The Team House - Trump Meets Zelensky in the Vatican & India vs Pakistan & Iran Negotiations round 3

Episode Date: April 27, 2025

the boys talk about the continued ukraine negotiations, the flare up of tensions in Kashmir, and the 3rd round of talk with the US and Iran.New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_appBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, welcome to another episode of Aizondgeopolitics. I'm here with Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons, and myself, Dmitrycan tacos. A lot cooking as usual. That's going to be my line. I'm going to make merch. This is a lot of cooking. First and foremost, Ukraine, Russia, a couple days ago, it's been more than a couple days when Russia hit Kiev with a big ballistic missile attack

that I think killed up to, I think, to nine or ten people. last time I checked I'm sure it's probably gone up since then Lopin cooking to Wiccoff met with Vladimir Putin yesterday at the Kremlin old friends look like old friends meeting up again and today obviously at the Pope's funeral afterwards when they cleared out the hall there's pictures coming out of President Trump and President Zelensky sitting down having a powwow about what comes next I guess so let's kickoff, Mick, thoughts, comments? Yeah, so, I mean, when it comes to the actual proposal,

it's important to point out that Ukraine has made it clear for essentially anytime they've discussed a potential ceasefire, that they're not going to give up permanently any part of their territory to include Crimea, right? So Crimea was illegally occupied and seized. in 2014, the original proposal, which I just referred to as a Kellogg proposal, simply froze the lines, right? So it didn't say that you have to give up territory.

It simply asked Ukraine to acknowledge they couldn't take it back militarily. That, I think, is something more in line with what Ukraine can agree to. But to actually give Russia the aggressor part of your territory, not only would be bad for Ukraine. It'd be bad for anybody that wants to keep their territory if they're next to a country that's strong enough to take it. It sets the wrong example. I think it's Brother Andy Milburn right there.

Brother Andy Milburn coming in just on time. I'm saying that. He heard me talking about Ukraine and yeah. He jumped in. Andy, what's up, man? I'm going to leave this all in. We're not starting over. No, we can't hear you.

I shall mute. Yeah. What's up, dude? It's me permanently on mute. Yeah, I wish. Andy Milburn, of course. Welcome to the show. We were just talking about updating everybody on what's going on with Ukraine negotiations

and, you know, where I was talking about the proposal, Andy, that the U.S. put out there. So not accepting that Crimea would be permanently part of, Russia is something that Ukraine has said from the beginning. And it's important to point out that Secretary Rubio, then Senator Rubio, actually trying to get legislation that the U.S. would never recognize Crimea as Russia. So it's kind of surprising. It surprised many that that would be something that he would now propose that Ukraine just accept.

So it was a very, I would say, pro-Russia position. and something that I think should have been avoided. We should have essentially asked for a ceasefire like the United States did. I'm important to point that out. We asked for a 30-day ceasefire. Ukraine accepted it. Russia rejected it. That's when you should start talking negotiations.

We should have the ceasefire first. Russia, no way you rejected it, but stepped up attacks. Yeah, stepped up attacks, actually. On civilian target, by the way. That's right. So 60 missiles that I think. I think President Zelensky is saying come from North Korea. So now, you know, the Ukrainians are not only fighting a country much larger than them.

They're fighting Iranian thrones, North Korean soldiers, North Korean missiles, and apparently at least there's some reports that Chinese are showing up on the battle in space. So I do think, I don't think the United States should obviously walk away. I don't even know where we're talking about that. We need to be, I think, reinforcing Ukraine to make Russia walk. to come to the negotiation table. Right now they don't. And to the point of President Trump's statement that Russia is going to take it in three years, if Russia could take it, they would have taken it already. And if they think they could take it in three years, they wouldn't agree to a

ceasefire. So obviously the fact that they're talking about it means that they have not know that they take an 800,000 cavalry to take less than 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. And to be frank, if we would have been more forthright in our support to Ukraine, in other words, supporting them to win, not just survive, I don't think they would have been able to take that. So I would, I would advocate for a different tack, which is impose secondary sanctions on the Russian energy, which means India and China couldn't purchase Russian energy, release the funds that's been seized in Europe, particularly Belgian, I think it was like $325

billion worth of Russian assets so Ukraine can arm itself and then increase across the board to include U.S. security assistance and obviously the Europeans for Ukraine immediately. That would change, I think, the perspective

of Russia, which is the only thing that's going to change the perspective of whether we get a ceasefire. I got going. Yeah, I think, I mean, I agree 100%. I would go further. We've talked about understanding Russian negotiating psychology, which has nothing to do with acknowledging dispensations. In other words, you start offering things to Russia. They don't take it as a quid pro quo. They take it as a sign of weakness. I mean,

this has gone back to Soviet times. It's gone back to Yalta, you know, in Stalin's dealing with Roosevelt and Churchill. And, you know, Churchill. and I'm not just saying this because I'm British, recognizing grudgingly that they would have to offer up Poland. But Roosevelt being all in on that, saying, you know, hey, look, we've got to offer a dispensation because Uncle Joe has been fighting the Germans almost single-handedly, et cetera, et cetera.

And we will get, you know, with the understanding that in some post-war era, Russia would pay us back with goodwill. I mean, look how that happened. And we're still making the mistake because we don't study history. Our administration doesn't study history. So I would go further and say, hey, either you come to the negotiating table. We're offering you Crimea, which, by the way, honestly, the Ukrainians would acknowledge and would have acknowledged probably at an earlier stage in the war that Crimea is a done deal.

You know, it'll belong to Russia. Well, I don't think they should accept that it is Russia. It's one thing to accept. exactly yes if you just start saying okay well you it's yours now and the whole world recognizes it then that just opens it's like i agree 100% i misspoke so uh you you acknowledge and say it's part of russia now now you're basically agreeing to might as right and whatever you seize is now yours uh but we say look it's seized ukrain but we are for the time being and we're willing to concede it to your ownership okay but you got to have to have to have you got to have

have a big stick with Russia. What is that big stick? What is Russia most scared of? Fast track to NATO for Ukraine. You break the ceasefire. Fast track, man. We're all in. Now, not only is have Sweden and Poland join, I mean, sorry, Sweden and Finland joint, not only is Poland a much stronger nation than it was three years ago militarily, four percent of its GDP focused on defense. But now you're going to have the the second largest and the most combat experienced military on, you know, on the good side within NATO. I mean, that is, that's what Russia fears most. Plus, all in on weapons, providing weapons to Ukraine. That means across the EU and the United States, piling them in, long-range precision strike, go for it. Absolutely. No restrictions.

