Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Is Just War Theory Preventing Victory in Iran? | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Is Just War Theory Preventing Victory in Iran? | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A lot of fundamental principles about self, interesting and individual
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: once this is the show. Oh right, everybody, welcome to
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: your own book show on this Saturday, April fourth. I
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: hope everybody is after greet start for the weekend, looking
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: forward to the rest of it. All. Right, Uh so,
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: I thought we we'd kind of take a step back
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: from the war, but still talk about the war from
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: the detailed stuff that's going on as we speak, and
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: and maybe taking more philosophical approach and ask the question,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: you know, is just theory as applied to war, the
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: just war theory? Is it preventing victory? Is it what's
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: holding back there? War's been going on for over a
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: month now. The United States is you know, by long shot,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: overwhelmingly more powerful than you on Why isn't it winning?
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: You know? What is preventing victory? And the question, of
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: course should be asked, is it altruism or in the
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: particular form altruism takes in terms of the way it's
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: applied to war? Is it just war theory? Is just
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: war theory preventing the United States from winning this war? Right?
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: And has has just war theory really been kind of
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: guiding the way this war has been executed from the
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: beginning or not. Now, let me say this, there clearly
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: a fun I do not think Donald Trump cares one
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: iota about just war theory. I don't think Donald Trump
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: is is explicitly guided by altruism. I don't think he
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: knows about it. I don't think he has any sense
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: of it. I think to a large extent, if it
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: was just left up to him, he you know, he
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: quite possibly would just blow you on to smithereens. But
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the reality is that he does not function within a vacuum.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: And of course his narcissism and second handedness, his need
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: to please and uh and and the people who surrounded
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: he surrounded himself with all influenced by it, and and
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: and he gets certain things from the culture that he accepts,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: understand or mostly not understanding it at all. So I,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: you know, I'll say right off the bat, I don't
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: think that Donald Trump is guided by anything like a
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: just war theory for them. And I don't think Trump
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: is guided by any kind of theory. Whereas I do
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: think somebody like George Bush and you know, had an
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: awareness of it. I don't think Trump even has an
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: awareness of it or what it stands for what it represents.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: But I certainly think I actually know the commanders who
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: are running the military operations certainly do because look, this
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: is what started West Point. Indeed, the most common book
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: to be used in teaching moral theory, the morality of war,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: how to engage in war, the philosophy of war, kind
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: of the philosophical approach to war is Michael Waltz's Just
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: an Unjust Was. Michael Waltz is the number one communicator, teacher,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: theorists you know of just both theory or was, at least,
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if he's retired by now
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: or not, but he has been a massive influence on
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: the thinking for the last few decades, suddenly post nine
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: to eleven. And it so every single one of the generals,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: every single one of the senior officers that commands US
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Force today have gone through, have gone through classes that
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: we're taught based on these ideas. These ideas are there
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: there there, Whether they are acknowledged or not, whether the
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: President himself has them or you know, is aware of
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: them as an ideology or not, it doesn't really matter.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: But you know, I don't think, I don't think anything
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: like any kind of theory guides Trump. Right, it's it
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: is emotion and whim as we've discussed many, many, many
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: many times. All right, so let's think about So we're
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: going to talk about just with just war theory. But
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: first I want to talk about victory. I want to
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: talk about what victory means, what victory looks like. Right,
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: And here I think the Trump is failing us in
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: terms of defining victory. And really everybody around is failing
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: because they refuse to acknowledge the fundamental nature of this regime.
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: And this has been true since ninety eleven or way
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: before that. We all and suddenly this administration and previous
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: station refuse to acknowledge that the very nature of this
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: regime is Islamic, that fundamentally this regime is an islam
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: missed regime, that it is motivated by religion. It is
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: driven by a religious vision of the world. It is
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: driven by a belief in the ultimate victory of Islam
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: over the West. It is driven by a belief that
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Islam must should has to it's being commanded by Allah
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: to rule the world. It really has a that kind
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: of ambition, the ambition of ruling the world, of taking
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: over and they are quite willing to, you know, be
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: beaten down and thou rights up again and try again,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: and try again. Because the religious for addicts, they believe
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: that if they die, they're dying for good cause, and
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: therefore they'll go to heaven. And they believe that ultimately
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: they will win, ultimately the decadence of the West, if
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: they can outlash the West, the decadence of the West
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: will kill them, kill the West, and that they will
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: defeat it. The regime in Tehran is an ideological regime.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: It is it believes in this, and there's some percentage
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: of the Iranian population that believes in it to some
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: extent another what percentage I do not know, but some
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: percentage believes this, And what does that mean. That means
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: that if all you're interested in is, I don't know,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: destroying the nuclear destroying their missof capabilities, well you can
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: destroy all that, but if you leave the regime in place,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: if you leave the regime, any Islamist regime, then at
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: the end of the war, they will rebuild. And you say, yeah,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: but we destroyed all their factories. Okay, so they might
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: take a longer time to rebuild, but they will rebuild
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: and they might not have to take a long time
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: to rebuild. I mean, there's stories coming out today that
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: the Chinese are supplying the Ranians with kind of the
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: materials from which they can build mobilistic missiles. What if
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: they just buy the ballistic missiles from the Chinese or
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: the Russians, or buy more drones from those people, and
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: buy what it takes to build the factories. We're not.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: You know, part of keeping this regime will be allowing
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: them to continue to sell oil, which means lots of revenue.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: And yes, the people are suffering, and the economies and shamble,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: but what do they care. They're on a mission from God.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: As the Blue Brothers said, We're on a mission from God.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: They're in a mission from God and nothing will stop them. So,
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: you know, the billions and billions and billions of dollars
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: flowing in from oil, and I'm going to stop The
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: United States has never been able to stop that. And
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Trump doesn't want to stop that because he doesn't want
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: to take Iran off the table as a supply of
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: oil because that'll raise all prices. So I'll have the
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: money to rebuild now, you know, So it won't be
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: victory it'll be partial victory because it'll slow them down.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: It'll take them a long time. By the time they
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: can rebuild abilistic missile capability and maybe the nuclear program
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: and all of that, we're ten, maybe twenty years down
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: the road. And who knows what happens in ten twenty years.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: Maybe by then there's a regime change from inside. Maybe
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: by then, maybe by then we have to go to
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: another war. Who knows. But this is clearly not keeping
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: an Islamist regime in power in Iran is clearly kicking
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: the can down the road. It's what Israel did with
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: Hamas since the Rise of Ramas, is what they did
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: with the Balah since the nineteen eighties. It's what Israel
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: in the United States have done with Ian for the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: last forty seven years. Kick the can down the road.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: There's only one way to win. That is, there's only
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: one way that defines victory, not for twenty years, but
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: forever victory. Victory means you don't have to do it again.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: You've won. Buss There's twenty years a piece. Yeah, well,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: that's what they said after World War One. There's the books.
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: Twenty years a piece didn't land up too good for them,
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: because after those twenty years, that's something even worse. So yeah,
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: why not end it? So victory in my view means
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: regime change. There's no victory without regime change. Now you
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: could keep the regime and destroy the oil that maybe
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: would also be considered victory, right, and make it so
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: they can never rebuild it. That is, keep bombing their
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: oil in that sense, your continuous war until you drive
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: them into complete adjunct poverty and they then you know,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: there's regime change implicit than that. I guess that constitute
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: victory as well. So victory has to mean that, you know,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: Iran is no longer ruled by any Islamic regime. It
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: doesn't really I don't think it matters who replaces them
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: that much. It matters to the Iranians, but in terms
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: of the United States or even Israel, it doesn't matter
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: that much who replaces them. As long as they're not Islamist,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: as long as they're not committed to Sharia law and
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: exploring that globally and taking over the world, it doesn't matter.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: It could be a military dictatorship, it could be a monarchy.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: It it could be something good like a constitutional monarchy
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: or a liberal democracy. It would be fantastic. But one
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: thing is clear. At the end of the war, however
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: long it takes a month, a year, two years, five years,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: whatever it takes. The mulahs, the religious authorities are not
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: ruling Iran. The IGC, which is rooted in the ideology
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: of Islam, is not ruling Iran. Maybe the military is.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: Maybe some other military element, maybe have a formed ILGC
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: that is no longer linked to an Islamist core is ruling.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: That would be victory. Everything else will be good bias,
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: some peace, but it won't be victory. It won't be
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: the kind of geopolitical change that I've talked about that
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: really shifts things, not just in Iran, in the entire
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: Middle East and shifts things in Europe. If you don't
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: completely crush it, you're going to lose a lot of
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: You're gonna lose a lot of the respect of Gulf states.
