Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Yeah, Today's Q and A Trump's use of economics to
de escalate worldwide tensions. This is brought to you by
listen ashes check Mark collections. Each day I feature a
listener questions sent by one of these methods. You may
email me Brian Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
up on social at Brian Mud Radio. You may also
use the iHeartRadio talk back feature. Just go to w
(00:26):
JNO or Vio Patriot inside of the iHeartRadio app. And
once you have done this you can access all kinds
of great things for free, like us anywhere, anytime, on demand.
And so for that reason, we would love it if
you made us your number one preset, and then the
Brian Mudshow podcast my podcast your number two preset. That
would be awesome. And while you're in there, you'll see
(00:47):
a little microphone button. See it, Tap it you may
lay down a message right there, maybe for a future
Q and A just like this one.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Hello, Brian, this is great from Port Saint Lucy, Florida.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
I was just wondering about.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Your take on the India and Pakistan situation. Do you
believe that this could turn into an existential problem that
may cause the United states to have to interfere. Thank you,
listen to you every day.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Yeah, I appreciate it. Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
And in the grand scheme of geopolitical concerns on our radar,
a law, the new access powers of China, Russia, Ron Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua,
et cetera. I don't know that anybody really had an
India Pakistan nuclear war under Bingo Guard, right, I mean,
like that wasn't the thing that most people were out
(01:42):
there being concerned about, if you're going to be concerned
about something. But for those who may not know, the
impetus behind the current India Pakistan conflict not new, not new.
It's just an escalation of something that started after World
War Two in what is known as the Partis of
nineteen forty seven. So just after World War two, the
(02:04):
conflict between the two countries began with the partition of
British India.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So the England said we're out.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
England had been over there and they're like, we're getting out,
and so we're going to turn this into two independent states.
We will have India and Pakistan. And they did this
based on religious lines. India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan predominantly Muslim.
This led to mass migrations. There was communal violence during
(02:33):
this period, the displacement of millions, and so you had
all these ongoing tensions that really have never stopped. It's
just beyon again off against skirmishes.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
In fact, the last.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Time something arrived at the level of like military type
violence was in twenty twenty one. It just wasn't as
big as what happened most recently with missiles flying around.
So the recent flare up in the India Pakistan conflict
was triggered by a terrorist attack on April twenty second
and an Indian administered territory. The attack was claimed initially
(03:08):
by the Resistance Front this is an offshoot of a
Pakistan based terror group and a killed twenty seven people.
India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, saying, hey, this
is state sponsored basically, which Pakistan denied. The escalation included
a series of missile attacks leading to a total of
(03:30):
sixty six deaths preceding the Trump administration broker seatsfire agreement
late last week. And that's kind of a good place
to pick up with today's question, pertending to my level
of concern regarding the conflict between the two countries and
whether the US would need to get involved. In general,
this is important to know. Pakistan is a bad actor.
(03:51):
Pakistan is a problem. While it's debatable about whether there's
state sponsored terrorism or not, what is known is that
they at least tall rate Islamic tear within their country.
You know, aside from the current day issues with the TRF,
let's not forget that it was Pakistan where Osama bin
Laden was able to hide out for about six years
(04:11):
preceding the elimination of the nine to eleven Mastermind by
Sealed Team six, and notably the Pakistani population and their
problematic as well. What I found to be most instructive
on this topic the Pew Research Center after bin Laden
was taken out, or it's twenty twelve. Walk you back
(04:32):
to twenty twelve. Pew Research Center goes into Pakistan and
starts interviewing Pakistani people, and it was pretty eye opening
what they found following the killing of bin Laden. What
percentage of the Pakistani people do you believe or thought
that the US operation was a good thing in the country,
(04:56):
How many Pakistanis thought Sealed Team said going in to
get Ben Lauden was a good thing.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Yeah, and I would guess pretty low, like maybe thirty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
You divide that by three and you've got your answer
ten percent. Only one in ten pakistanis said, yeah, uh,
steal Team six going and taken out of some have
been Altan is good. And so Pew tried to provide
maximum benefit of the doubt. They followed up with a
question saying, Okay, well, maybe it's because they didn't want
(05:31):
the US military in their country doing anything. So what
about just Osama bin Laden no longer being around? Forget
how it happened, just Osama bin Laden not being around?
Do you think that's a good thing.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
I would say the numbers a bit higher than the ten,
maybe twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Okay, yeah, it's fourteen, So only four percent of more
people are like yeah, so that's it providing maximum benefit
of the doubt to the Pakistani people. Only fourteen percent
thought that Osama bin Laden being gone was a good thing.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
What does that tell you about them?
Speaker 1 (06:08):
You know, it's kind of the same thing with the Palestinians, right,
you'll have the.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Oh, they're innocent victims. No they're not. They voted for Hamas.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
They're overwhelmingly supportive of hamas they are terrorist sympathizers. Three
and three, there are no victims in Palestine that doesn't exist.
