¶ Introduction and Context of Venezuela's Situation
Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Molroy. I'm Dmitri con tacos uh a little bit of housekeeping. Nick's got a new podcast called The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. It's about all about stoicism. Has got a great co host to Adam Pearcy. I listen to that pod every week. Check it out. It comes out on Mondays right Yes, videos comer soon as well. You can grab it anywhere Apple, Spotify,
or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. I'll have a link in the description as well, so check it out there. What's going on? Make a lot happening. It looks like we're about to attack inside Venezuela. I'm still trying to understand why we're doing this. I don't know if I don't know if the American people are really interesting in like another war. Just a little bit of a context. Russia voice support for Venezuela. I don't even know what
that means, Like, what can they even do? Maduro ask for help from allies quote unquote China, Russia and Iran requested defensive radars, aircraft repairs and possibly missiles and parenthesiz is too little, too late. Probably should have asked for this a couple of months ago. A lot of US hardware in the Caribbean. I'm gonna put in like a little graphic. I think that Reuters did that like shows like everything that's going on down there, and it's a ton.
Trump was asked about it, I think on the way back from the China summit or the Asia, you know, his Asia tour. Trump denied it as a fake story. Sets the same thing before we hit the Iranian nuclear sites. So you know, take that for what it's worth. And a little fun fact, this is the largest build up unrelated to the disaster release since nineteen ninety four, when
¶ Military Buildup and Strategic Implications
we had two aircraft carriers and twenty thousand troops deployed to Haiti for Operation Uphold Democracy. So, Mick, you like that little fun fact. It's not really a fun fact, to be honest, but it's kind of shitty fact. But what do you make of this?
So d I mean, we've been talking about this a couple of times. One thing I think most analysts would say is this is obviously far more than what's needed to just strike boat, taking elicit narcotics in the United States right, not that they can't do that, but they certainly don't need They were at eight warships now, which includes several destroyers, cruisers, an amphibious ready group with a marine expeditionary unit, several squadrons being pushed to Puerto Rico,
our strategic bombers doing flights by Venezuela. We have the USS Gerald R.
Ford.
I think it's probably leaving the Mediterranean right now.
It will be.
On station in the Caribbean with its three or four escort vessels, which are all significant by the birthday of my beloved cored is what I'm told October, I mean November tenth, it's supposed to be on station in the Caribbean. That would bring it up to twelve thirteen and a considerable portion over naval essence.
I'm putting up a thing on the screen right now. I'm sharing the screen where it shows a ton of like the action as of I think thirty first so as of Friday night, and it's a ton of shit. I mean, it's more stuff than I think is probably needed. But I mean, we don't even know what's what the plan is, to be honest.
Right the gerald Lot four is d D will tell you is the most sophisticated naval weapons system in the world, right, so, which.
Is good that we have it.
So that's what's happening. People can speculate. There's a lot of speculation on Friday that you know something's going to happen. There was notice to Airman the nottams blocking off restricted airspaces. Apparently that was public, and then of course the White House denied it, and then of course the people who were speculating said, well, that's what they did before we did the air strinths on Iran. So it obviously didn't happen,
or we'd be talking about it right now. But it's clear that to me, at least, we're one or two things. We're trying to set up so much force that it's it's not the terrence, right, I mean, Venezuela wasn't going to attack the United States. Perhaps it is de terrence for these associated ARCO terrorists bring drugs the United States. Maybe if Maduro has direct control of them, he might say knock it off entirely. I don't know if we'd be willing to keep this level of force there if
that's what would cause it. And it is important to point out that if it's truly about narcotics, which is a very worthy cause to go after, it would also include Peru, Columbia, and obviously Mexico. Way, so this seems to be more about either forcing Morduro to leave, go to Cuba or somewhere, or actually set up for a Noriega style operation which would apprehend him. And he's already indicted in the United States and we looked it up
last time. I think he was indicted coming only back to twenty twenty, so that could happen or full man a regime change organically. The problem is it's it's there's
¶ Legal and Constitutional Concerns of Military Action
not a lot of historical references. If we do start bombing that air capacity.
Alone could force change.
Right.