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: It's hard to tell how they go h And of course,
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: you know, you're still giving energy to the Islamist cause
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: in the rest of the world. So victory means these
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: guys are gone. They're gone, and an alternative regime has
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: replaced them. All Iran is so weak and crippled that
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: it has no sources of revenue, it can rebuild, it
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: cannot buy ballistic missiles and Chinese it cannot do anything.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: But then it would that would mean a complete destruction
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: of its capacity to produce and sell oil. And maybe
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: that's what Trump means when he says, in forty eight hours,
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: you know they're going to destroy Euon's infrastructure. I believe
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: it when I see it. But that's what victory would
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: would entail. It's not enough to degrade missile and nuclear capabilities.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: It's not enough to cripple regime command and control. It's
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: not enough to destroy, you know, infrastructure. Victory is full
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: regime change, whether it happens now or it happens two
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: months after it's over, three months after it's over. That
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: you make them so weak that regime change is inevitable.
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: That is what it is. And to really do that,
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: to do it successfully, would really involve identifying the nature
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: of the regime, which I think some commentators do. I
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: think these Raelis have some understanding of it, but we
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: don't see it. Unfortunately from the Trump administration. They haven't
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: identified the essential religious nature of the regime, and that
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: the essential religious nature of the regime. That is what
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: has to end, that is what has to no longer
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: exist for true regime changed to happen. So that's a
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: victory part. Now the question is is just well theory,
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: what is preventing us from achieving that victory? And Manswer
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: is going to be some what somewhat not completely. There
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: are other reasons that have to do with Trump, uniquely
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: with Trump, and you know just what theory has a
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: role to play, and we'll see we'll see that in
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: a minute. I mean also know that this is this
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: is basically about the US, because I don't think I
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: think for the United for the Israel by itself to
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: achieve Israel by tough could achieve victory, but without the
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: United States. But that would entail complete destruction, economic destruction
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: of you on, That would entail the destruction of all
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: the oil fields, the destruction of the capacity to export oil.
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: It would it would entail Israel doing a lot more
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: than it's done, and a lot more than it did
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: in June, a lot more than it's ever said it
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: would do. It would really entail UH crushing this regime
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: and and it would entail maybe a very very long
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: war in which it degraded their ability to uh to
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: kill their own people so that they could rise up
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: against them. And it's not clear Israel could sustain a
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: very long wolf for a lot of reasons, one of
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: them being the fact that the Iranians keep lobbing missiles
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: into Israel. Is Ultimately, even if it doesn't kill a
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: lot of people, it ultimately just makes life unsustainable in Israel.
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: It makes life too difficult in Israel, and it has
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: to be an endgame for Israel in terms of when
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: those missiles stop flying. So I don't think Israel can
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: achieve the kind of victory that we're talking about by itself.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: It just doesn't have the military capacity and the time
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: to do it. Whereas the United States has volume, has
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: just capacity. Israel has no B fifty twos, no B twos,
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: no b ones, no big bombs, and it doesn't have
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: I mean, the United States is closer because of the
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: aircraft carriers and because of bases in the Gulf, and
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: also because it can fly many of its bigger airplanes
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: from Europe. Israel as far very difficult war for Israel.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: Israel the best Israel can do, and the best is
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: all tends to do. With Iran as compared to Ramas
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: and Chrisbella, who they can actually defeat, is to buy time.
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: But he noticed even in Risbela's case, Israel earlier yesterday,
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: the day before, a major senior officer in the Israeli
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: Army said, look, we're not going to be able to
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: disarm Risbola. That cannot be a goal for the war end.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: Israel is not trying to achieve victory in Lebanon, and
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: they admitted it. They admitted it this week. Is those
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: trying to degrade and it hopes for us for settlement
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: with Lebanon, so that ultimately the Lebanese army disarms Risbola.
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: So and and and and by the way, one of
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: the things is those discoveries that Risbella still has a
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: lot of capabilities, many more capers, ladies that need expected
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: after the last three years of war with chrisbeld. So
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: it's not trying to win even that war. And that's
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: right close by in And it hasn't won the war
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: with Kamas yet. It's it's in better shape with Hamas
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: than anywhere else, but it hasn't won it yet. So
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: victory requires destruction, complete destruction of your opponent is all
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: is challenged in doing that. It's a small country with
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: the small military, incredibly powerful, incredibly competent, but small Israel
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: will not occupy all of Lebanon, which you know might
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: be what is necessary at least based on what just
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: war theory demands of you. In order to completely this
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: on Grisbel and again Chrisbel ramas the reason they keep
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: going in spite of getting thrashed and thrashed and thrashed
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: and thrashed. The reason they keep going, which the West
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: does not understand. The reason they keep going is their religiosity,
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: the fanaticis ideology. Chris Bola doesn't have a claim on
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: the land of Israel. They're not fighting for them going
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: back to their home somewhere, their Lebanese the other states.
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: They're fighting because they believe in an Islamist cause. Bus says,
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: this is very sad what happened in Lebanon. BB promised
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: Risbolah got kicked out of South Lebanon, but we found
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: out it's not true. Allow me to laugh. Was because
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: the very statement BB said, I mean that should be
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: enough to cause you to doubt the truth of whatever
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: comes after BB said. BB has said Hamas was pacified,
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: BB said, then I'm interested in attacking Israel. BB said
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: many times that, you know, he won the war in Lebanon.
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: What is a twenty whatever? You know the past wars
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: in Lebanon. BB has said many, many, many things throughout
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: his you know, twenty plus years, twenty five years in politics,
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: and most of them have been untrue. So why anybody
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: would be surprised that this turned out to be untrue
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: as well is beyond me. All right, let's talk about
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: justico theory. So what does j justico theory argue now, man?
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: But justical theory is a and it's always in a
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Catholic ideology that has been secularized. It was first proposed
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: by Augustine and it is basically the application of Catholic
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: or Christian morality to the fighting of wars. Two aspects
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: of fighting a war. When is it just to fight
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: a war? When is it right to engage in warfare?
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: And second, once one is engaged in warfare, how should
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: one do it? What is model and whether it is
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: not model in one's conduct during a war? Right? So one,
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: when is it okay to be in a war? Two?
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: You know the what how should one behave while fighting
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: in the war. Now, let me note that there are
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: a lot of different versions of just war theory. You know,
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: Augustine might have said that it weren't off defense is
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: not justified. You used to turn the other cheek, But
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: a war to convert Pagans to the Christians might yes
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: be justified. So I mean, we're not going to go
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: through all the different brands of a Christianity. We're just
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: gonna deal with I guess the prevalent of you today
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: by the secularized version of just war theory, the kind
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: of brand that is basically used by that is taught us,
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: taught in the US military academies. And I have to
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: admit I'm not up to date and what's being taught today,
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: But I have no reason to believe anything has changed
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: really in the last twenty years. Last time I looked
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: at this carefully in terms of what is actually being
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: taught was twenty years ago. But again, no reason to
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: think that this is this that much has changed. So
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: what is what is? When is it okay? Let's start
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: with when is it okay to go to war and
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: then apply it to the case to yourn. And there
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: has to be a just cause, there has to be
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: a just cause. And suddenly, you know, one just cause
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: for a war is self defense. And we will get
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: to that, right, what is We'll get to talking about
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: self defense more. But it has to be you being attacked.
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's click cut, right, So self defense, you're
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: being attacked, you have to defend yourself. So par harbor,
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: you've just suffered pro harbor, you're at war with Japan.
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: That's a you know it just cause? That is that. Yeah,
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: that's okay, but that's beyond that. What else would constitute
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: a just cause? Well, it can't be furthering your interest
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: in any kind of way because that would be selfish.
