: right with cheap long range weapons.
Speaker 1: And there you have it. Warfare has changed, and you
Speaker 1: know what happens when you fall behind the times. So
Speaker 1: once again, thank you Larry Hancock for helping us once
Speaker 1: again to give a better analysis then you're gonna get
Speaker 1: anywhere else. I think this is a propaganda free analysis
Speaker 1: actually of the conflict in Iran and around the Middle East.
Speaker 1: And I hope you the listeners appreciate it as much
Speaker 1: as I do. And it's not due to anything that
Speaker 1: I did except ask a few awkward questions and interrupt
Speaker 1: Larry here and there, but I do my best to
Speaker 1: frame what Larry is is conveying to us because it's
Speaker 1: extremely informative and important. So to end this particular Thursday
Speaker 1: night discussion, I say, I am merely o'celly. All of
Speaker 1: you are the effect. Please support the network. I am
Speaker 1: having a hard time right now, and you know, I
Speaker 1: really don't want to be sitting here tearing my hair
Speaker 1: out on my birthday, which is in less than a week,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how to keep things running. So
Speaker 1: please do utilize what I have left for being able
Speaker 1: to support me because I'm not getting paid for memberships
Speaker 1: anymore or anything else that I used to. So it
Speaker 1: is your direct support that will keep us running or
Speaker 1: not in the very near future. So please do that,
Speaker 1: and thank you for listening once again everybody, and thank
Speaker 1: you Larry for indulging me for yet another hour plus
Speaker 1: as we try and make our way through the current
Speaker 1: and past three houries.
Speaker 8: M M.
Speaker 9: M M.
Speaker 10: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 11: Radio Wall Street dot dot Wall Street, Windows dot com
Speaker 11: dot com.
Speaker 1: Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, gives
Speaker 1: you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall street, dot dot
Speaker 1: go there, now go there, now there now nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 1: You know what uranium is, right?
Speaker 12: You think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 12: of You know what uranium is, right? Bad things things
Speaker 12: are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 12: You know what uranium is, right, I've been agree nuclear
Speaker 12: holocaust is nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 7: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 12: Next think called nuclear weapons and other things like blood.
Speaker 7: Say you know what uranium.
Speaker 1: Is, right?
Speaker 12: Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad
Speaker 12: things nuclear holocaust, nuclear hololear Holocaust, nuclear holocaust, nuclear holocaust,
Speaker 12: nuclear Holois.
Speaker 9: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 9: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 9: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 9: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 9: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 9: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 9: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 9: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 9: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 9: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 9: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 9: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 9: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 9: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 9: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 9: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 9: up against. For more information, The War State dot com
Speaker 9: the use.
Speaker 1: Expressed by caller schools, there anyone else who happens to
Speaker 1: get on the air of Jelly dot Com do not
Speaker 1: necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot Com or Jeff Jelly,
Speaker 1: and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might ensued.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Your here.
Speaker 7: In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks
Speaker 7: by Larry Hancock. Secret Wars became a state the US
Speaker 7: covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In
Speaker 7: Denial rips the cover.
Speaker 1: Off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 7: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 7: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 7: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 7: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 7: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 7: In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 7: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 1: Pick up your copy of In.
Speaker 7: Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical for you.
Speaker 1: The first double nigga I ever met in my life?
Speaker 10: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 10: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 10: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 10: new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes
Speaker 10: to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam
Speaker 10: War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen
Speaker 10: forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today
Speaker 10: at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 13: Swanson dot Com Radio Network Chili dot Com.
Speaker 14: Pledge allegians a false flag of the never United Manic
Speaker 14: state of Maguel.
Speaker 15: Grida, write Orange Margarita, one nation beneath the anti Gods
Speaker 15: and anything that would team worthy of ranting Completely divided,
Speaker 15: explaining algorithms animized without the liberty to speak freely and
Speaker 15: justice probably the elite that can afford to rite, but
Speaker 15: not home justice with a sale That transuit is tech
Speaker 15: pro a sex Docky tell as.
Speaker 16: The opportunity to be slaughtered by the systems that be
Speaker 16: is for the rest of us all.
Speaker 5: Don't forget that, don't we are right? The life country
Speaker 5: we us might make it sold.
Speaker 14: The penalty will be the punishment for.
Speaker 6: Terrory to burn the flag of war.
Speaker 14: Already place will make shirt or Jesus gets a third
Speaker 14: tun because tatiest guy.
Speaker 15: So it's for raging ranges.
Speaker 16: Of techno crazing romas sky that's worker and Jesus wept
Speaker 16: as we save ourselves from communism and fascism with Leo
Speaker 16: equal fascism and kryptocracy is in the new drug Bible.
Speaker 14: Body where the anti Christ is a.
Speaker 5: French gender or and babylon as franchises that barely include
Speaker 5: a truck tower and a.
Speaker 14: McDonald's in every new city of the prison.
Speaker 16: For profit planet.
Speaker 2: Bother budding.
Speaker 5: Do not LOLd justice with a seat on the trans human.
Speaker 5: It would not loan justice with a seed on a transument.
Speaker 8: Is that bro?
Speaker 5: Oh, don't forget that we are right to life.
Speaker 14: Don't forget that though we are right to life, country,
Speaker 14: we just might make it so the death penalty will be.
Speaker 5: The punishment for that. Read to burn the flag off
Speaker 5: the true so ready.
Speaker 14: Ways will make shirt or Jesus gets a third son
Speaker 14: because that is God's sooice for rachel oranges and woh
Speaker 14: that no crazy promise.
Speaker 15: Look, the anti Christ is a transgender whore, and Babylon
Speaker 15: has franchises that merely include a.
Speaker 16: Foot Tower and a McDonald's vision New City.