You tend to when you attack the country. The problem is that even those who are disenfranchised with the government tend to rally around the flag, you see what I mean, because it's our country, right. So yeah, So I don't know, I don't know. It just seems to be well beyond anything necessary for counter knock or conducts operation. The rumor around the street is this, this military presence is going to expand to the Pacific, so I know we already do them strikes there, but like this, this force is
also going to expand to the Pacific. So there's a lot of a lot of issues that come with it. I think we're on our fifteenth they won last night. I remember, Yeah, so fifteen strikes, there's a fifty killed. So there's there is the issue of whether we should be pushing for a regime change. There's the issue of whether we should be using lethal whether it's legal right,
whether it's legal. Yeah, there's the other issue of the constitutionality of Congress having no set and I think the White House just came out and said, we don't think the War Powers Act applies there for sixty days, which is in the War Powers Act nineteen seventy three.
I don't understand how that doesn't apply.
Well, that's I mean, if the White House can simply decide on its own whether you know, laws apply or Article one of the Constitution should be triggered or And this is another thing that even Republicans, and as you know, I'm a person, but Republicans are pushing back against. They give a briefing and they excluded Democrats, the and the Intelligence Committee.
Like that.
Wait, wait, come again and say that it one more time. Sorry.
So they gave a briefing on the intelligence that's obviously going into leading to these lethal strikes, and they excluded the Democratic side of the committee.
Jesus. So they gave a breathing to the committee.
Yeah, the Senate Select Committee of.
The Republicans and Democrats.
Correct, yikes, I.
Mean that's not hmember this. I mean, whether you can see yourself one side or the other all this sentence standard. So if you're going to be outraged, if it's if you consider yourself along side of the other, if the other side doesn't, then be outraged. Now yeah, yeah, because I mean, or your outreach is just hypocrisies. You know, in high supply in DC, they come out right to
start with the constitutionality of it. No president, whether it's Trump, President bulla, Bush, President Biden, has ever acknowledged that the War Powers Acts constitution.
I gotcha, right.
So they say Article two, I'm the commander in chief, you can't you can't restrict me.
Yeah.
Congress obviously says, well, we're the ones that declare war. Says we're right in a constitution oracle one, we're the ones that raise, raise armies and navies and a constitution and set the rules. The issue I have is, okay, that's a clear not a conflict, but a clear issue in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, I don't know what else they have better to do than decide what is the core function of any federal government, especially ours, is
a decision to go to war? Now, So if they pass this act, and I think I'm correct in fact checking listeners, I think it's in the seventy seventy three, so we're talking like fifty years, this Supreme Court should and I know they've they've they've they have ruled on part of it, but they just need to rule on the constitutional period. Right, So is the law constitutional based
¶ Potential Outcomes and Historical Precedents
on Oura one of the Constitution and their right to declare war?
Yes or no?
It shouldn't be it should If.
You don't decide, then it's irrelevant. And right now that makes Congress irrelevant because if the executive branch can say we don't care what you have to say, then they can launch wars without any authorization any president, not just President Trump indefinitely. Coos should cut off the money, but they're not going to cut off the money. For the entire Defense Department. It's only does the National Defense Authorization. So anyway, that's that's my plug for today is this should be decided.
In a way that it's not.
About it, right sure, and then the Supreme Court to decide, you know, and if they take away the War Powers Act, then we have the unitary executive when it comes to the power to wage war, which doesn't seem to be what the you know, the far right the political spectrum has been saying for several years now should be the case. So they're going to be promoting something that they were saying that they were saying the opposite. But that's their issue.
The issue that I think for Americans is what is the actual constitutionality of the US going to war not going to war? Limitations on that? When do they have to have authorization? And that's a part from the legality of these strikes, right Like, what if I'm not saying we're going to do this, I think it's very unlikely. But what if we're going to have made full on the even change like we did in Iraq?
Can you just just do it? Just raise you know, a quarter million plus troops and then you know, sustain military operations for years at a time without approval of Congress, Like at least the Iraq War was approved by Congress, right, like.
Right, And what I'm what I would be, Well, I'll just pose it to the audience. You say, well, you know, Congress can cut it off, okay, but if the president, any president can launch it, yeah, put out troops there, yeah, until it runs out of money, and then go to Congress and say, hey, you're gonna cut off the troops
in the field they're fighting right now. Right, that's a different that's a different conversation, right, What if you're Congress is going to like, no, we shouldn't be there, but the hell if I'm going right, So it's uh.