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: And now that would be self interested. Just causes going
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: to be things like stopping a genocide, protecting the innocence
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: in some country, the innocence in some country where they're
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: being slaughtered, maybe even by their own regime. So regime
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: change not because it'll help you, but regime change because
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: it'll help that population. Anything to help your neighbor, your
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: neighbor's being attacked. So, for the most part, just cause
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: is other than self defense, which is the one self
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: interested activity you can engage in. Not according to Augustine.
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: But according to most modern just for theorists, you can
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: engage in it right. You can go to war if
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: the cause is is just by the standard of altruism right,
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: and you have to. You can only engage in a
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: war if you have legitimate authority to engage in that war, which,
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: for example, in the United States case would mean getting
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: permission from Congress, but has often been interpreted as particularly
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: by the left, and was even interpreted like this by
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: a Judge Bush Junior and senior is a legitimatetholity would
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: do something like the UN or your allies approval. This
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: is the whole idea of forming coalitions. So you have
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: to have other people helping you out. You have to
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: other people's permission to engage in this. You have to
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: have legitimate authority of their community of nations. Less so
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: in the United States often does not ask for legitimate authority,
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: but i'd say is applied to the US in a
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: legitimate way. This would mean legitimate thoity means Congress you
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: have to write the right intentions, and the right intention
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: means it can't just be self defense. It can't just
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: be regime change to whatever is in my interest. It
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: can't just be destroying the capacity to wage war against me.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: It has to be somehow beneficial to the other. It
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: has to be driven by altruism according to just war theory. Right,
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: so bring democracy to you Ork, liberate Iranian women from
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: no Iranian women, Afghan women from the Taliban, those right intentions. Right,
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: So it has to be something that goes beyond your
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: own self interest. Again, this is what's taught at our
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: military academies. And finally, it has to be a last resort. Right,
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: It should never be there's a threat, take it out,
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: destroy it, get on with life. No, it has to
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: be a last resort. You've tried everything else. So let's
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: think about this particular rule and how it's up. And
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: you know, we want attack by Iran or at least
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: not directly, at least not anytime recently. Right, They've attacked
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: us in the past, and they attacked us overseas. They've
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: never attacked us in US soil, not directly. Maybe they
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: paid somebody to try to assassinate Trump. Maybe they've done
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: a terrorist attacks here, but it's always indirectly. So is
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: an act of self defense, you know, just to what
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: theory would say, probably not. And this is why if
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: you remember, there's a lot of talk about was the
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: imminent threat because they didn't launch an attack on us,
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: So the only other explained only other justification I just
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: cause would be his name, imminent threat. Are they gonna
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: launch nuclear weapons any minute unless we engage? And noticed
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: that that played a huge role in the justification. I mean, indeed,
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump and some is lacky, some of the people
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: who work frame I mean made up stories about imminent
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: threat in order to try to frame what they did
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: in just war theory terminology, even though there was no
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: imminent threat. There was no more threat now than there
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: was a couple of months ago, there would have been
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: two months later. I mean again, I don't think what
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: motivated them was just with theory, but they felt like
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: they had to use the language. They had to justify
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: it somehow in the terminology of imminent threat. They were
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: going to they were developing nuclear weapons in a week.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: And of course a lot of the critics of the
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: war were again frame their arguments from a just war
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: theory perspective a critical of Trump because they go, you're
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: lying there was no wominent threat, and of course they're right,
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: he was lying there was no wominent threat, so it
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: discredits instead of saying, no, there was no imminent threat.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: But there was a threat, and we hold the right
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: to defend ourselves from threats, imminent or not. Now's as
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: good a time as any to take care of this threat.
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: So we're taking care of it. That was not said,
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: because that would take us outside of what's acceptable given
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: the dominance of just what theory and altruism in our culture,
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: particularly among our intellectuals. And then, you know, does it
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: have the right intentions, right goals? I mean this too.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: They've hesitated it about how they want to frame it.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: So first they've not identified victory properly. They've identified it
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: only as getting rid of that imminent threat, but they
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: have not identified it, you know, properly in terms of
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: getting rid of an Islamist threat to the West, getting
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: rid of an Islamist threat to the United States, and
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: it's allies you're placing this regime, making it impossible for
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: them ever to pose a threat to the West. Not
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: quite in those terms. But the most interesting one is
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: last resort. And this has to do a lot with
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: the negotiations and negotiations and negotiations and continued negotiations even now,
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: you know the constant deadlines, there has to be a
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: last resort. You know, you have to prove to the
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: world out there that you tried everything. And even there
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: people are attacking the Trump administration from again this perspective,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: a last resort perspective. And say, wait a minute, the
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: negotiations were going on. Some people claim progress was being made.
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: Why did you launch now? Why couldn't you wait a
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: little bit? Did Israel drag you into this? It's Israel's fault,
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: maybe it's not your fault. And and and we'll see
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: what happens if things don't work out well in Iran.
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: We'll see if Trump throws Israel under the bus or not,
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: throws Bbntil under the bus or not. We'll see. I
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: don't know. But it's it's a way out for him
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: that a lot of people on the right will embrace
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: because they can't wait to blame the Jews, uh for
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: for for this. So the constant negotiations, rounds and rounds
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: and rounds, and and you know, is partially to prove
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: it's a last resorts, but it's also partially because I
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: think Trump really believes in negotiating and part of this
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: idea of negotiating and cutting a deal is his unwillingness
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: and his lack of unders standing of the nature of
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: an Islamist regime. There is no deal to be had
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: with such a regime. There is no deal to be
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: had with such a regime. But he believes there's a
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: deal to be had with anybody. He doesn't have valued
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: regimes based on their evil, based on their ultimate goals.
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: He doesn't take that seriously. He doesn't think in those terms.
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: He doesn't believe that ideology matters. He thinks in well,
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: what's in it for me and what's in it for them?
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: And they don't want to destroy their country. They want
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: an out, And yeah, they don't care about destroying their country.
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: They believe they're all going to heaven. Why would they care.
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: This is, by the way, why they cannot ever get nukes,
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: because they really don't care about the destruction of their
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: own country. So mutually they should. Destruction works with North Korea,
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: it works with Russia and China. Usually a sure destruction
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: does not work with religious fanatics, does not work with
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: religious fanatics. So Trump, luckily, I think, for US, ignored
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: just war theory in launching the war, but played into
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: it in that he's always looking for a negotiated settlement.
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: He dragged it out by the way he could have
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: done everything he's doing now could have been done last June.
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: It would be over by now. Everything was ready. There
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: was bombing you already bombed you ran. Israel had established
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: the same kind of superiority. They were killing leadership. You know,
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: everything was there last year. But now Trump wanted to negotiate,
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: wanted to give them one more chance, more chances, more chances,
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: more chances. Ultimately he made the decision that you know
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: how to tell exactly why he made this decision. Maybe
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: to distract people from his low poll ratings, I don't know.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: But he made the decision ultimately that he'd had enough
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: and that war was the only option, and he went
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: for it. But just war theory was always there in
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: the way it was explained, justified, and in the fact
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: that it was at least they try to argue that
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: it was a lost result, all right, So that relates
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: to going to war. Now, in war, what are we
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: allowed to do in war? And here there are two
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: guiding principles according to just war theory. One is proportionality
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: and the other is discrimination, and discrimination means the discrimination
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: between combatants and non combatants. Now what is what is proportionality.
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: Proportionality means that your response needs to be in a
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: war needs to be proportional to the threat that you face.
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: You know, if they have, you know, ballistic missiles, you
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: can use ballistic missiles against them. You know the fact
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: that they have that they are developing nukes, You could
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: do proportionally a lot to prevent them getting nukes because
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: nukes are proportionally huge. But it is interesting right now
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: that you know, proportionality is being stretched right now because
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: the United States has such dominance, has so many war weapons,
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: has such capabilities that proportionally speaking, there is no proportionality.
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: Right The United States has a lot more than the
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: Anians do and can do a lot more damage, a
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: lot more damage. It's not even close. So you know,
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: you could argue that the war right now is quote
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: violating the just war theory idea of proportionality, which I
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: think is a ludicrous idea. Right again, from perspective of
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: an egoist, from perspective of self interest, rational self interest.