Same deal with the pakistanis they are overwhelmingly supporters of
Islamic terr Their government situations more stable than some other countries,
(06:38):
but only to a point. So for these reasons, it
is concerning anytime we're talking about war, especially with potential
nuclear implications involved with people who are wired this way.
On the other hand, Donald Trump is no Joe Bidener
for that matter, George W.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Bush Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Rather than US military intervention, President Trump believes in the
use of economic means to achieve policy of ject and
unlike his predecessor, he's actually good at doing it. It
was no mistake that Donald Trump, during its first term,
was the only post World War II president to preside
over our time which there was not any escalation of
conflict anywhere in the world. That is his preferred position.
(07:16):
He was loud about this in Saudi Arabia again yesterday.
And while he's willing to use the full military capabilities
of the United States to achieve piece if needed, as
we know, he ascribes to the philosophy of peace through strength,
and yes, that means having a strong, incapable military. But
it also means having a strong and thriving economy that
the rest of the world needs to maintain their own economy.
(07:37):
So Trump isn't the only president to try to use
the economy to maintain or a chief peace, but he
has been the most successful we've ever seen a deployment.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
For example, the.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Reason that Biden failed miserably to prevent the Russian invasion
of Ukraine through sanctions. Remember he said, they're not going
to do it, because we'll do all these sanctions, and
then Russia did it, and so he did sanctions, and
then Russia kept going, and he did more, and it
just never worked. The reason for that is if Russia's like,
(08:08):
we don't care. The only thing they care about is
how much they can sell their energy for. And because
of the war and also by inflation, oil became a
lot more pricey, and so they could sell their oil
for a lot more, and they didn't care if they
weren't selling it to US or other places.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
They signed a deal with China.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
China would buy everything that Russia could produce, and in fact,
Russia became richer as a result of the war than
they had ever been before because China had this relationship
with them, and last year they set records. Russia set
records for what they did with China. So that's the
(08:46):
reason that failed. Trump doesn't play that game. What Trump
does when he is going to use economic means is like, look,
if we're going to target a country, if you're another
country that does business with that country, we're going to
tear if the heck out of you, or we're just
not going to do business with.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
You, And that stops them from going down that path.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
That's what's different here, and that is effectively what Trump
did and Broker in the ceasefire. It's like, look, you guys,
don't cut this crap, then you know we're going to
use tariffs and you guys are going to be starved
out here. And so that is the credibility that comes
along with somebody who knows what they're doing and also
is willing to deploy those means. And so I know
(09:28):
the skirmish the history there, that's going to get better
anytime soon. But I am far less concerned about an
escalation with them than I would be if if Biden
were a president, for example, That's for sure,
Yeah, Today's Q and A Trump's use of economics to
de escalate worldwide tensions. This is brought to you by
listen ashes check Mark collections. Each day I feature a
listener questions sent by one of these methods. You may
email me Brian Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
up on social at Brian Mud Radio. You may also
use the iHeartRadio talk back feature. Just go to w
(00:26):
JNO or Vio Patriot inside of the iHeartRadio app. And
once you have done this you can access all kinds
of great things for free, like us anywhere, anytime, on demand.
And so for that reason, we would love it if
you made us your number one preset, and then the
Brian Mudshow podcast my podcast your number two preset. That
would be awesome. And while you're in there, you'll see
(00:47):
a little microphone button. See it, Tap it you may
lay down a message right there, maybe for a future
Q and A just like this one.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Hello, Brian, this is great from Port Saint Lucy, Florida.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
I was just wondering about.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Your take on the India and Pakistan situation. Do you
believe that this could turn into an existential problem that
may cause the United states to have to interfere. Thank you,
listen to you every day.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Yeah, I appreciate it. Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
And in the grand scheme of geopolitical concerns on our radar,
a law, the new access powers of China, Russia, Ron Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua,
et cetera. I don't know that anybody really had an
India Pakistan nuclear war under Bingo Guard, right, I mean,
like that wasn't the thing that most people were out
(01:42):
there being concerned about, if you're going to be concerned
about something. But for those who may not know, the
impetus behind the current India Pakistan conflict not new, not new.
It's just an escalation of something that started after World
War Two in what is known as the Partis of
nineteen forty seven. So just after World War two, the
(02:04):
conflict between the two countries began with the partition of
British India.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So the England said we're out.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
England had been over there and they're like, we're getting out,
and so we're going to turn this into two independent states.
We will have India and Pakistan. And they did this
based on religious lines. India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan predominantly Muslim.
This led to mass migrations. There was communal violence during
(02:33):
this period, the displacement of millions, and so you had
all these ongoing tensions that really have never stopped. It's
just beyon again off against skirmishes.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
In fact, the last.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Time something arrived at the level of like military type
violence was in twenty twenty one. It just wasn't as
big as what happened most recently with missiles flying around.
So the recent flare up in the India Pakistan conflict
was triggered by a terrorist attack on April twenty second
and an Indian administered territory. The attack was claimed initially
(03:08):
by the Resistance Front this is an offshoot of a
Pakistan based terror group and a killed twenty seven people.