155 millimeter rounds, flood them with them, you know, make the ratio equal between Ukrainians and Russians. I mean, that is what the Russians are really afraid of. And that is the only thing that will get them to negotiate. I mean, the incredible naivety that we've shown so far. And Putin is laughing at us. What is he done? What has he done since the Oval Office debacle with Zaneski? Putin has just gone ahead and up to the ante.

he's laughing. He's saying, I've got the U.S. wrapped around my finger. Everyone knows this. Everyone sees it. We're the laughing stock of Europe and of, you know, and throughout Russia, by the way. It's time to acknowledge that. Hey, guys, it's Jack. I want to tell you guys about the sponsor for today's show. It's Mando. Mando makes a whole series of male grooming products. They are unique in that there are a deodorant that you can use all over your body on armpits. you like, but also wherever else you may deem necessary. And I have been using these products for about three months now. I've been using the body wash. It's bourbon leather. I've been using their bar of soap, which I really enjoyed, and also their deodorant. And so I exercise a lot and get

very sweaty, so I need a deodorant that's going to do the job. And Mando has come through for me. You know, the body wash was great. I actually used all of that, need to reorder some more. The bar of soap is also very cool. It was very smooth, actually. So I hope you guys will go and check them out. They have a starter kit that's up there, and they have a special deal for Team House viewers. So the starter pack is perfect for new customers.

It comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant, two free products of your choice, like mini body wash and deodorant wipes and free shipping. As a special offer for listeners, new customers get $5 off a starter pack with our exclusive code. That equates to over 40% off your starter pack. Use code team house at shopmando.com. That's s-h-o-m-a-n-d-o.com. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Smell fresher, stay drier, and boost your confidence from head to toe with Mando. I got a question.

Who holds the purse strings to that three? $325 bill that's frozen. And why aren't they releasing it to get buy more of our weapons? I think it's the government because they, of course, monitor the banks and have control over the banks. Could be wrong. So I don't know for sure. But because it's talked about so much,

they clearly have the ability, well, it's already frozen, but they clearly have the ability to release it. And if they do that, I mean, there could be consequences. but there should be consequences to, you know, invading a neighboring country. Yeah. Right.

So that's what that would be, that would be my argument. And I don't think, I don't think, especially if you use it in defense, although I wouldn't just have it go to defense. But, I mean, they could purchase all the air and missile defense systems available in the world with that stuff. Yeah. Right. So if Russia can't actually hit them, then this war. is going to turn for Russia. Let's face it, they're actually attacking, like Andy said, when he started,

they're attacking civilians, right? They're a terrorist state. They go deliberately after civilians and kill women and children. So I don't know why we wouldn't have already done that. I don't know what we're waiting for. And I think it should be done immediately if it can. I don't know. The United States needs to agree with it at all.

I think Europe can actually do it. That's actually a really good point. You know, we've hounded Europe the time again about stepping up to the plate as far as expenditure. And look, there's some justification in that. The bottom line is, as we've explained over and over again, the show, since the Marshall Plan, the defense of Europe hasn't been about financial transactions. It's about being an implicit understanding that European nations are the battleground. and the United States provides unlimited funding, all right, to fight that fight in Europe,

not nearer to our own shores, all right? In defense, in defense not only of Europe, but our own national interests, for Christ's sake. That is why we're doing it. It's not about quid pro quo on money with a richest nation on earth. Well, we used to be before we started terrifying, everyone. Andy's coming in hot today, and I love it. I'm stepping our GDP, not on defense of NATO, but because of this ridiculous policy of imposing tariffs around the world. And other countries are going to find go rounds.

They're initially going to be hit economically, but ultimately the country that's going to suffer most economically is us. So now we've advocated our national interests and we've advocated our economic standing in the world. So what do we have left? Well, we've got the Gulf of America, I've got to admit, and that's pretty cool one. I mean, you know, but you know what? He's fired up. It was just pulled something different. No, I mean, is anything of that I've said incorrect?

No. And that's rhetorical question, guys. You're supposed to say, no, Andy, you're 100% right? I'm sure somebody listening to us. I've stopped going on social media because, you know, I had no idea that I had so many ignorant friends. Prison company accepted, you know, and all this talk about, my God, we, oh yeah, we just avoided World War III. Putin would have escalated. And like, for Christ's

sake, he's been threatening to escalate since day one. He's been threatening to escalate since 2014. Guess what? If he thought he could get away with escalating, he would have fucking escalated because he doesn't give a shit, right? You name it. Tactical nukes, whatever. If he thinks he can get away with it and achieve his aim through that, do you think he's held back by any social compunction, by any empathy? No, not at all. He will escalate and escalate, but he hasn't because he is afraid. But unfortunately, he's becoming less and less afraid. So the chances of escalation are greater. And as you know, listen to the threat, this fear of escalation goes way back. It's not specific to this administration. It goes all the way back to the Obama administration in 2014.

We've been really concerned as Putin does things, said, oh my God, if we piss them he's going to do something worse. What the fuck worse could he do? You know, I mean, okay, the reason why he's not using tactical nukes, I bet you is because someone, well, I know that he was messaged that, hey, if you do,

that's going to be a really, really bad idea for you. Because guess what, NATO's got plenty of nukes too, you know, and mutually assured destruction or mutually assured destruction, even confined to the battlefield, is not, you know, it's not passe. It's something that he still recognizes. And that's something that we should continuously remind him of. Why wouldn't, if he used his tattooed unukes, why would we not do the same?

Listen to me. I'm sounding like a hawk, but I mean, you know my... Yeah, you are. It's not my personal feelings about Russia. It isn't, you know, I mean, I felt this way before, enduring. a year of Russian artillery and drones. I mean, it's just because I read history. Why don't we do secondary sanctions on Russian oil to India and China?

What's stopping us there? We could. President Trump has said that he's considering it. Perhaps if we go back to the original plan, which is not actually. acknowledging that Crimea is Russia, freezing the lines, having a European security element go in, which in a way is a security guarantee, right? You have to attack European forces to start the war again. I mean, think about it. If President Putin will not accept it, that's because he intends to restart

the war, right? I mean, that's clear. I think if we went back to that and they wouldn't accept it, then we start amping it up. Secondary sanctions. Russia, you know, Senator McCain used to call Russia an army with a gas station. That's what they got. That's all they got. They just have oil, right? So they don't have an economy other than that.