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: You want to war this disproportionate, you want to overwhelm
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: your enemy. You want to make it quick short, you know,
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: and you want victory as fast as possible. And if
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: that means using overwhelming force I eat disproportioned force, then
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: you should do it. You should do it. But I
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: do think per personality is playing in somewhat. We're not
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: seeing the full capabilities of the United States in terms
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: of what they're capable of bombing. The BEE fifty twos
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: are out there, but primarily bombing remote locations with deep
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: tunnels and stuff like that. They're not bombing in Tehran
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: with B fifty two's. I mean, imagine how scary that
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: would be. So far, they haven't bombed a lot of
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: infrastructure which is completely available to them. They have not
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: overwhelmed Iran in a way that would, you know, encourage
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: whoever's in power to completely surrender. Though it's hard. It's
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: hard to imagine what would you have to what you
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: would have to do to get any Islamist to surrender.
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: I don't know if that's possible, and that should be
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: thought about in advance. Is it even possible for an
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: Islamist regime run by religious fanatics to surrender? I mean
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: it was impossible for Hitler of it to surrender. No,
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, you'd rather commit suicide. And Hitler wasn't the
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: kind of religious fanatic these people are now. I will
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: say that I'm impressed by a lot of what's happening
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: in a sense that they are bombing things that in
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: the past, past administrations, past yeah, past administrations would not
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: have bombed, would not have taken out. I think Israel
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: in particular has found, you know, has rejected just both
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: theory in a way that I don't think any other
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: army has, and has embraced kind of a a self
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: interested approach to much of its fighting that is new
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: to the Israelis. And I think this is particularly evident
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: in their willingness to kill the leadership of the Ranian
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: of Yuan. And this is not proportional. The Ranians are
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: not killing Israeli leadership. They don't have their capacity, they
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: don't have the capabilities. And yet Israel is every opportunity
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: just destroying the political, even religious, and certainly military leadership
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: in a completely disproportionate way. And notice, and I think
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: this is revealing that while the United States is often
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: taking credit and the United States is i'm sure helping
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: out almost all the decapitation attacks, all the attacks that
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: are killing leadership or Israeli attacks. Notice too that when
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: they kill these leadership figures, often they're killing their families
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: with them. Their wives and their children are dying with them,
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: which is in many causes unthinkable. Indeed, this goes to
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: the discrimination between combatants and noncombatants. You're supposed to separate
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: combatants noncombatants. You cannot hoot combat and non combatant unless
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: it's absolutely equivocally necessary for the just cause that you're
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: fighting for. So the fact that Israel is willing to
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: now kill leadership with their families, it's you know, as
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: Weel has a long history of this, but ever at
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: the kind of scale that they're doing right now, you know,
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: the scale is unprecedented. I think in all the history
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: of warfare. I don't think there's any war in all
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: of history that has been so focused and has achieved
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: so much in terms of eliminating leadership. Now, partially because
• 42:22
  Speaker 1: in the past they just weren't the tools to do it.
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: But a Israel as refined these and being incredibly successful,
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: and they they've practiced it in on ramas they practiced
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: at Arismalan. Now they're definitely showing what is possible with
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: the Iranian regime. Uh, you will see that after the
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: war is done, this will be this will be criticized
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: by just war theorists, by you know, people writing about wars.
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: No matter what the outcome, it will be it will
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: be criticized significantly. And and it's incredibly successful. I mean,
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: in the first day of the war, they killed, they
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: tie up echelon of the country, I r GC and
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: political and religious, really supreme leader. So it's not fighting proportionally,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: it is not interested in proportionality, and it's it's uh,
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: it is. I think that the proportionality, the whole just
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: war theory has much more impact on the US post
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: October seventh. Pre October seventh, just e theory is big
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: in Israel, very big. I think October seventh kind of
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: walke ASRAELI as up as nine to eleven should have
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: woken Americans up. And and they've they've they've abandoned it.
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: And I think they have a much more rational conception
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: of how to fight a war than they did beforehand. Uh. Finally,
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: discrimination and this is discrimination between combats and noncom So
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: I want to read you a paragraph from just an
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: unjust Wars by Michael Waltson. Here's a paragraph. A soldier
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: must take careful aim at his military target and away
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: from non military targets. He can only shoot if he
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: has a reasonably clear shot. He can only attack if
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: a direct attack is possible. He cannot kill civilians simply
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: because he finds them between himself and his enemies. Simply
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: not to intend the depth of civilians is too easy.
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: Weals as a real altist. What we look for as
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: a just war theorist is some sign of a positive
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: commitment to save civilian lives. If saving civilian lives means
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: risky soldiers' lives, the risk must be accepted. You know
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: it was. The essence of just war theory is the
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: placing of the lives of civilians above the lives of
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: your own soldiers, the placing of the lives of enemy
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: civilians above the lives of your own soldiers. Now, I think,
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: like I think about all just wor theory. This is
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: morally corrupt. We should sacrifice our victory and we should
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: sacrifice our own soldiers so that the enemy doesn't suffer
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: civilian casualties. Now, this is horrific, and there's no accident
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: by the way that since just browth theory has become
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: a dominant view in our military and among our ethicists
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: and in our schools, that the United States has not
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: want a single war. We'll see if it wins this one.
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: And note how carefully even in this war, targets identified
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: as military targets. If there are non military targets, they're
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: often or if a military target, if it's not about
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: killing personnel, often the Israelis and Americans will let the
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: Iranians know, Hey, we're going to be bombing in this neighborhood.
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: You should evacuate the neighborhood. Israel is doing this extensively
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: in Lebanon. Leave Now. Israel does it to a large extent,
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: I believe because it's been accused of genocide and it
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: can't handle their global pressure on it when civilian when
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: civilians are killed. But note how often it does this.
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: It did it in Gaza, and it didn't help. Even
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: though it did it in Gaza, it still got accused
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: of genocide. It does it in Lebanon, and it's doing
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: it in Iran. Indeed, if you look at the amount
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: of bombs, they's just a quantity of bombs that are
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: being dropped in Iran. The number of sotis the number
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: of TA. One thing is shocking, truly shocking, is that
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: very few people have been killed. Very few people have
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: been killed. I mean maybe five thousand ILGC soldiers, maybe
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: six thousand and maybe and less than a thousand civilians.
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: Twenty thousand ILGC soldiers have been wounded. But none of this,
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: none of this is even close. I mean, none of
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: this is in any way even a kind of reflective
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: or just a shit amount of violence being reflected. It
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: just shows how careful, how unbelievably careful the Americans in
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: the Israel these are to kill civilians, which is in
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: my view OFSURD. I'll give you an example of this
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: from yesterday. So you probably saw images of the search
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: and rescue operations that were going on to find the
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: pilots that were down. They found one pilot as far
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: as I can tell, they're still looking for the second
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: pilot and one of the There a lot of videos
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: out there also showing civilians and militia groups or whatever
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: ragtags of people you know, shooting at our helicopters running
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: around and they're all searching for the pilot. Right so
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: here here are large numbers of people Uranians looking for
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: the pilot. Now we all know what will happen. If
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: they catch him, they'll either kill him on the spot
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: or they'll turn him over to the authorities, creating a
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: massive nightmare for this administration. Clearly not in the US interest. Now,
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: what would the United States have done in World War
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: II too if they had seen a bunch a massive
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: people searching for the pilot as they are searching for
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: the pilot as well, Well, you've got helicopters and you've
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: got eight tens, they would have mowed them down, mowed
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: them down. We're not going to let you search for
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: the pilot. We're not going to let you capture the pilot.
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: Anybody who's outside that looks like he's searching is dead.
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: We're going to kill you all. Go back home. That
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: would have sent a message. And that's what actually pursuing
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: yourself interest means, That's what a commitment to winning means.
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: But as far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong,
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, that is not what's happened. Indeed,
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: so many of these people are shooting at the helicopters
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: and shooting at the eight tens who are flying very
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: low that actually some of them hit. We're small on
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: fire both the helicopter and eight ten. What does it
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: achieve and achieves two things. One, people are not out
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: there searching for your pilot, so that like youhood that
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: you find it not them increases. And second it's made
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: clear that you're there to win. You're not interested in
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: you're not playing games. This is not a toy, this
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: is not a video game. This is a war. And
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: anybody who threatens an American is that Johann wants extra
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: judicial murder? No, I want I want a war to
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: be fought. There's no murder in a war unless it's gratuitous.