It's they're easily tagged, Like you can tag Congress people who are not going to fund like an ongoing military operation as like anti troops and stuff like that. You know, that's the last thing, Yeah, one of the last things of congressman would want or a senator.
Yeah.
So I think that's that's that's what the issues are, at least as I see it. The legality now, I personally think although they don't know, so I'll cavirate with that. That there's no targeter in Defense Department or the CIA that's going to promote striking a target if they didn't have solid charlenge. I just don't see that to be the case. I don't see the military agreeing like we have no idea who these people are and then just pulling the trigger on a hill fire missile killing her.
Oh I listen, I totally agree with you, Like they're absolutely like good at their job and what they do, targeting and carrying it out. But you know, even when you know we had a ton of our bandwidth focused on Afghanistan or Iraq with targeting and stuff, mistakes were made, right and at least Afghanistan in Iraq and even the
¶ Distraction or Genuine Threat?
drone strikes like in the tribal regions of Pakistan are Yeaming or wherever, like going after a Q guys like that was approved by law as COVID operations for the CIA and probably JAYSK to do right. So and but I'm saying, just mistakes are made, and like this isn't like the I know they're bad guys and they're drug runners, but like the cartel boss isn't in those boats, you know what I'm saying, Like it's not you're not really doing anything to stem the flow anyway. Like we've talked
about it before, FENTONYL. Everyone talks about how Fentinel like this scary thing, and it absolutely is. It's deadly. That's made in China, right, I just had a China summit, you know, where Trump met Jijingping. I mean, if you want to call that a win, they're all calling it a win. Literally nothing happened like at all. He rolled back some of the stuff he imposed. So it's like he created a problem then fixed it the problem that he created. It's like we're kind of back at square
one more or less. So I just don't see the I don't see the value in doing this at all. Shoot to nuts with Venezuela.
Yeah, I mean, if I guess if they you know, looking at it from the White House perspective, obviously, Maduro's a dictator, anti democratic, taking a country that you know, has fourteen trillion dollars with a proven oil and gas somehow brought it into the collapse where seven million people had to flee the country because they couldn't find food in company the United States, Right, at least a lot of them if they could show a force that it just gets this guy to flee, and like, who's his
likely success, Machada who just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, it's it's like a made for Hollywood, right. If it worked, I'm not saying she's going to come in and you know, be perfect, although podcaster, we gave her the rufus, which is it's exemplified stoicism, even if she doesn't consider self a stoic, because she is super impressive, and it wasn't not just because she won the I won't be pressed. But so I mean, to their to
their way of thinking, they show a force. If they could do it without even like launching an operation and this guy departs, it's gonna be messy. We all know that it's not just going to be They're gonna lift Machado up and take her down right streets of Caracas and you know we've got world democracy.
No, yeah, it's not gonna everybody.
I'm sure everybody listening knows that the case. But if if it does happen in any semblance of that, I think they would say, okay, so we we show a force and it worked, So whether we're actually gonna be willing to send in there's a special operations vessel. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't all out of the public Ocean Trader that's down there, right. So their reports of the Marines on the on the mew doing a lot of live fire practice, So that could all just be part of the show.
It could be could.
Be just to scare the Jesus out of Maduro and his henchman. It could be to try to get, you know, the people around him to say, you know what, this guy is a big reward on his head. Let's just catch him, turn over the US. He's diet he'll get prosecuted, and you know they'll be rich. We'll avoid the actual conflict they think it's happening. It could be that too. It could be all the above. There's even a report. I have no idea what this jew, but I think
it was. If it is, it's kind of cool that the agency was trying to recruit the pilot for Maduro.
I did see that, Yeah, to just drop them off.
Say hey, this is not you know correct.
I think they did that with the FBI did that with one of al Mayo, the guy from the Sineloa cartel. Like El Chappo's like partner for a long time. Either they I don't know if they like got to the
¶ Comparative Analysis of Global Authoritarianism
pot there his own pilot or like he just charted a jet. But they charted a jet in Mexico and they ended up in Elpaso, Texas. That's where they landed and that's where they arrested them.