And if they can't sell it or find a way to sell it, then they can't function and essentially can't fuel their war machine. So I think it's something that we should go back to the original plan, not the one that special envoy Whitkov presented. but the one that Special Alboy Kellogg, like General Kellogg, originally talked about. And I think that's something that's more in line. And then it's up to the Ukrainian people, of course, this is their country. But I think that's certainly more fair than the one that was actually proposed last week or this week. Yeah, bring Kellogg back for Christ's sake. What happened to him?

He's still there. He's still there. You know, I mean, he understands Russia. Yeah, but that's why the Russian said, don't lie. We don't want him negotiating. why the fuck are they choosing who negotiates and what? Yeah, that makes them perfect. Like, okay, well, now you've been sure that he's going to be the right.

I'm going to make sure he's in the center fucking table. Russia is a, you know, as Mick pointed out, Russia is a fucking paper tiger. Russia has been unable to invade a country one fifth of its size with an army, one, an army one seventh of its of the size of Russia now. I actually was less than that at the outset of the war. I'm totally unable to do it. Even with tactical surprise on its side, even with all the mistakes that Ukrainians made at the outset of the war by not bolstranded their defenses, all of those things caught in a relatively by surprise, the Ukrainians still managed to defend that country, confine Russian advances to 1.20th of its territory, and inflict extraordinary losses on the Russian military machine. What are we afraid of as the United States?

Why are we countowing to Russia? I just don't understand. You know, you talk about patriotism. You've got all these so-called patriots who are just like terrified of Russia. I mean, it's incredible. Yeah, absolutely bring McCain back. What happened? What happened to the, you know, the strength of the Republican Senate?

you know, those who really understood Russia for what it is. I need more Reagan Republicans, that's for sure. Yeah, good point. Yeah, I mean, you know, that's going back to Reagan. And understood negotiating. Andy, I remember a episode you did with us on TeamHass, and you mentioned, like, the big reason why Russia's hitting a wall in Ukraine is because they didn't do enough,

like they didn't modernize their forces after Georgia in 08. Yeah, there were a serious reforms, but the basically effects of those reforms were largely swallowed in corruption. You know, a huge amount of money was funneled into the army. There were a lot of, you know, in the American terms, it briefed well, but the results were minimal.

And, you know, a lot has been talked about this, but across the board from, you know, a lot of money was spent on improving weapons systems or acquiring new weapons systems. But when it came to structure, when it came to training, when it came to recruiting, selection, when it came to culture within the Russian army, nothing changed. You know, it still remained the same. I mean, there's many things. You know, you can talk about how the motorized rifle battalion was still.

I mean, in practice, with far too many ground pounders to man, their IFCs and their APCs, all the way through to the methodology of recruiting. So you could buy a way out of being inducted into the Russian army, I mean, all the way up to the war. And even now, you can do that. And going into the Russian military, it was regarded as a fate only for losers for those who couldn't avoid anything else. So they had very low quality of recruits. They didn't have enough recruits. They didn't train them well enough. And when they were reported to their units, they, you know, they suffered from appalling discipline.

Units that were understaffed, no maintenance, you name it, all the problems went on and on. And so none of the endemic problems that were exhibited in Georgia were. were really fixed, if anything, they became worse. Now, Russia, the Russian military, it's fair to say, is a learning organization to some extent. So they have, you know, they've learned a fair amount and they are formidable now when it comes to electronic warfare. They're formidable when it comes to use of drones.

They are far ahead of the United States military in that regard. But they still are a third-rate army. You know, when you talk about brigade-level leaders, and above. You look about how their attacks are planned. When I was in Bob Mudd, you know, consistently, when the Ukrainian-eer-adjacent units took prisoners in the assault, even Wagner assault units, right? They had no idea really what their objectives were. They were following asmoths. You know, many of them were aggressive fighters. They felt they had nothing to lose. But in the end, small. you know, their small unit or their leadership from small unit level up and their training was

appalling. I mean, ironically, you know, the things, when you look at their tactics now on the battlefield, they've learned, but they've learned very, very painfully. And you look now at that small unit tactics where they are successful and they have adopted many of the kind of Ukrainian tactics before an assault they were used small units mounted on quad bikes or motorcycles, heavily equipped with drones to go and improve Ukrainian lines and draw fire and find gaps, you know, it's reconnaissance pool. These are, you know, the more highly trained soldiers. But then once they've identified gaps in Ukrainian line, it gets back to their old tactics. So just mass pouring soldiers into these assaults.

which occur massive amount of casualties. And when they overrun Ukrainian positions as they're trying to do again now, for instance, vicinity of Solidol, you will see that they are still taking huge a number of casualties because their commanders lack tactical prowess, they lack imagination.

Yeah, well said. What a great question by me, by the way. Well done. Anything else on this? Where do you see this going? I know people are goffawing and freaking out over, like Trump and Zelensky meeting at the Vatican after the Pope's funeral,

like something's going to actually happen and Trump's somehow going to change his mind. Any thoughts before we move on? That's better than they didn't meet, that's for sure. Hopefully, without the, you know, the audience of cameras and other people that they were able to talk about what Ukraine is willing

to accept in what they need the U.S. to push for. Hopefully that's what they discussed and that we go forward with that plan and stop talking about, you know, basically everything that Russia would have put together, minus, you know, dismantling the Ukrainian military was in their proposal. And it was, it was, I mean, it's not just Russia's tactics. They go in with extreme requirements to start an, negotiation. I mean, that's a common tactic. We should have just summarily dismissed them and then

talked about something that was more reasonable. And Ukraine has a counterproposal with Europe, which, you know, calls for a cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of Russian forces, of course, because they're going to be as forthright as they can. And then, of course, compensation or retribution for all the damage that they've caused. And I think they're going to agree to this rare earth mineral deal with the United States. I would hope that that would be an investment by the United States. It's going to cost billions of dollars to even set it up to get this material out of the ground. That they could be beneficial to both the United States and Ukraine.

I don't think that's a bad thing. But we're going to have to reset the conversation because, and potentially get, you know, Senator or Secretary Rubio more directly involved, obviously, as you could tell from me in Andy's comments, General Kellogg, who knows Russia, and I don't think is confused by them. Yeah. On a, still on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, I was just trying to look up the name of the senior former CIA official whose son Michael Gloss was just.

killed in Ukraine fighting for the Russians. Yeah. She's the digital. I think you mentioned the, yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I think I don't remember her. I think the same last name. And she's the deputy for like digital.

I don't know if Jason knows. I don't. Yeah. She's a former CIA employee. Oh, I think she's current. Oh, geez. Yeah, he was fighting for the Russians. But here's the curious thing about it.

