part of the trend, what are your thoughts? go ahead patrick. i think this is, this is just the beginning. this is the beginning, but in reality, the started all this trajectory is or of eventual waning us influence in the middle east and central asia. i think this trajectory began a long time ago because america's greatest advantage throughout history is also its greatest liability. it's shown more than any other world power that it's willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for its national interest, or what is perceived to be national interests. but that is also become its biggest liability and i think the clock started running a really with the bombing of afghanistan, it post $911.00, the iraq war. the clock began running then, but that clock was really running from the vietnam war. so there's a limited amount of patients that the american people, appetite for war. so pardon me. so, so you have iraq, syria,

yemen. these 3 wars are in the balance right now. and so there are things that have happened, watershed points in each of these that i think are now coming to the for biden. is it a week week point? the white house is incredibly weak. america's, at its weakest point politically. they have a foreign policy teen meta, or young. jake solven's, 43 years old. you've got, you know, ben, roads and these are the people, obama hold overs and insurance that her for are advising the president. so i don't really think they really have a clue. they're really trying to just piece together what's really a broken jigsaw puzzle from the obama administration and trumpet ministration was very dysfunctional. trump wanted to pull out of some of these but was thwarted by the lindsey grants by the deep state and so forth. so i think that afghan was really the beginning. i think of it right now it's, it's a next. ok,

and that's why we're doing this topic here. what are your thoughts for it? because i think we have a parson words here. i mean, having influence having the gemini, all of these can be defined in a different way. i mean, you can continue to have influenced by selling a lot of arms, which they continue to do. all right. you know, they give me the abraham affords. ok for me it's it's, it's just a windfall for the army producers. ok. i don't. i don't really see the political mix except for some kind of hodge podge anti ran policy, which is really got know where the last 2 ministration. goodbye 3. go ahead. yeah, i can just say that the afghanistan thing was a wow. i don't believe that the united states for the future as any intentional withdrawing from the middle east. i think they're in syria to say, i mean, they just keep coming up with a new rationale. what's like,

the ice is preventing the consolidation of the machine and make sure that russia around increase their influence. and then even when you think about iraq, trump, you know, we will though we get talking about and the forever was and ending interventions. and he never, never said that america should withdraw from iraq. ok, so i think that america has in this is a huge amount of the day in saudi arabia, the gulf states, and the middle east, and go straight to who they are. 5 points in the world. and so if there is indeed a rivalry and you know, some sort of a cold war coming with china, then control all the go will be as important as strategic goal of the united states as it was during the cold war. now is an interesting game because

the americans to say, you know, yes, they gave up on vietnam, cambodia and laos, but you know, they still go indonesia, malaysia, japan, which at that time at least as far as american perceptions are going to the communist. so say you know, our intervention, she is goals that we prevented a whole say big of communism in asia. so it wasn't probably just a matter of giving up on the americans. let me to do both to be a 1st to patrick here. i can agree with both of you with the same time for different reasons. i think, i mean, i think, you know, what point is it negative returns? i mean, these are not cost free. ok. number one, number one, they're very, very expensive. you know, 3 trillions plus for a standard. so and then i mean, and then there's the blood issue here and we have over the last 3 election cycles.

these wars are very, very unpopular. how is it sustainable? the cost in the unpopularity in $1.00 would think maybe maybe one would think it has to come to some kind of tipping point, patrick 1st. sure. in terms of popularity, i think the establishment in the united states is willing to take that on the chin that some of these intervention might be on popular. because the whole point of u. s. foreign policy is to open up markets for certain trends. national trade corporations and so forth. this is allowed the us to have, it's had your money. america's greatest preponderance isn't it isn't military. in fact, although it might seem like that it's the u. s. dollar. and it's, it's economic preponderance is financial preponderance more than military, military is just a tool to open up, to allow it to dominate globally financially. but i think george pointed out something that's interesting, you know, the middle east will become new cold war with china. the middle east will become

a sort of contested zone allah, george orwell. geopolitical map in 1084. this endless war with east asia. but the middle east is changed and changed because of us action. so there is now an arc of resistance that very well network, very well equipped and fortified, which stretches from iran all the way to lebanon. that's a direct result of us and its allies, various operations and escapades in places like syria and iraq. and i think there was a tipping point came in january 2020 when iran fired missiles, a dozen missiles at 22 us bases. and the u. s. did not strike back. so i mean that that was a really, to me, one of the biggest, besides, couldn't entrance into the steering war in october 2015. this moved by iran as a retaliation of the assassination of general cost, some sort of money and iraqi joan and us that was triggered. i think it's slow,