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: But if somebody is out there searching for the pilot
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: in order to kill him or in order to hand
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: him over to the authorities, they're a threat. There's absolutely
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: just reason to kill them. No, no, just reason. It's
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: a must to kill them. Not killing them is a
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: betrayal of your soldier, a betrayal of his right to
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: his life, a trail of your commitment to do everything
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: to protect that life. Troy, thank you. Troy just came
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: in with five hundred Australian dollars. Think you think, you think,
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: you really really appreciate that. That's great. He's gotten us
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: to a goal all at one swoop. So is American
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: guide if I just for theory in the world, Yes,
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: not as much as in past administrations, because I don't
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: think Trump cares. I don't think heckseyth cares. It's no
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: accident that heck Saith comes from a more Protestant evangelical,
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: you know, a crusade mentality, rather than an intellectual just
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: war theory Catholic perspective. But it's deeply ingrained in the military,
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: it's deeply ingrained in the culture, and therefore trumpet excess
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: and everybody else needs to justify themselves to them. Gallan says,
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: under your view October seventh, we yes, right, no, because
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: the initiation of force is never justified. It's never justified
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: to initiate force. October seventh is initiation of force, but
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: pretty much anything in response is justified. Plus October seventh
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: is gratuitous. Raping those women, that's gratuitous. Gang rape is gratuitous.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: Burning babies is gratuitous. I don't believe in gratuitous violence.
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: I don't believe in going to the Iranian villagers and
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: just gutting them all down. But if they're actively searching
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: for your pilot, gun them down. So the fact that
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: you cannot differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys,
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: that's a key part of this. Bad guys have no
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: right to self defense. They don't have any moral rights.
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: They're the bad guys. They're bad. They emo. Haramas has
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: no right to anything. People who support Haramas have no
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: rights to anything. Don't let's not debate Gaza now, because
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: you don't know what you're talking about. Blockade of sixteen years.
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'll just say this, a blockade. Who provides
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: electricity to Gaza, who provides water to Gaza, Israel, to
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: its sworn enemy, to people who are committed daily to
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: the killing of Israelis and the murdering of Israelis, and
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: people who periodically every few weeks launched missiles into Israel
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: trying to kill Israelis, and at Israel provide them with
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: water and electricity, internet service and food, and many of
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: the gardens even came into to work Blockade. I mean,
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: I wish they'd located gods of sixteen years. If they'd
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: located gods for sixteen years, October seventh would have never happened.
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: It was located gards of seven If for sixteen years,
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: the gardens would have never gotten the money, the tools,
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: the materials to build all those tunnels. How could they?
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: How did they? How did they get all those because
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: they all didn't blocate them. I mean, the ignorance of
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: people about Gaza, and about the Middle East more broadly,
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: and about war in general is stunning. Isior never blocated Gaza.
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: I wish it had. It should have, it should have
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: blcated Godza for two thousand and five completely and thoroughly,
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: and then you know they would have they would have
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: built peace ultimately. But then the same people would complain about,
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: oh my god, and there's a reason to locade your enemy, right.
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know any country in the history that gave
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: its enemy it's explicit enemy, and enemy committed to its
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: own destruction, and an enemy that regularly launched missiles and
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: shot and killed your own people regularly, actually provided them
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: with food and water and electricity and jobs. Insane, insane.
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: But then they complained they didn't also what hand their
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: own next to their executioners right there, so they could
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: take them out, invite them into tele avivs, so they
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: could rape and pillage over there. Anyway, if you're gonna
• 56:01
  Speaker 1: go into war, go to win. So they're basically two.
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: So it is let's go back to the question. It's
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: just war theory hampering our ability to win. Yes, yes,
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: it's making it tougher, it's making it more difficult, it's
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: slowing it down, it's slowing it down. But it's just
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: for theory. The reason why we're not winning, not really,
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, the reason we're now winning is primarily the
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: fact that this war has not been thought through strategically.
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump is not a strategic thinker. He's not a thinker.
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: The enemy has not been identified clearly, victory has not
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: been articulated unequivocally, and just strategic decisions like not paying
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: attention to Homo straits for the first week and only
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: then remembering it exists and then planning to do something
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: about it way in the future. I mean, just strategic
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: gave us like that, Oh, we're not winning, because the
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: reality is the United States is so much more powerful
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: than you run that it doesn't take that much to
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: overwhelm them. But we are, we have rained it in.
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: We're not We're not doing as much as we could.
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: We're hesitant with regard to making them fully suffer the
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: consequences of a war. We're hesitant to fight it properly, thoroughly.
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: But more than that, we just haven't embraced the right
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: kind of strategy. We haven't been strategic about the whole endeavor.
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: Regime change should have been the goal of the war
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: from the beginning. That should have animated the war. It
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: should have animated the targets. It should have animated the
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: way we execute. It should have animated the strategy. The
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: Homost Straits should have been priority number one on day one,
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: to do what was necessary to keep them open so
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: that the regime would have no cards to play against
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: the West. Now, it would have been costly, and it
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: would have been difficult, and we might have taken casualties.
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: But that's what it means to be in a war.
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, one of the things that Trump wants to
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: try to do here, one of the things that is
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: hampering is the fight a war in a riskless way.
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: And that is more of a political consideration than anything
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: else than I think a ma al consideration. It's a
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: political consideration. Is not taking any risks no casualties. But
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: then again, you can't win was dangerous was but the
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: lives of soldiers in danger. That's why before you go
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: to war, you better really think it through. You better
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: really know what you're doing. You better have a good strategy,
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: and you better have a good cause. You better know
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: exactly why you're going to war and make sure that
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: it is justified, that it is justified because you're putting
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: people's lives at risk, your own soldier's lives at risk.
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: All right, let's see. Yeah, Uh so just what there
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: is certainly part of part of the cause, part of
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: the reason, part of the challenge, and part of why
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: we haven't won yet and why we won't win. Uh. Hopefully,
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: given how weak the Ranian regime is, it will matter
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: in the end. They will collapse, uh, and we will
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: get the regime change in spite of not trying too hard.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 1: Not trying too hard. We need to get rid of
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: the more restrain and maur paralysis, and we need to
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: go all in and strategically figure out how do we
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: get this regime to crumble. I believe it's doable without
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: occupying Tehran. Maybe boots on the ground on the islands,
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: but without boots on the ground, without occupy buying natural country,
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 1: which I don't think is necessary, would be expensive and
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: expensive in lives and the money and and really not necessary.
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: All right, That is it. That is what I had
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: to say. I I I just want to mention that
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: I used to I used chatch EPT to kind of
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: ask questions about just war theory just out of curiosity
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: how he would do. And in particular I ask h
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: ask chat GPT, what would you Ron Brook say about this?
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: And it's it's pretty cool. It's really cool, right, I
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: mean chat GPT, you know, not like you guys, chattypet
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: has actually read my just War Theory versus American Self
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: Defense essay uh that I wrote with Alex Epstein along
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: life time ago. It's actually read what I've said. It's
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 1: actually listened to some of my shows in the answer
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: was citing some of my You're On book shows episodes.
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: It knows a lot about my position about these things,
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: and it presents a really good you know summary, uh
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: and and perspective on what I think. So I'm quite
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: impressed by chat GPT's knowledge of me and my views
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: and you know, of objectivism. I've asked questions about what
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 1: would objectivism position be on X and it does a
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: good a good job, a good job. I put it
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: on thinking mode, which means it thinks about it, which
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 1: is kind of funny. Right, So yeah, I encourage you
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: if you have questions, ask chat GPT, make sure you're
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 1: refercing objectivism or referencing your on book and it will
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: give you I think, decent answers. So I'm impressed. All right,
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: thank you guys for listening. I know some of you
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: are violently in disagreement with what I have to say,
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: but but yeah, and read my read my Just What
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 1: Theory Versus American Self Defense? It's on the Iron Institute website.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: It's just What Theory Versus American Self Defense? You're on
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: Brooke or you're on Brook Just what Theory? It'll come
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: up and it's available for free. It's a good essay.