If you look at his background. He's a, you know, he's a lefty. I mean, he was pro-Palestinian. He was, he was very vocal about left-wing causes. And it, and it brings to mind, again, this very confused approach to policy in the United States, the attitude towards Russia from the left and the right, okay, of commiserating with Russia or aligning with Russia. I mean, you know, we've seen, we've already talked about on, you know, the, you know, the, the right of American politics, how they kind of eulogize the Russians. But it's fair to say on the left of American politics, the same thing. And it's just so bizarre. I think the problem with far left, like guys where people are far left, is like they're just tankies. They're just anti-American imperialism at any cost. That's why they kind of give China a pass, kind of give Russia a bit of a pass as well. They're pro-Russian imperialism. Yeah. There's one country that's fading another country right now. I mean, let's get back, let's get back to our favorite, you know, one of our favorite topics, Blumenthal, right?

Sid, not Sid, Max, Max Blumenthal, right? So, you know, remember him. I mean, he's banging the drum on the Palestinian cause and all these other things. And yet, you know, according to Washington Post article, is invited to Russia to celebrate these various events. It was some, he was invited to Russia. I think it was like, what was it, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Soviet Union, was that right? 70th or 80th anniversary. And he goes and he's a, you know, it's an event attended by Putin.

You know, and he's very, if you look at his postings, very, very pro-Russian, aside from, you know, for him attacking me, of course. And that was his, you know, Gray Zone. And the Gray Zone website too, by the way, Washington Post uncovered. that some dude, one of the founding members, was taking money from the Iranians, right? So here's, you know, again, it's just this weird confluence in the left-wing politics of kaltowing again to Russia and these countries that are autocratic, I mean, beyond belief. You know, it's, you know, I'm not sure this is just a comment about Blumenthal's personal ethics, which I think, you know, I don't think he has any.

But also his just confused, right? Yeah, if you get far enough out on the fringes, it's like a circle. It ends up in a sentence. Right? Yeah. I mean, in his case, you know, I mean, obviously he was, you know, according to the Washington Post,

he was also, he was getting some things in return from the Russians. You know, so there was a personal calculus. There was a, and maybe it made him feel important. Maybe a bit, I mean, it's just, you know, these people who pretend to be principled, pretend to have ideals. And yet are absolutely, absolutely proxies of, of adversaries to the United States. That's what I find really quite concerning. Listen, I'll be honest, I'm a bit of a lefty, right? and you see it.

Sorry, guys. This is about politics. No, but I noticed like, you're an American ID list, right? Exactly. Yeah, of course. You know, so, so for some reason, when you hear the term patriot, you think right-wing conservative.

Sure. But my point is, no, it's not necessarily the case at all, nor it should be. It should be guys like maybe you. No, I mean, definitely you. You know, I mean, who have, who, who, who, uh, who care about American values.

Sure. That's the important thing, right? So, like, the thing that I've gotten, like, away from with, like, in terms of, like, some lefty commentators and stuff is, like, they're able to somehow defend places like China when it comes to the Uyghurs or Tibet and stuff like that. And, like, really downplay the fucked up shit that China does, as well as Russia. Like, the whole time, like, they, like, some of the talking points, like, Crimea is part of Russia.

Like, bro, no, it's like, you. I just don't understand how they could fucking where the rationale and logic comes from with some of them. That's why with the tankies, I'm like... Because if you stake your beliefs to your ego and you stake both of those things to a foreign, the policies of a foreign power, then you are destined to have to support whatever that foreign power does. That's really basically the way this broken chain of logic runs. Yeah.

where you are a Max Blumenthal or you are a I didn't know think of someone on the you know on the far right they are Tim pool like I mean Tim pool is one of the guys who got money from one of the media companies where Russia was paying these guys to do pro-Russian videos and stuff like that paying them like obscene amounts of money and stuff like that where and there's endless videos of like guys like that saying like Ukraine is not our friend like like really. passionate like shitting on Ukraine and it's just it's just like dude I get it like Ukraine's got corruption issues like every other country for sure but they didn't invite anybody they didn't invade anybody they got invaded so like what would you do in that same position this is a logic that's lost and I can't I don't abide by it I'm not with it hey we've lost a bubble on our politics here right you know I'm actually in old town. So I used to have a priest friend that he's,

there's a lot of Irish pubs here. He used to go to these, the ones around here. At one time back in the 80s, he walked in there and he noticed a bunch of dudes standing around looking pretty stiff. And I walked past the booth and it was Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill when he was present.

Oh, wow. Sitting in an Irish pub having a point talking, and if you're not familiar, tip O'Neill was. a democratic leader of the house. So, I mean, that used to be our politics. And now we have people that are so far on the fringe. They're actually supporting our most significant,

might be most dangerous adversary in Russia on both sides, which is just. Yeah, they regard across the aisle as being worse enemies than our actual foreign. Yes, than our actual out of it. And you don't have to go that far back. Yeah, I mean, that's a famous example, isn't it? Reagan and Tip O'Neill, but there's, you know, McCain and Obama. I mean, used to meet in the evenings to talk about stuff. You couldn't, you know, they fought a better presidential race

against one another. Yeah. And yet had enough mutual respect, we both understood that that both of them had the interests of the United States at heart, and we have certainly lost the bubble on that. he's speaking of which D, and I know this is a bit of a digression, but on the other, talk to us about the former CIA guy that you entertained on the team house, who is now a traitor. And that's question number one. Question number two, I don't agree with the idea now to change the name to the traitor house, although it has a catch.

Good, well, because that never was on the table, first or foremost. awesome. Real quick. I'm sorry, Andy, the woman's named that CIA official, her name is Julianne. She was a deputy, or is

the deputy director for digital innovation. Wow. What a blow. Terrible. Totally. Sadly, sad story for the parents. Right. Yeah.

And the, you know, death of a young man, I think he was only 20 years old, or 22. But so misled, too, that that he died in the service of russia yeah his father said that he um suffered from mental illness all his life and he just kind of up and disappeared and ended up over there wow awful story you know the the russians are they're rolling anyone into the military

you know there's the stories have you read the story about the uh the indians who went to moscow for a bachelor party and um and ended up all being arrested and and put in uniform and sent to ukraine I mean, you can't make this shit up. I mean, if you think I'm bullshitting about that, look it up. These guys thought for some reason it would be good idea to go to Moscow for a bachelor party. What's wrong with Prague, right? But, you know, it's like the worst, it's like a really bad, um, a Bollywood version of the hangover.