Yeah, that's just fun.
Yeah, I mean man.
Miami instead of correct.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, listen, I get it. I mean, I'm sure. But here's another fact, like support, but it's been reported that like Maduro's regime has offered Trump an America and the America America are their oil like deals with them to get and stopping deals with China and Russia, you know, everything that you think that Trump would go for.
And again, like I don't think all this bandwidth, Like you know, I guess it's good for the troops and stuff, and like our jaysack to like spin up and like get some practice, But I don't see the value in this whatsoever. And like, yeah, Machado got screwed over like one hundred percent. But you know, take a map out and point at a country, and you know, authoritarianism's rising everywhere right, it's becoming load, you know. So I don't know.
I just don't. I don't see the real value in this, at least me as a regular American citizen, like I don't want to see guys die like for this ship.
Yeah, that's a very valid concern, right, I mean, any kind of military operations got risk, and this has sixstancial risks. So I mean that's why I think the agency. I don't know what we're what my old group's doing or not, but if they could do something that reduces or removes or risk to military that's one of the best things that the agency could do.
I just don't. Yeah, I don't know.
We'll have to see, and I think, you know, according to a lot of reporting, we might see this week.
Yeah it's gonna happen.
It looks like it's about to happen. And once you hear at least when I hear or Trump saying no it's fake news, it's like, Okay, it's probably happening. I do have this circled and underlined. The word is distraction question mark? Like is this we had Jack Murphy on and Jack Murphy's obviously more of a cynic like I am, is it a distraction, you know, because we can you know, we can get the Florida National Guard together and the
probably take over and fuck up Venezuela militarily. Like why are we picking on a smaller country that it's just like it seems like an exercise in something like I just don't there's no clear path to me, Like I don't buy like I'm going back. I'm saying the same thing I said, but I don't see a clear path as to why we're doing this.
Why absolutely distraction and what other political stuff?
Yeah, yeah, Epstein, you know, I mean if you look.
Back, I mean at the history in the first Trump administration, there was a lot of discussion on this discussion, so this isn't new, so that that would be my argument again,
just be an a distraction to current other stuff. Right, this is very consistent with the way the first Trump administration was going, and then several you know, different personalities in the first Trump administration, I think persuaded President Trump the first away from them, all right, so those personalist don't aren't in this.
That so yeah, that's what I was gonna ask, Like, Okay, I could totally see like the General Kelly's year old boss Jamadis maybe I think he's more like squared away though, John Bolton, you know, the neo Khan, the prototypical neo cons who are like, yeah, let's do it, like you know, the Lindsay Grahams who are like, you know, get so excited when there's an opportunity to bomb a country. Those
guys aren't dar any. I mean John Bolton's under indictment. Like, those guys are not there anymore, right, like the you know the quote unquote and I'll give it. Like, you know, guys like Je Madis obviously the adults and the general Kelly too. You know, those guys are not there anymore. Mick, you were there, right, You guys were like the stage like guys who have been doing this your whole career, right and have an understanding of what really goes on.
It feels a little bit more like just kind of ready fire aim to me, dude, I'm gonna be honest.
Yeah, And I and I know that there was discussions about changing the regime the first administration, but I was the Middle East guy. Sure, But I do think that there was personalitye of time. You mentioned some and I think it's important to point out that, you know, when it comes to generals, uh like General Kelly and General Maddie, at least in my experience, or.
Just military people in general.
You know, people think, oh, they're just gonna be a a hawk, they're generally not. It's got like the Spartans, you know, the Splays actually very hesitant to go to war. Why because they were all very familiar with war, right, So it's easier to be a chicken hawk than than a hawk that's actually been on the battlefield.
So I don't I am.
Talking about them too when I'm talking in general, sure, but I don't know what their position was at the time. So I'm just saying that to counter the idea that there's some kind of distraction that the administration's making up now. I think it's it's been around for a while, That's what I'm saying, So I don't. I think it's actually something they really or whatever they're doing is something that they generally want to do, not for the sake of distraction.