a major realignment in terms of west asian geo politics. i think it's irreversible because the u. s. is power is also based on it's the opponents ability to fear them or to respect them. and iran basically called their bluff and look what's happened . nothing has happened to ron. there's been a lot of saber adding. israel is assassinating nuclear scientist, etc. that's going on the fringes, but geopolitically, iraq is also changing their orientation. again, you know, antique more anti u. s. and the clock is ticking. the u. s. will eventually have to leave iraq. i don't know how long they'll be able to keep that going. and now iraqi kurdistan is now basically under threat as well by some of the same forces. but it's interesting, i think they're the kind of where the circle conversation here. i mean, these words are both. i mean, in the we're going from had gemini, george gemini,

too contested. i mean, well that's an interesting strategy right there. ok. because then you lower the cost, what it will cost economic costs. but you may still have the, the financial leverage, as patrick was talking about this, there is a calibration going on. i don't know how it is, and i don't know how conscious it is a grand strategy or is it a country concrete thing like iraq, which is kind of a outlier when we come to look at these other things here. what do you think george? go ahead. well, i think the financial aspect is a fortune, but you want to bear in mind that what the united states did in iraq and afghanistan was quite extreme by us standards. i mean, those will full scale invasions, and that is very problematic because that's where you get casualties. as long as you can wage was sort of dishes li, using for as long as you can exert your influence on sales

for through trade by, as a dollar. and minimize casualties. then the united states can still continue with this policy. actually, it becomes very problematic when you go into vietnam war and you have 500000 troops. and then you can see it full scale invasion of iraq. and so it is, calculation was made by the united states as by the soviet union in the late 1008 is the this, you know, whatever the strategic value of, and maybe it isn't, was the normal blood and treasure involved in, in continuum, talk you. but that doesn't mean that you give up on all the other ways, and i don't mean i don't think americans is going to give up in the middle east just like that. yeah. well, i think it's, it's,

it's still problematic. let me go to you for we ended up part of the program here, but, you know, we, we have, we can't discount the players on the ground. and there's a lot of a chatter, a lot of re reassessing on bed, blout bellows talking to each other. recalibrating what iran is in the mix and all that. i think we can talk all about what the u. s. and its allies. but there's a lot of murmurings going on in the ground and then it is a psychological issue to they lost. ok. think they can be to beat it. ok. so i, that's one kind of bawling in between. both of you here go ahead, finish up. and it is part of what it does. also, just the technical aspect of waging war or having military dominance is that you need to be able to take territory whole territory in the real modern war in terms of what i think is the new u. s. policy, which is to use local enforcers to pull its assets offshore, use local enforcers. so they pulled out of cats or largely and used to saudi arabia

as the front person for the yemen war from from march of 2015 forward. the u. s. is really backing that logistically, satellites air force pilots in some cases, air refueling, munitions, everything. so it was a great cash cow for the us. it made the money from the war. saudi paid them as well. for the services they were billed. same with the iraqi government was billing for air strike. a part of my last comment. i would bet the farm on saudi arabia. gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. after lunch break, we'll continue. our discussion will stay with us. ah, ah, no, i just don't. i mean you well,

yes to see how it is being becomes the advocate and engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves will to pardon we choose to look so common ground. what happened, i make no said, you know, borders this line to nationalities and you guys as a merge, we don't have authority. we don't have a vaccine. the whole world needs to take action and be ready. people are judgment, common crisis with we can do better. we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great.

the response has been matched. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we're in it together with ah.

ah, welcome back to cross up were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah, let's go back to george in budapest. well, youtube is on the warpath again, against against creators, obviously, in the station that we're all on right now, our team has been thrown into the fray. and for the most part, at least at this point in time, it's about cobit misinformation. but when i find terrifying, actually, and sort of disappointing, as i see, this is just the cudgel to control control the narrative and to return had gemini in the media sphere back to the guild media, the new york times,

washington post cnn. all the other rest of them and this is, and it's all layered with medical emergency and that's quite compelling. fear mongering by definition is compelling. that's why they do it. it's not about coven jordan, maybe this in this moment in time. but it's really much more. busy at stake here than coven misinformation yet your spawn because the whole censorship, the black for me, booting people all started long before. 1 it started immediately in the aftermath of the 2016 election with the hysteria about the russian boss and the misinformation over. but the russians and the radians were providing. and he was indeed the mainstream media that the internet giants to the platform, people who are providing