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 1: It's a really good essay I wrote. This is the
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: first project I did with Alex Epstein. I think after
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: we did this project together, I hired him. I hired
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: him at Diner and Institute. So yeah, all right, let
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: us turn to your super chat questions. I'll remind you
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: that it's a great way to support the show and
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: trade with me value for value and you can ask questions.
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: That way you can shape the show. You can decide
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: what I'm going to talk about. Let's see. You can
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: also do a sticker which is just a trade with
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: no questions, but just support for the show, which is fantastic. Darlene,
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Troy again, five hundred Australian
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: dollars goes a long way. Really really appreciate that. Greg,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: thank you, Tony, thank you, Bonnie, thank you, Thank you guys.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: Really appreciate the support. Let me also thank our sponsors.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: I'm an institute which is encouraging you to check out
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: Iron rand Aari Live, which of course is that are
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: provided online. I think the new semester is starting soon.
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 1: I am teaching a course. I'm teaching a course on
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: American business history, like the history of the corporation in America.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 1: We're going to talk about corporation, the corporate the corporate form.
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: Is that a legitimate form? You know? How did it evolve?
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: We'll talk about the history of business and its interaction
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 1: with anti trust laws. What were businesses like in the
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: nineteenth century, How did anti trust change the nature of
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: those businesses. We'll talk about the conglomeration era of the
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. We'll talk about hostile takeovers the nineteen eighties,
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: and we'll talk about Silicon Valley and how Silicon Valley
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: came to be what it is, the kind of how
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: it evolved from you know, a value with oranges into
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: the high tech center that is today. So all of this,
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: the role of regulations, the world of anti trust. It
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: should be a fascinating course. I highly recommend you take it.
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: It starts in a few weeks. Go to Ian dot
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: oak slash start here, Ironrand dot oak slash start here.
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 1: You might be able to get a discount. You can
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: try my discount code, the YBS discount code twenty six
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: YBS ten to try to get a discount on that
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: and see if that works. It might give you a
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: ten percent discount for signing up for the AARI Live.
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: It's going to be a good course. Signing for my course.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: The other courses that are good as well. You should
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: sign up for all of them, which would be excellent.
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: All right, Um, yeah, I'm putting in the chat. I'm
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: putting a link to my just work Theory top essay.
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: You can also find a bunch of lectures that I've
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: given on the topic. If you just such that on YouTube,
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: and that will also give you q and as that
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 1: were really good. There's even one talk that I gave
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: to the military to the Air Force Intelligence Center in
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: god I forget which FOS base in the center of
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: the country, the Force Intelligence center where we had very
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: senior people there, and I gave basically this talk there.
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: And the Q and A is really interesting because these
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: are people who studied this, who've learned just war theory.
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: So there's a Q and A. There's no video on
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 1: that one, it's just audio, but it's still a really
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: good one. So you just do just bar theory you're unbroken,
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: you'll find all these different videos you assault. He says,
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: victim means working with people who want to, if no democratize,
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: at least live in peace with the rest of the world.
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: I agree with that victory is not just leaving another
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 1: massive swath of people hating us as well. Yeah, but
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: the reality is that people who are thoroughly defeated don't
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: land up hating their victors. The Japanese don't love America
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: because we helped them out after the war. They love
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: America because they've realized, because they were so thoroughly defeated,
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: that whatever they did to to to go to war
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: was an unmitigated disaster, and that the real cause for
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: the war and they defeat was not America, it was
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 1: their own government. The same thing happened in Germany. It's
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: it's not the you know, the all the aid we
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 1: threw a Germany after the war that makes Germany our
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: friend today, it's the fact that we thoroughly defeated them
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: to the point where they realized that the war was
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: Hitler's fault, not America's fault, and that they better change
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: their ways. In Iran, you have a significant percentage of
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 1: the population there who is friendly to the United States,
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: who's actually pro pro The Molas and Iuan are not
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: doing it out of hate at all. The Mullas and
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: Yuan doing it out of ideology, and they believe in
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 1: they cause out of ideology. It was just hate. They
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 1: would negotiate, they would surrender because there's no point they
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: know they're going to be they know they've lost. But
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: just listen to them and notice who is that the
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: head of regime? Who these people are? They are religious fanatics,
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: They've always been religious fanatics. They've never repudiated their religiosity.
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: There's no reason for them to hate the United States.
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 1: There's no reason for them to hate the United States
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: and Israel. Israel in particular has done nothing to the Uranians,
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: nothing the Adian people. What is Israel ever done to
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: the Ranian people? Zero zilch nada and the Iranian people
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: people have nothing in common with the Baldestinians. They're not
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: the same you know, ethnicity. They happen to be the
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: same religion, but so what So, there's no reason for
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: the Iranians to help hate Israel other than they're Islamists.
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: And indeed, most of people in Tehran, the actual people
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: in Tehran, are not religious fanatics and therefore don't hate Israel,
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: have a lot of aspect for Israel, have a lot
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: of respect for America. This is why the protesters in
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: January weren't protesting against Israel and America. That were protesting
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: against their own Islamist regime. And by the way, if
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: they regenman in Tehran was just hating of Israel and America,
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: why would they care whether their women showed a little
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: bit of hair. They prosecute their own people. They prosecute
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 1: their own people because they showed a little bit of hair.
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 1: What because Israel has launched two wars of aggression within
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: a year. Really, but why were they funding Israel's enemies
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: for decades before that? Why were they doing everything that
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 1: they could to undermine Israel, to destroy Israel? Why were
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: they encouraging Chrisbela to fight Israel, to kill israelis to
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 1: murder Jews in Argentina. Why were they doing everything in
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: their power to fund the destruction of the state of
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: Israel constantly for decades? If they had no reason to
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 1: hate Israel, why were they Why would they care about
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: girls showing their hair if they're not religious fanatics? They
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: clearly are religious fanatics. They could today kind of deal
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: with Trump where they get safe passage to Moscow, every
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 1: last one of them. Israel was occupying Lebanon. Why is
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: that Ewan's business? Why is it Ewan's business that Israel
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: was occupying eleven? Why is it he wants business that
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: Israel is occupying Palestine? And shouldn't you ask the question
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: why was Israel occupying Lebanon? Do you know why Israel
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: was occupying Lebanon? In the nineteen eighties. Do you have
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: any idea why that was happening? And it just drives
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: me nuts, the historic ignorance people have blockading guys occupying Lebanon.
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 1: Why did Israel going to leban in nineteen eighty two
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: and occupy it? What was it trying to do? What
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: was the cause of that war? And is Israel occupying
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: Palestine or the Palestinians occupying Israel? I don't know. And
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 1: is all occupying anybody? Then? Israel build this country? Is
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: in Israel a country that was built, created out of nothing.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: There was no country there before, no country there before. Yeah,
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: And I mean there was never a Palestinian nation, the Arabs,
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: So it's not occupying anybody. Is all created a country
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: out of nothing, out of a territory occupied by the
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: Ottomans and then the British. That's all it is. Uh
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 1: And the only way, the only way to defeat the enemy,
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: the global enemy that the United States, Israel, and the
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: West have is to recognize the role of religion plays
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 1: in what motivates it. The the the crazies in Europe,
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 1: the suicide bombers, they're all and and and the Iranian
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: regime are all motivated ultimately by an Islamist cause, and
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: until we in the West are willing to recognize that,
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: identify that, and have a strategy around eradicating it, we
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: can't win. You cannot win without all that, all right, Uh, Vikram,
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: thank you Vikram four thousand Indian rupees. That's great. Uh.
