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