Yeah. Yeah. You wake up here in, yeah, you wake up here in the, in Dumbass. Yeah. Yeah. not awesome. The same thing about the Chinese students who were, who were just captured, you know, I mean, they, they, they, being interrogated by the Ukrainians, which, you know, I, and I understand the rules

about interrogating prisoners and public, etc. I mean, on, in the media, that's not, you know, not advocating that. But the point is that these guys were saying that, you know, they were, it wasn't like a holiday they applied for them. were there volunteering to to to fight for russia but there was a serious there is a serious recruiting effort going on in china with or without the witting acknowledgement of the chinese government you can decide for yourself you know to draw people and to fight for them and within the russian ranks there are tens of thousands of foreign semi-volunteers who were cajoled or brought in to to join the meat grinder but on

Sorry, I took the topic away from the trade house. What was the story? I mean, Dale Blender was a former CIA officer. He's been SIS. We had him on. We interviewed him. He got arrested and he pled guilty for mishandling classified information and not registering as a foreign agent while he was also working in the CIA as a contractor

after he retired. I'm sure there's more to it. It's just what it is. You can check out the video, the episode. I think it's a good one. Yeah, I don't know. Here's what a, uh, we've also had John Kiriaku on the show. Who's he?

He's, uh, former CIA officer. Huh? Not another traitor, right? Well, I mean, it depends where you're looking at it. Yeah, yeah. That's like my actual title of the thing is whistleblower or traitor. Oh, okay. He's the guy that's talking about the advanced.

interrogation stuff. He got fired and went to jail for, uh, oh, okay. All right. Yeah. Leaking, leaking stuff to, uh, that's, that's different. I mean, he wasn't working for a foreign government, right? No, but then he got out and he started working for Sputnik radio. So that's like the big rub on people. I mean, we asked him about like, why, you know, why work for Sputnik? He's like, listen, I got five kids. And when I got out, I never pension. I mean, I get that. I know that people, you know, you can't do it. I mean, he has since not working for Sputnik and stuff. I mean, he has since not working for Sputnik and stuff like that, but, you know, that is another debate that can be had. Because I remember when I told a couple people, former CIA people, that we were having

Kiroika on, they got very upset with me. Did they? Oh, they were giving me shit. People got upset about Mark, right? Mark P. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Or you're always going to find people upset, but, no, I mean, I think, you know, you've got a wide spectrum of guess. You've got, you know, you have traders. you have child molesters fucking guy we have you on you clearly multiple times

have a problem with standards yeah I mean I'm gonna be honest with you I would have I'd be down to have a former al Qaeda guy on I would be honest with you I mean why not why not get their story I mean we had somebody set up

who ended up who became a CIA source an agent worked for the CIA for a long time and then got out of here and came to him America. We were trying to get him on, but he got cold feet. So I can get you a guy who's, I'm in. He actually knew, uh, sorry, uh, Sahuiri. Well, and he was al-Qaeda and now he's not,

or I wouldn't be hanging with him. But now he's, now he's an American who does, uh, eradicalization. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. That would be. It's a doctor. It's a physician. I would love that. Yep. That's how we knew, you know, uh, uh, uh, how we're here. he was a doctor with him he joined with him he got out he totally reformed himself and he now he works for the u.s. government and does a lot of de-radicalization yeah i would love that yeah i can get that he has a book too yeah i mean because i'm down to here other people's respect is and stuff especially like i don't know if i'd be cool with having a wagner guy on now well he's i mean he's he's he's reformed so he's advocate for al-gay right right maybe in like

10 or 15 years. Than most, put it that way. Right. What the allure is. And Scott Ritter, we had Scott Ritter on when you're talking about trial molesters. I was not the producer of the team asked that point. I didn't match names to many descriptions. Just FYI.

Okay. Okay, Andy, coming out here. Your invitation is revoked, by the way. You never gave me another invitation. Shut up. All right, moving on. So there is another negotiation that's pretty important, and that's the Iran. Yeah.

But let's hit on also talking about nuclear powers and stuff. India, Pakistan, going at it a little bit, a bit of a scuffle in Kashmir again. Yeah. Jay, I know you've been tracking it. What do you got on that? Yeah. So on Tuesday, 22 April, in the, it's, I'm going to probably say it wrong, Pahagam tourist destination. It's in the Kashmiran territories.

A group attacked a group of tourists. As far as I know, 26 killed. 25 Indian one Nepali that may have changed were killed and apparently the men in the group were singled out and were accused of Supporting Indian Prime Minister Modi and then there was mention of this is according to witnesses mention of the the fact that India revoked the Jammu Kashmir autonomy in 2019 and so once those men were singled out they were executed basically Of course, India has accused Pakistan of either setting this up or supporting the attack. Pakistan denies it.

A group that calls themselves the Kashmir resistance or the resistance front has taken responsibility on social media. Apparently they're relatively new. 2019 was when they first kind of reared their head a little bit. Very little is known about them. But India has linked them to, and again, I'm probably going to say this wrong. Lashkar-e-Taiiba. Yes, that's right.

I believe it was 2008 Mumbai attacks. That's right. And the Taj Mahal Hotel. Yep, absolutely, which I've been studying that since I was, you know, since it happened. It's pretty fascinating for me how it turned out or how it was conducted, you know, with, they had someone in their ear the entire time, a handler, walking them through the attack. So, but I digress. So in the in the

aftermath of it, both India and Pakistan have taken measures. India first held a press conference and declared their own people in Pakistan at the embassies, Persam and engrada and said, get out. You know, you get out of Pakistan. Pakistan did the same in India and both have revoked the visas of Pakistani and Indian nationals within their borders. They gave him 48 hours to get out. And then India or Pakistan also banned India Air, the airline, from its airspace, told them, you know, if we see you in our airspace, we're shooting you down.

And then India retaliated by suspending the Indus water treaty for the river, control of the river. And Pakistan has replied that that is an act of war. And then as of this morning, there were both sides are reporting sporadic gunfire between the two outposts in the region. So, and like you said, Dee, these are nuclear powers. So, yeah, I mean, they've had issues before. This has been well ongoing since the 40s, I think it was 1947 when the British gave up control and all of this started. Yes, 47. 47.

So, I mean, it's a tense situation. I actually have a neighbor who lives behind me here. He's from India. And I spoke to him about it yesterday. And I mean, he's firmly on the Indian side. And he, you know, says this is a religious thing. He blamed, you know, Muslims and all this. And so it was a good talk to get it from someone who just came back from that area.