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: In previous shows, you said the defeating the Iranian regime
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: will take the wind out of the sales of Islamism. Yes,
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: I did say that. Conversely, if the regime was to
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: survive despite being severely hit, say by a taco moved
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: by by Trump, would it lead to a huge resurgeent
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: in Islamism worldwide? How might that play out? Yes, I
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: don't know about a huge resurgent, but I think a continuation.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: I talked about the other day about the fact that
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood is really establishing itself in Europe and
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: becoming in more and more and more aggressive, and more
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: and more and more vocal about its prospects. I think
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: that a no victory in Iran will embolden the regime
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 1: in Syria and will embolden the regime in Turkey to
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: become more aggressive in their exporting of you know, Islamism
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: in Sharia, and in confronting Israel and confronting those who
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: would like to move away from Islamism in the Gulf,
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: Study Arabia, are Yuoe and so on. It might prevent
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia from cutting a deal with Israel and might
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: move Saudi we have more in the direction of Islamism,
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 1: as it has been moving away from Islamism in the
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 1: last couple of decades since nine to eleven. It might
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: shift it to moving towards Islamism. So I think it's
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: it's It won't be anything dramatic and big, but it'd
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: be a subtle shift more confidence. And you know in
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: Europe and in the northern part of the Middle East, Syria, An,
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 1: Turkey becoming more aggressive, becoming more aggressive. Yeah, I mean,
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 1: it would be great if victory and something discussed on
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 1: the chat. It would be great if you would get
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: a liberal democracy and Iran after the fact, And I
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 1: guess it's possible but unlikely, but it's possible. That would
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 1: be amazing if that's the outcome. But that's not a
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: necessary outcome. All you need is a regime that is
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: not committed to the Islamist cause and is not committed
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: to military aggression, and I think that's possible. Again, I
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: think you could get that out of the Uranian Army,
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: not probably not out of the GC. You could get
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: out of the army, or you could get it out
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: of a strong leader. I'm not sure where that would
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: come from, but it would have to be somebody who
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: rejects Islam as the guiding right, the guiding ideology. All right,
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: let's see, Michael, if people are abused badly enough, will
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: they throw aside their ultra like Israel left October seventh.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: But altruism always makes it come back once the immediate
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: threat is subdued. Yeah, I mean, I think that often happens,
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: you know, Israel's Israel's altruism is grounded in kind of
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: a secular perspective, not a religious one. So Judaism is
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: not quite as altruistic as Christianity is. There's a sense
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: in which for Israel is easier to reject altruism, at
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: least for a while, than it is for Christian country
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: to do so. The altruism in Israel is primarily grounded
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: in a secular view, but that's that altruism is slowly
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: grinded away as it's obvious, it becomes an existential threat.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: So Israel became a lot less altruistic and a lot
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: less leftists. For example, when it came to the Phon
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: Possi after the second into Fada, so like is All
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: in the nineteen nineties basically sacrificed left and right, left
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: and right. It signed the Oslo Agreement, which was a massive,
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: you know, surrender and sacrifice. Then it kept negotiating with
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: our funding, giving him more and giving him more, and
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: then in two thousand it's you know, at nineteen ninety nine,
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: who Bark, the Prime Minister of Israel gave yes effect
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: pretty much everything he wanted, pretty much everything he wanted,
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: and Alpha said no, so is oh sacrifice sacrifice second,
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: and all it got in return was more terrorism. And
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: then the second eight to Fada was terrorism on steroids.
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: Imagine a nine to eleven like events in terms of
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: the proportion of the population and killed every few months,
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: but lots of little ones right lead you know, cumulative,
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: just an unmitigated disaster hitting everywhere. It is all the time.
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 1: And that's when the idea of you know, just giving
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 1: in and giving in and giving in that disappeared, that
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: that was eradicate from the Israeli public. It didn't quite
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: get to the point where we have to win uh
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: and and they still kick the can down the road
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 1: with Gaza, but they got a lot tougher and they's
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: really left was eviscerated after that. There was there is
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 1: now is really left in terms of fun policy and
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 1: in terms of dealing with Palestinians anymore. It was all
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 1: just a just an issue of how right are you
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: and where how do you justify being right wing? October
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: seventh then eviscerated where there was whatever's left of that
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: kind of compromising mentality. And we're seeing a mind strong,
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: a bold, more aggressive Israel today than we did back then.
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: It's not, by the way, not ready to occupy all
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: of Lebanon to question as wella which might be necessary,
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: but it's willing to do a lot. It's willing to
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: reoccupy northern Lebanon for good reason. So, yeah, Michael, the
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: way the right dehumanizes immigrants is the same way the
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: Nazis dehumanized Jews, and now the right is dehumanized as
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: Jews blacks. Yes, And I'm reading a book on racism
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: and it's really fascinating I knew this, but this gives
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: us a lot more concrete and a lot more of
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: the story that the Nazis learned a lot of their
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: eugenic theory, a lot of their racist ideology, you know,
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: from Americans. Eugenics, racist ideology, the idea of a masterilization,
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: the idea of killing the the the incompetent, the stupid,
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: you know, whatever, Everything was genes, Everything was deterministic by
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: the gens that came from scientists in the US. It
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 1: was embraced as an ideology in the US, and they
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: the American scientists collaborated with the fellow scientists in Germany
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: even through the war, and many of the scientists in
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 1: Germany who basically created the intellectual framework for them for
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: the Holocaust, not just of Jews, but of you know,
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: the mentally retarded and the Gypsies and all the people
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: that the Knancis killed. Many of them were not even
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: imprisoned and were let back into education, you know, universities
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: and let back into institutions. So the ideology of racism
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: that you know existed pre World War Two in America
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: and in Nazi Germany was only it was brushed under
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: the table after World War two, but it was not
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: completely repudiated, eliminated, and so it's still fested in the background.
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 1: And it's not surprising it's all coming back, and it's
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: all coming back with references to all of that, and
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: it's all coming back with references to the eugenic eugenics
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 1: experiments or back then. And what they what they call
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: themselves today is race realists. But that's basically just the
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 1: same old u en x of the nineteen thirties and
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: the twenties and the teens. It's the same ideology, it's
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: the same framing in the language of science. It's basically
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: the same thing. And it's really unbelievably disgusting. It really
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: is unbelievably disgusting, you know, just how this was never
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: completely eradicated and how it was allowed to fest up
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: and how it's come back. It's shocking, not chavr Jogorhithm.
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 1: Is there too much reason and freedom out there for
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 1: thugs like Trump and the guy who comes after him
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 1: to squash it all. I don't know, we'll find out.
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, Trump is doing more than I thought he
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 1: would ever be able to, So it's quite possible that no,
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: it's not you know, there's just not enough intellect, there's
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: not enough ideas. There's not enough people willing to defend
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 1: freedom out there to stop it, to squash it. Trump
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 1: is unpopular, but he's not being squashed Clark. Obama caught
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 1: hell for saying Republicans in Middle America cling to guns, religion,
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: and anti immigrants sentiment. But was he wrong? No, he wasn't.
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: Sadly he wasn't. Too many Americans. That's what they care about.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 1: The guns. Second Amendment is the number one amendment. That's
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: the one they care most about. Religion, and they hate immigrants.
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: And I think Trump looked at that and said, yeah, absolutely,
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: I'll come out be pro guns he never has been historically.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: I'll embrace religion even I'm not, even though I'm not religion,
• 1:26:02
  Speaker 1: and I'll be the ultimate anti immigrant guy. And that's
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: how he wont He won. Appealing to exactly the demographic
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 1: that Obama identified, Liam says, well, there's really sup in
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 1: court throat is alos new death penalty law for Palestinian terrorists.
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: I think they will. Unfortunately, I think they will. I
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: think they will. I think it's I think it's the right.
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: I think it's the law is right I think Palestinian terrorists,
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: given how they used as pawns by uh by uh
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: Hamas and the PLO in order to you know, is
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 1: you know, given that they used justification for kidnapping Israelis
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: and then negotiating. Yeah, I think making sure there's nobody
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: to neg go sh four Is would be would be
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: in Israel's self interest. But I think this has been
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: called we will, we will it not unconstitutional, but will
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: rule against it. Paul, could you elaborate on what you
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: mean when you said Trump is not motivated by altruism. Yeah,
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 1: I don't think Trump is motivated by morality. I don't
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: think he has a conception of morality. I think he's
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: motivated by whim, by his narcissism, by his cynical, cynical
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 1: pseudo self interest, by what you know he emotes is
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: in America's interests, but not what he thinks, because I
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 1: don't think he does think. I don't. I don't think
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: it's I don't think it's you know, self interest in
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 1: any meaningful way. But it's not altruistic. He's not motivated
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: by sacrifice, and if it was, I think it was
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: purely up to him, he would flatten me run so
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 1: because I don't think he cares about others in any
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: kind of way, Americans or Uranians. I just don't think
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: he cares about others. So he is not the type
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: who will sacrifice himself to others or sacrifice Americans to others.