a. 1 wrong information about the cleanser. so seized on this issue, but it's a much, much bigger theme which is about this in the, in internet, which really democratize the availability of information. she does. i don't want to see in the information. we want to control information, you know, you have to listen to us and they put the pressure on the internet giant. so they just were initially a little wary of the, for me on the pressure and then a bubble from the data. unless you, you follow our big unless you get rid of all of these pro russian boss, we're going to comment you and we're going to parcels of legislation. you're not going to like. and, you know, the internet giants are needed. so it is a matter of, you know, the politicians and the media are exempt of this. and now it's quite problematic

as to what to do about this. yeah, i think i'm glad that brought up russia gay because that was kind of in my mind it was a drive to see how much damage they wrought will listen to them who would follow, who would remain silent and then who would challenge them. and then we had under, by the laptop which we know that somebody special project, you know, they, they're really proud of that. see how we just got a huge hole through the internet. you know, on this one issue here. and they were very effective. and now it's coping this information that they've learned from russia gate they've learned from the under buying laptop. they know what to do now. they actually have a plate. that's my opinion. that's how i see it now from an extension from the 100 biden laptop. suppression of that story was after the election, any talk of election fraud, any talk of not being a for election. they came out formally and said they're going to take out, take down any videos or,

and the other social media. and they were sanitizing their platforms. same way that's just an asset to any society that claims to be democratic that you can even have discussion or discourse, whether it be partisan or not. but the irony is that is completely partisan what they're doing on that side. but this extends geopolitically. and so back to the taking down of our t deutsche very dangerous that this platform will take down state media and not only state media, a member of the un security council major channel had 600000 subscribers, hundreds of millions of views out competing. some of the german english language channels as well, and that's just down to what people are. they prefer to watch in terms of content, but this is dangerous. they did this to press t. v rainy and state media. they did it to syria, t v. not many people cared because syria tv. what's the point? the point is, if you're at war, if you're perpetual war, if,

if the west sees itself as being in perpetual warfare all the time, which is in there, if you look at their integrated operating concepts, the things that are being released, the white papers coming out of the u. k, for instance, they're viewing this as a spectrum that is constantly moving domestically and internationally. no difference between home in a way pitch. so this is, this is what's being done. so i think this media war, the tit for tat are dangerous because russia could been you tube within russian territory. then you're into a whole, another range of problems. but i think you have this merger. people have to remember when censorship is done by a company like google, youtube, it's not just, it's an american company, but the censorship is global. they have dominion over the entire planet, information space, and they can even have different policies for different countries, which facebook does, which google and youtube have done. and it doesn't matter what the regime is,

that the policy is totally customized to whatever the political situation and their business relationship is in that country as far as medical misinformation, which is what they used to get the strike that took down the r t channel. they're doing that to millions of views of millions of pieces of content which their ceo admitted. and it's very vague. you can call them the channel that i'm on as well. we had or channel deleted for medical misinformation. no specific was given 10 year old channel, thousands of videos. they don't tell you what the offending article is. it's left intentionally vague. as you said in, as george said it's, it's a convenient casual. and the medical misinformation tactic could be used in the geo political sense. to take down because these governments are very close contact with these firms. we know this from the senate hearings. we know this from recent news reports. so to think that they're not in touch with the state department or there's not influence that's being pushed and silicon valley from the political side would

be very naive. you know, judging we should never be surprised. in this case, it's the internet, but we go back with newspapers and things like that. we should never be surprised that there, there are people that are ideologically predisposed to certain ideas, other marketplace issues here. but there's, what's new in the mix for me is that it's the people that claim to be journalist. they're the ones that are spearheading this. they are the ones that are most keen on censorship, banding saddle banding and all of this. because, you know, you can have people and you to google that have certain ideas. but i still wonder if they think, well, you know, it just makes them money. ok. and then you have the, there's the pressure out there to conform. because, you know, being the people that are sending this information, i mean, in the scheme of things, it's minuscule compared to what these platforms hold here. and that's why we believe it is political here. but then if anything is it's journalists ok,

