of something is this an operation? is that some kind of high aid is because it's very unclear even to some there are those that are saying that the usa could possibly even have a deal already with the taliban and leaving all about equipment behind. i'm not going to make any judgment at this point whatsoever, but it's very interesting to me. is this one off thing or is this something a part of a 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 interest. but that is also become its biggest liability. and i think the

clock started running a really with the bombing of afghanistan, post 911, the iraq war. the clock began running then, but the 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 fore 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 chick solven's. 43 years old. you've got, you know, been 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 the trump administration was very dysfunctional. trump wanted to pull out of some of these but was thwarted by the lindsey grounds by the deep state and so forth. so i think that afghan was really the beginning with it right now it's, it's a mixed bag. ok. and that's why we're doing this topic here. what are your thoughts going to because i think we have a parson words here. i mean, having an 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 let me the abraham affords ok for me it's it's, it's just a way off of the arms producers. ok. i don't, i don't really see the political mix except for some kind of hodge podge anti iran policy, which is really got know where the last 2 administration included by 3. 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 was away from the middle east. i think there is area to say, and then they just keep coming up with the new. wow. what's like, the ice is preventing that consolidation of the machine and make sure that running around increase their influence. and then even when you think about iraq, trump, you know, we, we get talking about ending forever, was and ending interventions. and he never, never said that america should withdraw from iraq. so i think that america has invested a huge amount. so the decades in saudi arabia, the gulf states, and the middle east and go straight to who they are vital 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. an interesting case because of the americans to say, you know, yes, they gave up on vietnam, cambodia and laos, but you know, they still got indonesia, malaysia, japan, which at the time at least as far as american perceptions are concerned. we're in danger of going to the communist. so say, you know, our intervention achieve goals that we prevented a whole say a little bit of communism in asia. so it wasn't probably just a matter of giving up on the american influence. 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 understand that. 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 and the unpopularity $1.00 would think maybe maybe one would think it has to come to some kind of tipping point. that's the 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 trans national trade corporations and so forth. this is allowed the u. s. to haven't 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 in a new cold war with china. the middle east will become a sort of contested zone. are george or wells geopolitical math 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 to 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, you couldn't entrance into the steering war in october 2015. this moved by iran as a retaliation of the assassination of general awesome sumani and iraqi jones 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 a cone inability 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 stable routing. israel is assassinating you, nuclear scientists, 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 us will eventually have to leave iraq. i don't know how long they'll be able to keep 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 from both of you. i mean, in the we're going from gemini george gemini, to contest it. 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 you don't know how conscious it is a grand strategy, or is it a country to country things 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 last thing is porch and i 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 invasion and that is a very problematic because that's where you get casualties. as long as you can. wage was sort of dishes, lee using, sorry, good. as long as you can use your influence on sales for through, you know, 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 the whole war and you have 500000 troops and then a and iraq. and so it is, calculation was made by the united states as by the soviet union in the late 198 is

this, you know, whatever the strategic value of it, maybe it isn't, was the normal blood and treasure involved in, in continuum, talking about it. 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 end up part of the program here, but you know, we, we have that we can't discount the players on the ground. and there's a lot of chatter, a lot of re reassessing on bed, blout fellows 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 on the ground. and that kind of thing is, is a psychological issue. they lost ok. 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 that. there's also just a 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 and they pulled out of cats are 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 billed for our strike in here. we're running out of my last comment. i would bet the barman saudi arabia. gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're getting rid of

a short break. and after that show break, we'll continue, our discussion will not stay with us. ah ah ah. is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safe? isolation for community. are you going the right way? or are you being led somewhere? direct? what is true? what is great?

in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. these are the full people who pulled the trigger and survive something on survival . one of the hardest things that i had to face was not having a face at a low expectation. a life i accepted accept the fact that i made that it's where we had no fears. del change pretty fast for shots. different stories behind the bullets with

ah, neither financial survival guide. stacy, let's learn about 3 aloud. let's say i'm a so i can years from grief on face of the fight. 9 while street broad thing, ah, joy, that's right, fell out it will dest slavery. 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 this nation 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 george. maybe this in this moment in time. but it's really much more. busy at stake here than kobe misinformation go ahead. yes, so your spawn because the whole sense to ship 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 iranians were providing. and he was indeed the mainstream media that the internet giants to the

platform, people who are providing a 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 if 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 bowl from the data. unless you, you follow our victim. 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 almost immediately. 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 a rush game because that was kind of in my mind, it was a drive to see how much damage they wrought. we listen to them who follow, who would remain silent and then who would challenge them. and then we had under, by the laptop, which is, you 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 co business 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 getting

a for election. they came out formally and said they're going to take out, take down any videos or in the other social media and they were sanitizing their platforms. same way. that's just not that much 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 go 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. iranian state media. they did it to syria, t v,

and 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 piece of content, which they're seo admitted. and it's very vague. u. k column, 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 cultural. and the medical misinformation tactic could be used in the geopolitical sense to take down because these governments are in 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, gently, 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 in 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 journalist, so news outlets. the ones that are hearing the loudest, but the worst possible thing to ever happen to the internet in that is 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. i'm particular, patrick said, it's directed very much the rest of the rochester, you know, we had to rush out. these is the malevolent factor because they engineer from selection they trade. they provided this information about hillary clinton and again, now roches, the back is providing bad information back scenes and know misinforming the public . so there's the geopolitical last bar. what's really important 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 them in the, you know, they, you know, they 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 the u . s. soldiers in afghanistan. they so, 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 to me about to you actually get something wrong. i usually because they report some mainstream media outlets are wrong, but they never got so many big things wrong as these are basically 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 dis, information. and, and what, what, what the injury is 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 generous 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'll 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 the, or wells ministry of truth in action. but geopolitical, you have to realize that now you know that 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, in 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 do 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 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 and it's a tragic one because it's a sunset of civilization. it's ok. you're going to rely upon week of media, you know, just out the lights. it's over. ok, that's all the time. i want to thank my get some good, have a limit. i want to thank you for watching us here on the scene exam. remember

ah imagine picking up a future textbook on the early years of the 21st century. what are the chapters cold, gun violence, school shootings, homelessness? first, it was my job then it was my family. didn't was my savings. i have nothing. i have nothing and it's not like i don't trust. 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 the road to the american dream paved with dead refugees. it's this very idealized image of this. older america makes americans look past the deaths that happen every single day. this is a modem history of the usa, my america, kona t. o. when i was

showing wrong, when i was just a shape out the same because of the african and engagement, it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look some common ground. hello, driven by dream shapes bankers, and those with who dares sinks. we dare to ask

a this monday, the 4th of october from moscow, a data lake reveals the offshore dealings of the worlds rich and powerful, including former british premier, tony black and current check prime minister andre babich with the united states named as a leading tax haven that marks energy agency gives the green light to part of russia's north stream to gas pipeline. as europe grapples with soaring fuel prices, by say the situation is stabilizing and no one's going to pretend this is completely back to normal to which it was, but it's getting in that way. well, british officials down play their own on going fuel crisis slate now deployed military for.