Yeah. So, I mean following the logic right of going after Venezuela because they're narco terrorists and that, and they're socialists. I mean, you don't really you hear that a little bit, but you're not really hearing more about like the drug stuff. That same logic should be applied to Mexico, frankly, because Mexico is like the biggest hub of like drugs into
the United States. There's a reason why they have the biggest cartels Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and you know, every single drug producing state and specifically trying it to it just seems like we're picking on the smallest guy on the block. Bro, That's what it seems like. And I understand it's like, Okay, yeah, Medor's a piece of shit totally, and there's so many, so many pieces of shit in this world, like authoritative dudes, you know.
So that would go to the argument that this is more about regime change, right, Yeah, Mexico elected their president, Yes they do. I think ninety percent of fenhow comes to Mexico. So it's certainly a big, big deal and we should and I think we have designated a lot
of the drug cartels their Mexican base as fnter'sorganization. But the idea of regime change and the country next to us, in the country that elected and you know, I don't know, but I think she's pretty confident, but that's not our choice, right as well as you know, like Colombia, obviously we disagree with the president, but it's a different status than the guy who basically wanted his opposition to in Machado
¶ The Complexity of U.S. Foreign Policy
and then her protege he did run against, who won, and then still said escort. I'm still totally So it's that that would make the argument that this is more about regime change for Venezuela than the overall issue of drugs coming in at the United States, right, so that both are not important.
But yeah, yeah, I just I just don't like it. I'm not a fan of this at all. I get like CIA get to work right covertly with some Jay sock help and stuff like that. You see an opportunity, take it, right, I'm totally fine with. I just don't just bombing fucking Venezuela. Just I don't know to scare this guy too saying I'm done? Is I wishful thinking? I would say.
I've always been a not just because that's the world I come from. A proponent of the agency A first diplomacy, right, diplomacy should always leave the US foreign policy. But then the agency and in some cases jaysock doing everything we can to prevent it from being an actual war. Right. In fact, if we actually have to go to war in some cases, I think that means we fail our mission.
I don't organization, it's not our choice.
But I think there's a lot of goodness in what we do to prevent in all our conflict. Not only for in the case of our military, because a lot of people would die, but whenever we have, especially a conventional well, a lot of people die. A lot of people die, a lot of people they shouldn't die die. I mean civilians that you know are caught in the middle. So I think that is always something that we should
be doing. I'm sure we are, and maybe maybe we haven't been successful, or maybe that's what they're waiting for.
I don't know all there is.
There's also a real question about whether, you know, the biggest democracy, not the biggest, but you know, the oldest democracy in the world should be going around top of the governments. I think you can make an argument either
way is if it's an auto government. But the other the other part of the argument, whether you agree one way or the other, is shouldn't Congress have to say you know, the representative of all the people, right, because it's not that they individually or so boarant but they
represent their whole country, right, every district, every state. They are on the committees whose constitutional duty it is to oversee the Defense Department, CIA, obviously State Department, the weigh in to fund things, to not fund things.
I completely agree. I mean, we've seen more and more of the last see last year or so. This the oldest democracy in the world acting less and less like one, in my opinion. So yeah, we'll see what happens. Likely, if it does happen this week, at some point, we'll be talking about it next week and doing a lack
¶ Nuclear Testing and Its Implications
for lack of a better term, a post mortem on it. All right, Moving on, Trump tweeted or truth social ah after when he was on his way back from South Korea with talks with tishinping about this is so funny calls for nuclear testing again, and I wrote, I'm not gonna write what I wrote. I wrote, I'm gonna say what I wrote in a demented tweet after the summit meeting with Donald Trump some fun facts here. In his tweet, he wrote, other countries have been testing, have testing programs,
they do not. The last confirmed nuclear test was North Korea in September twenty seventeen. The last US nuclear test was in nineteen ninety two, Russian nuclear tests in nineteen ninety and Chinese tests was in nineteen ninety six six, So what the fuck is he talking about, Mick?
So well, let's first look at the options he could be saying.
He could be.
This could be a response to you know, President Putin talking about testing this nuclear powered missile which NATO calls the Skyfall, that that can dropping, it can be a nuclear weapon as well. There's two points, right, So you got nuclear powered weapon systems and you have nuclear weapons. In the case with Russia's the Skyfall, it's both right. So if he's talking about testing nuclear powered means to deliver nuclear weapons, that okay. I mean I don't I
think we already do that. I mean, we have nuclear powered submarines tooling all over the oceans right now, and guess what, they can deliver nuclear weapons, So in a way, we're testing ours all the time. Maybe he's talking about testing something the equivalent of the Skyfall, I would guess, and I don't know, or I wouldn't say that we have something or that we've looked at the skyfall and realize that it's not so important to spend that much
money on. I mean, there's some discussion that it leads a trail of radioactive you know, miss all over.