and news outlets. the ones that are hearing the loudest, but the worst possible thing ever happened to the internet in that it's censorship . go ahead. yes. and there's a real irony that because a, c, n n and the new york times that do this drumbeat on particular patrick said it's directed very much the rest of the rochester, you know, we had to rush out. these is the malevolent actor because they engineer from selection they trade, they provide this information about hillary clinton and again, now roches, the back is providing bad information back scenes in misinforming the public. so there's the geopolitical last day. but what's really important is that these journals, these outlets like cnn, which i talk about this information and you know, conspiracy theories pedal by russia. i mean, there are few outlets in the world that are responsible for more bad news. news with c n n. and then, you know, i mean the home to buy and i mean, you know, they,

you know, they have a pedal, the nonsense i'm to buy a laptop was like, it was a russian intelligence operation. they fed all the nonsense about the old of the russian gate conspiracy. the, you know, the traffic illusion. they had all the nonsense about the russian bounties on us soldiers in afghanistan. they, you know, we don't even have to go back to the iraq weapons of mass destruction, so they are responsible for long was this information than anything ok to me to talk to you get something wrong. i usually because a record of some mainstream media outlets are wrong, but they have so many big things wrong as these are mainstream media outlets that are calling for censorship. by this standard me the, the 10s of thousands of hours at c, n and m s, n, b, c. they should be deleted by the standard that they are claiming about this

information. and, and what, what, what insult to injury that when you go to you, no matter what you watch, they propose that you watch mainstream media. so, you know, they, they don't, you know, they don't have a dog in this, in spite of course, they do. they're losing their market share and market share is money. it's a, this is a business proposition for them. they want it for money. they're willing to see freedom of speech completely oblivious. they could care less their bottom line in their shareholders. it's very pernicious. go ahead and below every video that you tube flagging that they haven't taken down. there's a little coated 19 information bar or it will be about russian state media. they put a russian state media under every r t video, but the, the covert link goes to wikipedia and wikipedia is completely games in terms of information. this has been proven beyond a doubt. so this is or wells, ministry of truth in action. but geopolitical,

you have to realize that now you know, the, all the fake news uproar during trump and after trump and this misinformation dis, information. the military are using these terms in nato countries, in their defense reviews and their defense documents. and they're viewing this as a threat to the consensus and they're calling this space democratically protected. so this is become a national security. and so the g 7 launch something that lot of people missed, which is the rapid response mechanism in 2018 when theresa may was prime minister. and what it meant that all g 7 countries had to have streamline messaging on anything national security related. and this is almost like a treaty. ok? so if you think about, if you criticize the german government's policy or the u. k. government policy, whether it's me, you or some alternative media that goes into a national security column. and it's to be dealt with or seen as a threat,

and they're going to legislate against this in the u. k with the online arms legislation in to, to elevate trusted sources and to basically delete or remove what they call misinformation or dangerous to democracy in anything that damages confidence, in government, or the consensus and government is the worst offender for destroying confidence in itself. as is the mainstream media in confidence in media, it's their fake news. as you pointed out, that is cause the public to just abandon them in droves. so this is just a strange epoch we find ourselves in. well it's, it's a tragic one because it's a sunset of civilization and folks are going to rely upon we can media, you know, just out the lights, it's over. ok, that's all the time. i want to take my guess a limit. i want to thank you for watching us here on the scene exam, remember ah, ah,

ah, ah, [000:00:00;00] ah, ah, with imagine picking up a future textbook on the early years of the 21st century walter, the chapters cold gun violence in school shootings, homelessness 1st, it was my job and it was my family didn't was my savings. i have nothing. i have nothing and it's not like i don't try. i look for resources,

i look for jobs. i look for everything i can to make this pass. and i end up doing is passing down the road to the american dream, paved with dead refugees. it's this very idealized image of the older america makes americans look past the deaths that happen every single day. this is a modern history of the u. s. a. lie america, oh, naughty. oh, these are the full people who pulled the trigger. i survive something on survival. one of the hardest things that i had to face was not having a face at a low expectation to life. i accepted that accept the fact that i made that it's when we had no fears. jell change pretty fast for shots.

o different stories behind the bullets. for driven by drink shaped bankers, those with theirs sinks. we dare to ask in ah, ah, ah,

a ah, with ah hidden treasures, the secret financial dealings of hundreds of the world's richest and most powerful people are revealed in the biggest ever leak of offshore data. where the united states itself has emerged as a leading tax haven. also this i with an energy crisis looming over europe in skyrocketing gas prices, e u member states, point the finger of blame at brussels, green politics and all. so russia and fury in austria are for an afghan rescue. chief who rate a 7 year old girl is sentenced to just 10 months behind bars and given therapy and family and friends of a young afghan footballer who fell from