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: But he will sacrifice others to him, and he will
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 1: just do things in unthinking ways, in unthinking ways, which
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: is not egoistic. Stephen, my grandfather fought in World War
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: Two and shook General Patton's hand. Cool. He said, Patten's
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 1: whole thing that he ham at home in speeches to
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: the troops was it's either them or you. Yes, very
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 1: much so. Patten was a great general, one of the
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 1: great generals in American history. He would have won World
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 1: Were too much faster if he'd been in command instead
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: of Eisenhower. He was clearly the more competent and more
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: victory oriented general. And yeah, it's either you or them,
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: make it them, uh you know? He said. It was
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 1: his famous line, I don't want to. I don't want to.
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 1: You shouldn't want to die for your country. You should
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: want to make the other guy die for his something
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: like that. It's a good movie on pattern worth watching.
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: He was also crazy, but he was a good general. Enrick.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 1: Did the Geneva Convention set the foundation for using altruism
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 1: and executing war in the West. No, I mean the
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: Geneva Convention was the outcome, the consequence of a long
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 1: tradition of trying to bring so called morality altruism to
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: bear on war, and they never managed to actually do it.
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: Nobody paid attention to it until after World War Two.
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: So World War two was the decisive factor. The Geneva
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 1: Convention is pre World War Two. Didn't stop the Nazis
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: from doing what they did, and it didn't stop the
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 1: Allies from flattening Dresden or from h was Schumanegasaki. So
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: the Geneva Convention was an attempt, but it wasn't. I
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 1: don't think it was the beginning. It was part of
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 1: an agenda that I think achieved its success after World
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: War Two. Rob says, would you agree there was an
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 1: imminent threat on September tenth? Yes, I think there was
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: an imminent threat in September tenth, two thousand, or nineteen
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: ninety nine, given that Kaita had repeatedly attacked America, there
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 1: was every reason to wipe a Kaita off the face
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 1: of the earth way before September eleventh, two thousand and one,
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 1: and we still didn't do it. Even then, we are
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: fraid to do it. And not just Ar Kaita, but
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 1: anybody who supported al Qaida. JPS says, contry to what
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 1: you said today. According to Chachipt, in March twenty twenty five,
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 1: Israel's energy minister signed a formal order. Formal order told
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 1: all remaining electricity sales and tansmissions to the Gaza Strip.
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: Never actually never actually followed up on does Israel supply
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: electricity to the Gaza Strip today? I mean, where's chat
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 1: Chipett's let's ask it chat ChiPT. Where does Gauz's.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 2: Electricitcity come from today?
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 1: Notice that's March of twenty twenty five, Ramastakova, You know
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: there Israe left Gaza in two thousand and five. It's
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 1: twenty years after Israel left Gaza. Uh. Okay, So it
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: turns out that uh, there was one line in March
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 1: two thousand and five that was still supplying Garza with electricity.
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: That you were right. It was disconnected in March of
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and so now Garza basically runs off
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 1: of its own stuff. Notice it doesn't get electricity from Egypt.
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 1: But note that up until March of twenty twenty five,
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: including post October seventh, twenty twenty three, is always still
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: supplying Guarza with electricity. And note let's ask GPT where
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 1: does Gauz good?
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 2: It's what a from.
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 1: So it doesn't change the fact that I was right
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 1: in terms of the blockade because they the question said
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 1: that they were justified in October seventh, because there's always
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 1: blockading them for twenty years. All right, what aped in
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: from Israel through the miracle connection line. These lines have
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 1: been an important source during the war when functioning, but
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 1: flow has been irregular. Yeah, it's a war and far
• 1:34:10
  Speaker 1: below normal because of damage and disruption inside Gaza. And
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 1: they have desalination plants large facilities are smaller ones. Note
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 1: that Israel didn't bonb those. They could have Bombedozed and
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 1: stopped them from getting water. I would have done that,
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 1: but Israel didn't again for these reasons. So I was
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: wrong in saying that they get electricity today. But they
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: got electricity through most of the war, all the way
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 1: until March twenty twenty five. I don't know what happened
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 1: on that day that they suddenly got the balls to
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: cut them off. Paul, how would all those two have
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: been fought under just war theory, Well, it would have
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: been very, very difficult because all of the mass bombing
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: campaigns could not discriminate between civilians and non civilians because
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 1: they didn't have precision weapons. So while even when they
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: try to bomb just let's say industrial facilities and even
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: industries not clear whether civilian was it military, they weren't
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 1: accurate enough just to bomb industrial facilities, and they bombed
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 1: residential as well at the same time, So would mean
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: very difficult to do any kind of bombing. I'll give
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 1: you another example. In preparation for D Day, the Allied
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: forces softened up the French coast, which means bombing many
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 1: many of the towns in which there were German fortification
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: all across France. Now, most of the casualties in those bombings,
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: let me emphasize this, most of the casualties in these
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 1: bombings Germans. They were French, which is, think about it,
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 1: you're killing your allies in order to win. So in
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: World War Two they couldn't have softened up. You know,
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 1: a D Day would have been much more difficult. The
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 1: fighting after D Day would have been horrific. The Germans
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 1: would have been a lot stronger, their fortifications would have
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 1: been a lot more meaningful. Who knows how long the
• 1:36:32
  Speaker 1: war would have lasted, how many more people would have
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 1: died in the concentration camps, how much more damage would
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: have been actually caused. Without the bombing campaigns, the war
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 1: might have lasted another five ten years. I don't know.
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: I have no idea. It's a good question for somebody
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 1: like Victor Davis Hanson, who knows what the details. I
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: can't even imagine fighting that war. I mean, think of
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 1: all the cities and how they were destroyed. I mean,
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know if you've seen pizzas are built in
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: at the end of the war, or of Dresident at
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: the end of the war, or of Tokyo at the
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: end of the war, or of any of those cities
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: at the end of the war, any I mean, every
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 1: single city in Japan was flattened, completely uninhabitable. And today,
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 1: just war theory would demand that you would drop them
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 1: food packages during the war, not after, during the war,
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 1: supplying them with water and electricity. Yeah, I can't even imagine,
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 1: and and and note that those constraints are never placed
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 1: on the bad guys. Bad guys never fight based on
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 1: just war theory, and nobody ever complains about them not
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 1: fighting based on just war theory. They're not expected to.
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: They're the bad guys. Yeah, all right, thank you all.
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 1: Thank you the super chatters again, thank you for Troy
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: in particular, but all the super chatters. Thank you to
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 1: Viquam for the for the rupees it turned out to
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: be like forty bucks. That's great. Thank you to everybody else,
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: Michael and everybody for the questions. There will be a
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 1: show tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a positive show. It will
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 1: be about ambition. The show tomorrow will be about ambition.
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: It will be three pm East Coast Time, regular time,
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 1: and it will be I don't have I had the
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 1: title earlier. I don't know what. I don't know the
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 1: title right now, but it will The topic basically will
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 1: be ambition. Oh no, it won't be ambitious. Sorry, got no,
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 1: I changed the topic. It will be about heroes and
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: about you know, so heroism in a cynical world. Anyway,
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 1: it'll be either that or ambition. I guess I'll decide tomorrow,
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 1: but it will be three pm tomorrow. Hopefully you'll come
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 1: and check it out. All right, everybody, don't forget to
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: like the show before you leave PASTA like button doesn't
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 1: cost you anything. If you're not a subscriber, please subscribe.
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 1: You'll get announcements when I go live or any if
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: I upload any kind of video. And yeah, so like
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 1: the show, subscribe to the show, and don't forget to
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 1: support the show on Patreon Patreon dot com. Become a
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 1: monthly supporter. I really really appreciate that. All right, everybody,
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: have a great rest of your weekend. See you tomorrow, ye,