India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, saying, hey, this
is state sponsored basically, which Pakistan denied. The escalation included
a series of missile attacks leading to a total of
(03:30):
sixty six deaths preceding the Trump administration broker seatsfire agreement
late last week. And that's kind of a good place
to pick up with today's question, pertending to my level
of concern regarding the conflict between the two countries and
whether the US would need to get involved. In general,
this is important to know. Pakistan is a bad actor.
(03:51):
Pakistan is a problem. While it's debatable about whether there's
state sponsored terrorism or not, what is known is that
they at least tall rate Islamic tear within their country.
You know, aside from the current day issues with the TRF,
let's not forget that it was Pakistan where Osama bin
Laden was able to hide out for about six years
(04:11):
preceding the elimination of the nine to eleven Mastermind by
Sealed Team six, and notably the Pakistani population and their
problematic as well. What I found to be most instructive
on this topic the Pew Research Center after bin Laden
was taken out, or it's twenty twelve. Walk you back
(04:32):
to twenty twelve. Pew Research Center goes into Pakistan and
starts interviewing Pakistani people, and it was pretty eye opening
what they found following the killing of bin Laden. What
percentage of the Pakistani people do you believe or thought
that the US operation was a good thing in the country,
(04:56):
How many Pakistanis thought Sealed Team said going in to
get Ben Lauden was a good thing.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Yeah, and I would guess pretty low, like maybe thirty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
You divide that by three and you've got your answer
ten percent. Only one in ten pakistanis said, yeah, uh,
steal Team six going and taken out of some have
been Altan is good. And so Pew tried to provide
maximum benefit of the doubt. They followed up with a
question saying, Okay, well, maybe it's because they didn't want
(05:31):
the US military in their country doing anything. So what
about just Osama bin Laden no longer being around? Forget
how it happened, just Osama bin Laden not being around?
Do you think that's a good thing.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
I would say the numbers a bit higher than the ten,
maybe twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Okay, yeah, it's fourteen, So only four percent of more
people are like yeah, so that's it providing maximum benefit
of the doubt to the Pakistani people. Only fourteen percent
thought that Osama bin Laden being gone was a good thing.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
What does that tell you about them?
Speaker 1 (06:08):
You know, it's kind of the same thing with the Palestinians, right,
you'll have the.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Oh, they're innocent victims. No they're not. They voted for Hamas.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
They're overwhelmingly supportive of hamas they are terrorist sympathizers. Three
and three, there are no victims in Palestine that doesn't exist.
Same deal with the pakistanis they are overwhelmingly supporters of
Islamic terr Their government situations more stable than some other countries,
(06:38):
but only to a point. So for these reasons, it
is concerning anytime we're talking about war, especially with potential
nuclear implications involved with people who are wired this way.
On the other hand, Donald Trump is no Joe Bidener
for that matter, George W.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Bush Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Rather than US military intervention, President Trump believes in the
use of economic means to achieve policy of ject and
unlike his predecessor, he's actually good at doing it. It
was no mistake that Donald Trump, during its first term,
was the only post World War II president to preside
over our time which there was not any escalation of
conflict anywhere in the world. That is his preferred position.
(07:16):
He was loud about this in Saudi Arabia again yesterday.
And while he's willing to use the full military capabilities
of the United States to achieve piece if needed, as
we know, he ascribes to the philosophy of peace through strength,
and yes, that means having a strong, incapable military. But
it also means having a strong and thriving economy that
the rest of the world needs to maintain their own economy.
(07:37):
So Trump isn't the only president to try to use
the economy to maintain or a chief peace, but he
has been the most successful we've ever seen a deployment.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
For example, the.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Reason that Biden failed miserably to prevent the Russian invasion
of Ukraine through sanctions. Remember he said, they're not going
to do it, because we'll do all these sanctions, and
then Russia did it, and so he did sanctions, and
then Russia kept going, and he did more, and it
just never worked. The reason for that is if Russia's like,
(08:08):
we don't care. The only thing they care about is
how much they can sell their energy for. And because
of the war and also by inflation, oil became a
lot more pricey, and so they could sell their oil
for a lot more, and they didn't care if they
weren't selling it to US or other places.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
They signed a deal with China.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
China would buy everything that Russia could produce, and in fact,
Russia became richer as a result of the war than
they had ever been before because China had this relationship
with them, and last year they set records. Russia set
records for what they did with China. So that's the
(08:46):
reason that failed. Trump doesn't play that game. What Trump
does when he is going to use economic means is like, look,
if we're going to target a country, if you're another
country that does business with that country, we're going to
tear if the heck out of you, or we're just
not going to do business with.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
You, And that stops them from going down that path.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
That's what's different here, and that is effectively what Trump
did and Broker in the ceasefire. It's like, look, you guys,
don't cut this crap, then you know we're going to
use tariffs and you guys are going to be starved
out here. And so that is the credibility that comes
along with somebody who knows what they're doing and also
is willing to deploy those means. And so I know
(09:28):
the skirmish the history there, that's going to get better
anytime soon. But I am far less concerned about an
escalation with them than I would be if if Biden
were a president, for example, That's for sure,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.