The place and it's easy to track.
I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then why waste the money doing it?
You know what I mean?
Money building a nuclear reactor on a missile that you're gonna to.
Be tracked all around the world.
Because I don't know if this is the case, but if to give the presence some leadway here, not that he needs it from Mike from Montana, but he might
be talking about that. I'm really talking about their testing, their their means to deliver nuclear powered weapons systems to deliver in nuclear weapons, so away, okay, Or he's talking about testing nuclear weapons, that's where and he just laid out So the NPTP, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Yeah, that essentially would be broken because we would be tested nuclear weapons at a time where we're all concerned of
the expansion of nuclear armed countries. So we have the most effective, I think, most resilient nuclear triad in the world. We have over five thousand nuclear weapons. We can launch them from land, sea, and air and maybe space for all. We have a treaty about space too, But as far as I know, we could right. And it's the most modern. So even though Russia has slightly more like five hundred more or something. Yeah, we have the most modern, most effective.
We can test with computer models, not actually testing them. We're on the driver's seat. So I don't know why we China has what six hundred.
Yeah, I think just over five hundred. But there's where they're worried that they're going to keep keep piled right, and if.
We start testing again, we don't know that's what he meant. So when we're just going on speculation, now we start testing, then China might go, oh cool, now it's a chance to expand our nuclears. Well, they don't haven't done that many tests, and they're not that confident then there in their systems and their weapons, and they might use it to expand greatly and test it and then they're more effective. I mean, the lest thing we need is a more
effective China with new nuclear weapons that have been tested. Yeaight, so that's one problem. It might invite other countries to do the same, or would invite might. Uh, it's against the theory or at least the underlying philosophy of the New Start Agreement, which is going to expire in February, you know, next year.
So a couple of months.
It would cost what I read over one hundred billion dollars just to get the Nevada test site ready to do it, and over one hundred million a piece of tests to do, which is not done by the DoD It's done by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear the National Nuclear Security Administration. Oh, there's a lot of reason. In fact, the reason why I'm wearing all these fancy duds. I'm going on to debate this apparently with a bunch
of other folks on TV. And I asked, I asked the you know, the person that was producing it, Like, is there somebody out there that's really pushing like this is a good idea.
I was just gonna ask that.
Yeah, it's like because they called it a debate, and I said, well, I can get on and discuss it.
Because I'm an analyst. I don't link.
Yeah, but she indicated to me that somebody out there from the US side is going to push nuclear testing, So I don't I don't know how I'm going to be interested to hear that person.
I don't understand. Yeah, I don't get how where you find there we have the most advanced modeling in the world, or you know, at least top two, and uh, let's still blow up nuclear weapons in the desert somewhere, or in the ocean or you know wherever. It makes fucking
¶ The Impact of Nuclear Warfare
no sense because the fact is like, yeah, we're big and bad our military, but we don't want to Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons because we know what's the result. The end result will be like.
Yeah, look at a model of just a limited exchange between say Pakistan and India. Yeah, people go, oh, that would be That'd be horrible for Pakistan India. No, I'll be horrible for the world.
Man.
Like this is it has made massive environmental consequences that could significantly alter the ecosystem of the world and therefore make it a lot more difficult to grow food, right, which millions could die. And I'm not trying to be like you know you're Cassandr or just google it. Just watch the random six models on a limited nuclear exchange and I think you'll see that it's not an exaggeration.
Yeah, we talked about I remember we talked about it when India and Pakistan were getting a little squirrely, like six or months or so back well, and we talked about what a limited exchange would be and it would costs, like like the Americas would get fucked with like our food crops and stuff like that, you know, and like I think it was like twenty million people would die of fucking.
Starvation really bad.
Yeah, like some un goodly number.
Yeah, let alone the people actually impacted and out. If you had a chance to watch House.