Speaker 2: The vision to the.
Speaker 1: Effect decide is broken.
Speaker 5: Revelation to conversation must.
Speaker 1: Lie so.
Speaker 6: Fact revelations on the sasa a devastation, revelation conversation are
Speaker 6: the effecta conversations.
Speaker 5: Demonstrator hotel fact Melissa.
Speaker 6: A Titian through converse, Oh shall effect revelation on the
Speaker 6: face gone had forgotten. I show you in fact beyond
Speaker 6: the places and sears lirror of the shade.
Speaker 5: Yet the years finds that shall find me. I'm afraid,
Speaker 5: and that is not a brave decate charge. The scroll
Speaker 5: I am the master of my fate, I am the
Speaker 5: chant of my soul.
Speaker 6: Show only of fact, revelation const propaganda Horse continued cashing
Speaker 6: in and.
Speaker 5: Teach us about religion, keeping score at home. Are people
Speaker 5: you'd like to see even by wolves, dishropped.
Speaker 6: Dying soon the cagles, my taco tips and his continued
Speaker 6: golf storming tour and winning a streak, says.
Speaker 5: God sparred him and decided to firefighter dies.
Speaker 6: In the.
Speaker 5: Revelation conversation affect, you are the effect. You are the
Speaker 5: effects revelation to conversation. Ball's praise.
Speaker 1: No straights, no.
Speaker 5: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 6: Through conversation.
Speaker 5: I'm all raised.
Speaker 6: Restraints tell affect revelation through conversation, through conversation, all restraints,
Speaker 6: I'll tell you effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 8: Time as the dead from pole, whatever done for my
Speaker 8: undocable soul in the constant circumstance, I have not WinCE, NOI.
Speaker 5: Allow needs a chance. My head bloody out. You are
Speaker 5: the effect, the actually effect revelation, true conversation, revelation, conversation.
Speaker 7: Effect.
Speaker 5: You are the effect. You are the effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 5: Ball's praise, No restraints of.
Speaker 6: Revelation to conversation, true conversations. Restraints all tell effect revelation
Speaker 6: to conversation through conversation.
Speaker 5: All restraints will tell effect. Revelation to conversation.
Speaker 8: L Break, Bradwater, wilnother john Bars.
Speaker 4: Lead us to the front of Macamania and from the
Speaker 4: merger every made in China, South phil in the States
Speaker 4: for nothing legitim and we stand broken nation and morally
Speaker 4: wake rock God, divide it nothing but muscle brain for doubt,
Speaker 4: remember being something denied for all because Lena is all,
Speaker 4: rather than knock on.
Speaker 6: It for foul ideas for coming for me on the
Speaker 6: coming yacht last but not a better bit of brought by.
Speaker 5: Or something with not as the golfers of the Laitue
Speaker 5: practice gold Ships.
Speaker 17: Made him be a non simultaneously deprecated from a hole
Speaker 17: in an actual real estate. Let the Queen's waiting more
Speaker 17: US troops coming to.
Speaker 5: A police state nears you, replacing three.
Speaker 17: Of wood maca no constitution two point all the biogas
Speaker 17: the free wo who lacks that, the cast of byant
Speaker 17: bond and.
Speaker 5: The walking from center of bathering and had this massive trump,
Speaker 5: the crump puffing and.
Speaker 17: The water rime by play the fact for appen Merphy
Speaker 17: from the gold be casting.
Speaker 5: Songs, the elder breaks Tico for candle.
Speaker 14: And leged brial Man's man of the Manisphere of.
Speaker 6: Rodes bond people and Donna rolls forty stars off brains
Speaker 6: and no fast chicks.
Speaker 5: Also no fast buffelt sens in no case you mean fit.
Speaker 17: Absolutely no ticks with dicks, says on the door street
Speaker 17: of sit for Listrid nor Christmas Batay physical bankrupt to
Speaker 17: your frump frame and something.
Speaker 5: President here required deligious to a pop flag and then
Speaker 5: a united managed state of Magareta d or you have
Speaker 5: a senior raiders would they've been breaking new?
Speaker 17: Yet the Don and Maggie Piper me more than you're
Speaker 17: prating completely divine.
Speaker 6: It's blending some auber weapons out of my dumb the
Speaker 6: lever and a break freely and nothing's.
Speaker 5: Only r leading to a fer render. Oh Jack never
Speaker 5: owns nothing, see a self transhumanist some us good double
Speaker 5: plus good. Is no God because now I thought the
Speaker 5: little reeman reduning forth the pocracy.
Speaker 6: Old Christian and you are Scottish for God down whether
Speaker 6: you do know anything, I'll come back in books unaware
Speaker 6: of that shoal water.
Speaker 5: Jack brow facous is.
Speaker 17: The hell flotter b is then be uncle one and
Speaker 17: never all.
Speaker 5: President's not going to brief these blessing, let's be blessing.
Speaker 5: Not the man got a ship things Sand's like Jesus back,
Speaker 5: sun of beach around me without.
Speaker 17: Eyes, demanding the peace or form, but never bend ignores
Speaker 17: with course and what was that?
Speaker 5: Children?
Speaker 13: Crazy?
Speaker 17: I feel trauma Buddhist never random evil, never random offer the.
Speaker 5: Riot of somn profession. You prease agreement to relatives against thanks.
Speaker 2: For boss and no advancement resy that thass reading the.
Speaker 6: Soviet bond or a dance and it's my thanks, thanks
Speaker 6: and about them finding faith.
Speaker 2: To increase peace.
Speaker 5: Bucket brains off by this praise.
Speaker 6: You're reading your milissidium, the putorically relative world's third bart.
Speaker 5: The U real Boss and the late set the parting
Speaker 5: with both blinds do and re sists. Fuck you back