But it's also a very one-sided talk. So it's worth watching. I think it's worth us watching. So when they split, Kashmir was run by a Hindu king, predominantly Muslim, which is a recipe for a continuous conflict to date. One thing interesting, I don't know if interesting is the right word, when you look at limited nuclear war, there's no such thing, right? So we did a study on this or somebody when I was at the Pentagon where they showed what would happen if there was a limited engagement between Pakistan, Indian.

It would drop the temperature around the world like four degrees Celsius down. That would equate to a massive loss of crops. And like a billion people would starve to death just with a limited exchange between those two countries. So it's hardly even in the news right now. I'm not saying they're going nuclear, right? So, but, you know, people like, why does it matter to me? Like, if there is an actual strategic level nuclear exchange, it affects the whole globe. Like, we're not going to, we're not going to be able to say, well, it's horrible to be there.

It's going to be horribly to be anywhere on the planet. So this is something. And that also goes to like the next topic, not to skip it, why it's so important that Iran doesn't get a nuke, right? Because the more people to have a nuke. nuclear weapon, more likely it's going to be used by somebody. And that's, it is not confined to the countries that are participating as many way. And I remember that article I said, sorry Andy, I sent that from the archives. I forget the name of the website, but there was a study done back, excuse me, in the 70s by CIA that said that the probability of a conflict, a full-scale conflict between

Indian Pakistan was low, very, very low. But if there was going to be one, it would be a nuclear exchange. Yes. That's why people use that as an example. Yes. Which came near happening in 1998. Probably the closest, the nearest that the world has been to actual nuclear confrontation occurred in 1998 between India and Pakistan. And the lead-up to that is quite complicated, but it had to do with both sides doing nuclear tests and both sides. feeling that from their own intelligence reportedly, believing that the other side was going to launch unprovoked strike. Interesting part about that, and I don't know if this was bluff or not, but when I went through the Marine Corps War College, we had a Pakistani general in our class,

this was way back in 2009. So it was only 10 years after this whole event, and he had been, you know, a field grade officer during that. And he, you know, he talked to us about it, said, yeah, absolutely. We were, and he was quite open about it. Again, I don't know if this was bluff, but he said, yeah, our policy is a preemptive strike if we believe that India is going to do it. We're not going to wait to be hit. And so that's how close hit came. And it's part of their, you know, their strategic calculus. And so I'm sure it's the same on the Indian side. And to your, you know, to your point about the history of this, because it's had, The problems between India and Pakistan are very ill-understood in the United States,

and they have in the past not been understood by our policymakers at all. And so, for instance, when we have been trying to get Pakistan on board, all right, initially, in supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets, and then again in opposing and rooting out the same Mujahideen when they became al-Qaeda, and were buried in the Taliban, all right, and the ISI was supporting the Taliban. And what we never, never understood during all this time was that for India, all of these other things

were side shows, absolute. And so every calculus that India, I mean, I'm sorry, that Pakistan made, was made on the basis of its policy towards India, its enmity towards India to include getting Taliban on site, to, you know, which in turn meant, having considerable influence in Afghanistan as a bulwark against India because they felt if they didn't do that, India would gain influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be sandwiched, you know, between the two.

So we never really understood this. And we never approached Pakistan when we came to negotiation or trying to get them on board with anything that Pakistan would find really inherently, attractive strategically, you know, is perhaps not siding with Pakistan against India, but enabling negotiations that would meet some of Pakistan's concerns, which have to do, you know, with a number of things to include water rights and things like that, which we have never, you know, we have never addressed. And yes, the MDT goes all back, all the way back to the British partition of India, which was one of the most ill-conceived decisions made. as the empire shut down.

It was a guy named Montbatten, who was the vice-roy of India at the time. And accusations against him were that he wanted to rush on to his next posting. He was a senior military commander, and he just wanted to get India, give India its independence and carve out this thing called Pakistan that would acknowledge the religious differences within India at the time.

So the idea was that all the Muslims would live up in the northeast, I mean, northwest and northeast at the time. Sorry, a very short history lesson. At the time, there was West Pakistan and there was East Pakistan, which subsequently in 1971 became Bangladesh. All right. So you can just think about it, okay? And you've got this subcontinent of, you know, even back then, hundreds of millions of people, different, you know, different sects, but Muslim and Hindu, and the British had kind of kept the lid on all the simmering tension over 200 years, and now they're going to lift the lid.

And geographically, the Muslims weren't all up in Pakistan, east or west Pakistan. They were spread throughout the subcontinent. And so the British said, lo and behold, at midnight, right, very famously, there's a book about this called Freedom at Midnight, Midnight of August, whatever it is, 1947. I forget what date it was. India, you've got your independence. and Pakistan, you come into being, all the Muslims will live up here, all the Hindus down here. And of course, you had absolute pandemonium, chaos, and horrendous slaughter.

And you can look up the figures. No one really knows how many Muslims and Hindus died in subsequent massacres. But I believe the numbers and the millions. And the history of Pakistan and India has been fraud ever since. Bangladesh evolved in 1971 after a very bitter war and India was involved in that war against Pakistan. So things have flared up at time to time. Kashmir has always been a really, has been a hot buttoned topic. By the way, beautiful area.

I've been up there a couple of times before it became verboten to foreign tourists. Just absolutely stunning in the foothills of the Himalayas. but it's a religiously a divided area and both sides claim it and when things start heating up inferably things happen in Trinagar. Last thing I'll say, there's a very good movie about the 2008 attacks in Mumbai.

Undoubtedly, LET came out of Pakistan, was trained within Pakistan, supposedly by the ISI, and commanded and controlled from Pakistan. throughout the attacks, which resulted in several hundred civilian deaths and included terrorists storming through the famous Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai, just killing people. But it was a very – it was an amphibious assault, amphibious raid. It was actually very well-planned, you know, towards the end, but very well-planned.

like that, the Indians have a legitimate claim that the Pakistanis have been training terrorists with a view to attacking India. And, you know, India's hands are not clean either. The things have happened to the assassinations within Pakistan that have been certainly, it appears backed by or supported and launched from India. Yeah, so we'll keep eyes on that. Anything else about No. All right. Last bit of news. Third round of Iranian and U.S. negotiations just wrapped up in Oman. This was like the experts were talking about like the actual details. While this was happening earlier today, a huge explosion happened in the, an Iranian port as well. State TV, Iranian State TV saying that both sides are going to go back to their countries and consult and come back again for hopefully another round of talks.

were make let's start with you what are your thoughts so i think the the explosion you're talking about d was in band or a boss or close to it and i think it's probably although we don't know it's probably simple negligence on the part of the court facility but of course there are people out there think it might be some kind of covert operations by the Israelis to disrupt the negotiations i don't have any information on that but uh to that point but on the bigger issue i can And I was reading this morning on part of a group called the Vanneberg Coalition, which is a nonpartisan group that believes in policy should stop at the water's edge. Senator Vanneberg said that famous line. So its motto is the water's edge.