Dynamite, I did. Yeah. Did you you liked it?
I did ye. I have my mutual friend of the direct Ugh, what you know.
The movie was great and I have a buddy in that movie. He plays one of the earlier guys in the beginning of his kid Sam Awesome. Yeah, it was really a great speaking role too. Uh. The movie was gripping. I have a problem with Catherine Bigelow a little bit because I'm a movie snob. I've made a movie before and award for her Locker, which, like all military people from the Teamhouse On say, is nonsense, Like.
Jared doctor either well, well let's stick to House of because it's relevant to.
The Sorry, maybe we'll touch on this after. Yeah, House the Dynamite was great. It was super gripping. I love like the different perspectives and stuff. It was a really good movie.
Yeah, my feedback was and it was after the fact. I don't know if she cared or even got.
It, but.
One I would have had a lot more debate, not just because I'm from the intelligence community.
And who did it? Right?
They go into the like should we just newt the world to I mean, they're looking at the three there's always three options.
By the way in the military, you know, and it's like, well who did it?
Like they would be screaming the president down, they would make they would force the icy to say, you tell us your best estimate of who launched dismissal or all the all the talk about what to do about it's irrelevant, right, And I know, I mean I think in the scenario it was launched a sea at sea, probably obscure did it.
But it would be like they'd be retasking every damn satellite They'd be they'd be sending everything that we have floating to that to find out, you know what I mean, like it and they would not have allowed the Icy to say, we don't know, they just wouldn't, right, so and maybe for political reasons.
Yeah, all right, we missed our intercept. Vehicle misses it. It's gonna blow a spoiler, it's going to explode in Chicago. Okay, tell me what my options are now to just fucking nuke everybody.
Like they're not gonna nuke everybody, right, so.
Let's figure out who the like you said, yeah, absolutely.
They would have demanded it. They would have.
They wouldn't have been a pass So I didn't I thought that which should have been added. So the so the other issue not ours, but the Pentagon said, oh no, we would have hit that thing. We have like one hundred percent success, right. I don't think that's I know that's not the case.
Everybody, you're hitting a bullet with a bullet, you're never gonna have a hundred percent success, right, So I don't know if it was would have been to picket like this, we got one shot at and sale that thees, but like to be fair to miss Bigelow is.
Like you would have a movie if they hit it, right. The best okay, yeah, there have been a real really short movie, so obviously they have to make it go through the other thing, which is purely cinematic not technical. Was I think I would have showed the impact, right, because you.
Still don't know.
And maybe she did this on purpose, so maybe she's like, that's why I did it. Whether we're chasing a ghost, yeah, we were're chasing the ghost, but to really have that impact and then maybe not even show what the US response.
Was, Well, they didn't really show the US response.
Because they didn't show the impact. Whether it was actually a missile right, yeah, it by the way, should say spoiler a orner at the beginning.
Well, sorry, guys, it's all right, you're still good. It just switched them my Yeah, yeah, it's a bit low, but that's all right. Yeah. I would say it was totally gripping. Uh, and she's good at that zero. Doc thirty was a good movie. I guess maybe I'm just too connected with Teamhouse and stuff like that to talk to like people, and and and from what I understand is this, and I'm sorry, I know this is your former Ah, heads up, all right, I think we're okay, Yeah,
I think we're Okay, so this is your former outfit, right. Uh. The CIA basically wrote the story for and I think, yeah,
¶ Cinematic Representations of War and Intelligence
like they let him like Parnetta let him in the room, her and Mark Bowl. Uh.
Another another movie you're talking.
Talking about Zero Block You're a Dark third?
Oh yeah, I was.
Yeah, But I mean, listen, how'se a dynamite totally good movie. Should watch it. It's on Netflix, Netflix, send us a check please. Yeah. But so Zero Dark Dirty, just because I know you're in that world and you don't have to say anything. The CIA welcomed he them in and I'm not saying to not get you know, use whatever you can with sources and stuff like that. But it kind of feels like a CIA authorized movie, to be honest.