But they're also, they joined a bunch of other, I think, conservative groups to talk about what they call the seven deadly sins of what they're concerned about. And it's definitely written for President Trump because it's, you know, if you read it, you'll see. But I thought it would be a good model for our discussion. So I told Kerry, I'd bring you, Carrie Philippetti's the executive director there, and I told her to bring it up. So the first one is, and this is, we're going to start seeing this play out. So Iran cannot enrich its own uranium, right, under the JCPOA, in 2015, they could have up to 3.6% enriched uranium. The issue, going back and forth between special envoy Whitkoff and Secretary Rubio,

is it appeared that Whitkoff was saying that they could essentially enrich their own uranium. They just couldn't have a certain. What I think most of the Iranian concern from the people are that they shouldn't be able to enrich it at all. So they can get it from someplace else. and then like Russia, and then use it for their own energy. So they don't have the ability then to turn it like they did and get all the way up to 60,

which is super close to getting the 90 that you need for weaponizations. There are seven deadly sins too, and then I think I can throw it over to you guys to talk about some of these things or just interrupt me as I get through it. The missiles, right? So the ballistic missiles weren't included before. That's a big problem because the concern is once you have a nuclear warhead, how do you deliver it? And guess you can deliver it other ways, but the most concerning and quickest is a ballistic missile that can reach.

So they would want to make sure that the agreement limits their ability to produce or even test missiles that could be carried, could be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. monitoring. That's their third. You know, it's, it's one, you know, trust but verify is what President Reagan said. We're not going to take their word for it. There has to be very strong means to be able to ensure that they can't bypass the observation of the fact that they're sticking to the agreement. Okay. The other issue that was a big deal in 2018 when I was at the Pentagon and we were having this discussion at the White House is the 2015 agreement didn't address, you know, funding terrorist organizations, you know, their proxy operations. Iran's made it clear that they're not going to include that in this.

So this is what they're talking about, but there might be a need to be a covert annex to this or something that limits or a Subroza agreement that limits their ability to fund Nesbollah, Amos, the Houthis, the Houthis, and others because that is the biggest concern when it comes to reducing sanctions. If you do sanctions and there's billions and more dollars that they can use to fund terrorist groups that are conduct things like October 7. So that's another thing we're going to be hearing a lot about. And then the last one and zip it.

There are specific sanctions on the central bank of Iran related to that, related to, that can't be part of the sanction, related to the terrorism support. that can't be part of the negotiated according to this group of think tanks. So I think we're going to be seeing that play out as we have the next discussion. I think it's back in Oman. This is today. It might be today actually in Oman. And hopefully just wrapped it up.

They just finished it. They just wrapped it up. There you go. So we'll see what comes out of it. But those are the big issues, I think, when it comes to whether this goes forward with full support. obviously Israel's very concerned about this and they're going to be putting a lot of pressure on the administration. And now we're seeing some of the, I think, right-aligned think tanks start to be concerned that we could basically just end up from their point of view of essentially the 2015 agreement. We should all hope that they can get to an agreement.

I think the administration so far has done a good job getting there and putting pressure on Iran, particularly with the military buildup. And we should all hope that it works out. Boys, who wants to take that first? I'll let you go. Andy? No, I mean, we've talked about the, we've talked about the topic before, but I think Mick summed it all up,

and I think for me, just to pile in and just going to be a repeating Mick, which, you know, I've made a career out of, and I'm not ashamed to do that. then right yeah right right on target so we'll see the readout today but hopefully it's it's gonna advance

I think the read out from today so far right away like reaction is like positive so but it was the experts talking I guess about like exactly what to do what if they say I want we still want to enrich uranium but we'll give you guys robust monitoring

I mean there's part of the negotiations are compromise. Yeah. So I'm not in the administration, so I'm not given away anything, but I would have what we're saying we want, and obviously what we would, and everybody does is what we'd accept. And if there was some kind of negotiated agreement, well, okay, you're rich and Iranian, but we have the ability to turn them off or something or the IA or something, something has to have the ability to do that. And there's a big deal for Iran. I mean, if they get a lot of their sanctions removed, it'll be a huge benefit to them.

So there's reasons to do this. And I don't think that the president's bluffing. I think that there could be a direct military strike on the facilities. The main ones, Natanz, there's several. Fordow. It could happen. And it certainly would show just how weak Iran is. So they don't want it to happen.

So there's reasons on both sides to get this done. And I think we should all be pulled for it. But there's going to be concerns that too much is given away on the side. to the United States. But hopefully they can land in the right place. I mean, what's the angle? Ungo is no nuclear weapons, right? So get to that point.

And like... No nuclear weapons, but it's also doing more to limit the proxy support. So we like to eliminate it, but it, you know, we're going to be real. And a discussion like this, maybe not at the table with everybody there, but I guess covertly and behind the scenes, are they asking about like, hey, you're going to put a leash on Israel? Well, I mean, they, yeah, I'm sure they're going to say that. But, you know, stop attacking Israel. That's what I would tell them. You know, if you don't want to, if you don't want Israel to attack Iran,

don't support groups that attack Israel, you know. I mean, 90% of the military support for Hamas came from Iran. Ron. Yeah, so, I mean, that's, I doubt Iran is even going to ask then. I'll tell you why, because I think, a big disappointment of this negotiating the tactic is the fact that we're not bringing proxies into play.

You know, we're not, I mean, and that was a weakness in the original Jekpah was that Iran's malign influence was not challenged by anything in the Jikpah. Now, Iran's malign influence has been considerably reduced certainly as far as Hamas is concerned, but it's still supporting Hezbollah. Hezbollah may be on its knees for now, but with the Iranian support will recover.