And it's a cool movie, right, And obviously you're not gonna show the teams of people that have worked on bin Laden and it's better to like anthromorphousies the entire
crew into one person. I understand that for dramatic effect, but I'm not I mean, well, we all know that's not you know, the part where like the enhanced interrogation was like a big thing and that's how it was found and stuff like that, and I'm not gonna say what I think I know, but like I know that wasn't just that right, and I understand the dark history with the intense interrogation and like fact, frankly Cia, people do what the president lets you do, right, and you're
gonna do you know, guys or girls are gonna do what they can to get what they can for the to keep America safe. Like I would do the same thing if I was there. I just it just felt like nonsense. And I everybody I know, at least there was a walk in.
Yeah, I'm a little too close for that to that.
Yeah, if I if.
I start critiquing what's true and what's not, basically, I think if that cinematically.
It was good. I knew a lot of it was accurate as you know public If I would.
Say anything, did sure that was you know, as a person who knew was coming, was you know, out there doing stuff. I'll leave it at that. I knew it was coming for a while and then you know, we carry it off. It's every American was super proud for sure too, and you know I was, and I was one of them. And then you see, like every political figure in Washington tell every possible thing that he knew about it.
I was like, what the why did I mean?
Yeah, I mean obviously we're going to celebrate, you know, getting the guy who as a country.
Uh, definitely, but like why.
Talk about I'm not even gonna say it because it's just justifies or not justifies that. They just said every possible thing that we did, which was awesome, and it had no reason to be in the public space. So if, if anything, since you can't undue time, we should collectively decide like like not to in the future. And it had real consequences on people whose lives have been forever changed totally. Somebody wanted to say something about a person
that would help us and it it. Yeah, so I think I think the movie was cinematically was very well done.
A lot of it was close, but yeah, yeah, you can't really get the specifics and even her Locker was a good movie cinematically. But like when I hear from like guys who were on the ground that were like that there would never be the case, right, I understand you need to take some dramatic license, but with the problem with Bigelow and bol didn't write this new movie, but that guy Mark Bole is I have a problem
with a little bit. He's a screenwriter I think for zero Dark thirty, and I believe hurt Locker I might be wrong. Is they take a lot they act like, oh, I'm a journalist and I got this. This is fact based completely and this isn't this is totally the truth, and it's like it's not completely the truth, so stop talking like it is. Specifically Mark Boltmore, I got a real problem with Mark Bowle. He's a rat in my opinion. So and there's a long history not to have him
to do with me. But bo Bergdall, that whole thing, he's a piece of shit. Yeah, he's a bad guy with what he did with bo Bergdahal because obviously bo Bergdall he did a fucked up thing walking off base. But he's clearly mentally ill. And uh, you know when we were in the Wars, you know, the Army did lower standards and stuff like that, like you couldn't get into the coast Guard and the Army let him in. So shout out to the coast Guard, you know what
I'm saying. So, and this guy just kind of manipulated that kid to be honest, like a kid who was mentally ill, like he manipulated the shit out of him when he got back, and he was he was in captivity for five fucking years on top of that. Can't be good for your mental health. But anyway, I digress. This is me being a nerd like film like movie guy.
Uh, so I do have to jump on my all right, get the hell out of here about why we don't want to trigger a.
Nuclear Yeah, tell him it's a dumb idea for me. Please. I want you guys to check out Make five Boat Low Lowbo Institute.
Uh.
The new podcast link is in the description and our patreon Patreon dot com Slash the Teamhouse. You get Teamhouse episodes and eyes On episodes ad free and early and it helped support the show Mick as always.
I love you, thanks brother. Great to talk to you. Another good episode.
All right, see you hey, guys, how's it going. It's d I want to thank you for watching this show. I really appreciate it. I love for you guys to check out our patreon. It's at Patreon dot com Slash the Teamhouse. The link is in the description, super easy to find if you're listening. It's in the show notes as well. You can find it right there. What do you get? You get AD free audio, AD free video for both Eyes on Geopolitics and the Teamhouse podcast, so
two podcasts AD free for the price of one. You also get the shows a couple of days early on both video and audio, and you have the opportunity to shoot us some message, ask questions whether it's Teamhouse or Izon. We could cover topics and stuff like that. It really really helps support the show. We really appreciate the patrens that are there now. We couldn't do it without you, guys, so consider supporting the show. It's at patreon dot com
slash the Teamhouse. The link is in the description and in the show notes if you're listening to us on audio. Really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.