It might take as long as a decade, but it will recover, and the Iranians will go on supplying weapons. So it would be a good time to kind of broker an agreement that undermine that. But of most immediate concern, of course, to everyone at the Houthis. So, yeah, I mean, I don't think,

I'd say to handle that because the U.S. isn't going to agree to anything when it comes to Israel, but I don't think Iran would even broach that because that opens up that whole bag of worms about what Iran has been to support proxies throughout the world. Oh, and the father has, of course, weakened Iran's position regionally too. All it has is really right now, I mean, it's the ability to rebuild as Bala. and to continue to supply the hoodies. Mick, you mentioned, like, if there was an agreement, there'd be some kind of covert kind of addendum or annex to it.

Has that happened before, and how do you monitor that? Well, if it's covert, then I wouldn't be talking about it. I mean, the reason why I suggested that, I don't even know if it's in play, but there's a lot of things that Iran simply couldn't acknowledge publicly that they would do. And one of them, as they say, and I'm on several shows where I see the Iranian perspective, to them it's their allies, right?

Hezbo is their allies. They're not going to publicly say we're going to abandon our ally. But if we could get them to substantially reduce, again, we'd rather eliminate any support to them that happens over time without them having to publicly acknowledge us. I think that's what I'm calling like a covert. Is there precedent for that? I don't know. I mean, ultimately, I think there probably is to have like a portion of an agreement,

but I don't know. I mean, that's the point of being covert. We should never acknowledge it because if that was the case, then other countries and groups would not ever agree to it again. We have to keep that essentially on a lowdown. And the idea behind it would be that eventually they would cease support to Haspel up. They just can't say it because if they say it out loud, that's a huge slap for the, you know, I told the Supreme Leader.

So it's more important to me that we get it actually done that takes some kind of public credit for getting them to cut it. So I don't know if that's the case. I'm just throwing it out there. Ultimately, it's in everybody's interest to ensure they don't get a nuclear weapon. And although I would support the military option if it's the only option, we don't want to go down that road. because then they're sea mining, you know, the Straits of Horn moves.

They're attacking embassies. They're attacking our partners and allies and bases. I mean, nobody should want this to turn into an actual conflict. And there's no guarantee if we do hit it, that it stops and really, like, it doesn't bring it back to the Stone Age. It could delay it six months or blink twice if there is precedent for this. I'm just advocating for it as a citizen. and not as a... Yeah, so we'll see what goes on from here.

Mick, you wanted to mention something at the end of the show before we took home. I did. And I could see it on the TV right now. I know it's off topic, and I'm not a particularly religious person, but wanted to acknowledge it's the Pope's funeral today. It's something I think that's super interested about him, and it kind of explains a lot about Pope Francis is that he was a Jesuit. So he's the first Pope that was a Jesuit. And if you're not familiar with that, that order, it was founded by somebody who was a soldier. That's what they call them soldiers of God, St. Ignatius of Leola. He was a soldier in Spain. But the fascinating thing about them is they not only are the teachers, the free thinkers, scientists,

but they are known for sticking up for the poor, for the marginalized people in society, for human rights advocacy around the world. There's truly, and there's only 2% of all priests are desolets. I know this. Again, I'm not a religious person or particularly religious. But my father was a Jesuit priest. Obviously, he left the priesthood and became a scientist, or I wouldn't be talking to you, fine people.

So I've always had a fascination with them, because my father, you talk about it that much, he was very much in the same line. And I think if you're looking for, withdrove Pope Francis to be such a reformer, and also to be somebody that really vocally advocated for refugees, for human rights around the world, I think that that was it.

It all came from the order of the Jesuits, which in some cases takes up to 10 years to even be to get into. So it's a very exclusive group. But I think whether you're Catholic or Christian or religious or not, I wish we had more people like the Tesla. Certainly in Central America in the 80s, you know, when the United States was because of the Cold War, you know, this isn't an ethical judgment, but we were supporting a lot of regimes, El Salvador, Chile, to some extent, Argentina, who were basically extreme right wing and did. not have the best records in human rights. It was the Jesuit communities in those countries showing a great deal of courage that stood up for the populations. And there was a famous murder, right? The 1989 murder of Jesuit priests in El Salvador is what really got the United States

to reconsider its policy towards the El Salvadorian government and ultimately resulted in negotiations with the rebels and eventually peace. But it was, you know, it was kind of a moment where the, you know, government-backed death squads killed, I think it was six Jesuit priests in El Salvador in 89. And that was kind of the clincher. So because I'm, you know, also a fair guy and I'm interested in history, now the Jesuits didn't always have a benign reputation going back to, for instance, in the Spanish opposition. And, you know, a paradox. I mean, of course, it's talking about today.

Talking about, yeah. Watch your mouth, Andy. No, no, no, don't get me wrong. I'm a big Jesuit reporter. I mean, I'm not just saying that because of the next father I am. I mean, Jesuit schools, you know, longstanding, three, you know, three pillars, right, education and human rights. Well, that's two pillars, sorry. speaking of

yeah and they they kind of take well they're they're kind of the guys that go and do the most dangerous stuff right you already mentioned like yeah yeah the soldiers right yeah expeditionally

you know I know evangelist in the evangelism evangelism it's a bad name but they were kind of the spearhead of of Catholic evangelism

why am I funny close yeah they're so like they're the Marines of evil jealous well that's what I like to think but again I'm not I'm not proselytizing here I'm there's anybody you know it's a it's a big day for I think Catholics and and it's

a celebration of life right he was a he was uh you know he was up there anyway yeah by all accounts he was a very he was a good guy and yeah you know very very highly respected yeah And it's always nice, you know, nice to see a funeral, but it is nice to see a non-political event drawing leaders and constitutional monarchs from around the world. So simply to mourn a very good, very influential man in Pillar, of course, you know, the center of the Catholic church.

Amen. Hopefully they don't elect a mutant next. Hopefully it's like some of us. We'll find out. Conflave is starting, I think soon, right? probably love here. Yeah. All right, boys, this is great.

Guys, don't forget to check out all the, all the links down in the description. Mick Lobo, Fogbo, all his publications are down to the description. Andy Milburn, when the Tempest gathers, great autobiography about his escapades. And I'm not just kidding. I'm not fucking around.

It's a very good book. Link is in the description. Jason had to run. Jason lines. All his links are in the description. If you want to see these guys, talk to these guys, read what they've written. All the links are in the description.

If you want early access to both the Teamhouse and Eisengeopolitics, also add free. You can go to patreon.com slash the Teamhouse, and guess what? That link is there too. Thanks, guys. This is awesome. Thanks, guys.

Have a great day. Hey, guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the Team House ad-free.

The same goes with our affiliated podcast, Eyes On, with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped us. this company, this small business survive, especially during our early years, and you are what continues to help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page, and there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop. So if you guys

want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers, and we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.