June 17, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 4 of A&G features...
- Iran can't have a nuclear bomb
- The Iranian newscast & a few listener texts!
- Iran situation vs Iraq situation & cellular outages
- Final Thoughts!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jackie and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
I am saying this because I'm really afraid that my
country's going to be further weakened by this. I think
we're going to see the end of American empire. Obviously
other nations would like to see that, and this is
a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the
shoals of Iran, but it's also going to end, I believe,
Trump's presidency and effectively end it.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Trump responded to Tucker Carlson, call him kooky, and nobody
knows what he said, get a TV show. I think
he said Tucker has got way bigger following than if
he had a TV show. Actually, so if he had
a TV show, it would be very popular and he
would have his following online, so he would be bigger maybe,
But he's better. He's bigger than any of the current
TV shows out there.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
He just is. It's just statistically true.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
So this segment, we're going to really get into the
whole various shades of MAGA and that whole thing, And
is Trump betraying America first by wanting to go to
war with Iran, which he seems to be hell bent on,
And I'm I think he's right. And for instance, here's
Tulcy Gabbard in a hearing a little while back saying
(01:28):
Iran's not going to get a bomb.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The ICY continues to assess that Iran is not building
a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamani has not authorized
the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in two thousand
and three. The ICY continues to monitor closely if Tehran
decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
So I see the international community, that intelligence community, intelligence community. Okay, yeah,
I don't think that's right. But anyway, here Trump was
asking about delusion. Yeah, here's Trump responding to his DNI,
the Director of National Intelligence, she has access to everything,
saying Iran's not about to get a bomb.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Here's what Trump says about that. How close do you
personally think that they were to get it on?
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Because Tulsa Gartt testified at March the intelligence community said
Ran wasn't going into pure beverage.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
What she said, I think they.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Trump says, I don't care what she said when she
testified that Iran's not closing to getting above Trump decided.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I think they're very close to having one.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
He said, yeah, So he's speaking about the intelligence around
the most important issue right now, in the biggest decision
of his entire presidency. The first person you would go
to would be the DNIS. Like I said, they have
access to all of it in all the different departments.
And he says, I don't care what she said because
(02:53):
she's wrong, right, He's basically just saying, I mean he's
he's basically saying, she's part of that non interventionists don't
ever attack anybody crowd that I kind of catered to.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
But in this case, I don't believe is right. She
cannot be in her job a week from now.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
But just to make it more complicated, I would agree
to make it more complicated. You got John Fetterman, Democratic Senator,
arguing that supporting Israel and taking down the regime in
Iran will be the key to lasting piece in Middle East.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
He's pro regime change, not just.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Bombing, but regime change, which of course is a dirty
phrase for a lot of people after.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Iraq, which I saw somebody point out earlier.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
You have a whole bunch of hosts on cable news
who are four years old when the regime change in
Iraq has because that was twenty three years ago, twenty
two years ago. So if you're twenty eight, you were
five when that happens. On it's say, it's history to you.
Another interesting wrinkle from Who's Where on Politics and Weird
Bedfellows Josh Rogan, who we generally really like, although I
(03:58):
don't agree with everything he said a lot from The
Washington Post said, if Trump attacks Iran based on a
flimsy claim of preemption, what after running on a foreign
policy criticizing Bush for attacking a raq on a flimsy
claim of preemption, he either has no core principles or
has no clue what he's doing, or both scary times,
(04:20):
How is it think comparing.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Those two is? It's a canard, It's not accurate.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
How the hell is it a flimsy claim of preemption
when the IAEA and everybody has been reporting that they're
very close to getting a.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Bomb, When both the Ayatola and the chief negotiator of
Haran said one thing we're not going to give up
is enrichment. You don't enrich uranium to get the light
bulbs to light up and have civilian electricity.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
You do it to build a nuclear weapon. Period. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
I don't know if Josh is off his rock or what,
but I completely disagree with him on this.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
I will concede this point.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
And it's a the idea that this could lead to
regime change in Iran than what?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Then?
Speaker 5 (05:06):
What is a penny door's box of Middle East style?
God help us?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Do we have to? Well, Iran can't have the bomb.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
No, that's the bottom line, and that's what makes the
decision easier. No matter what happens, there's nothing that is
worse than letting them get a nuclear weapon, is there?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's the question I think. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
I can't even imagine a scenario that would be worse
than Iran getting the bomb.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Tucker Carlson disagrees with you.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Even if it devolved into full Iraq chaos, which I
seems incredibly unlikely to me, that would be better, wouldn't
it than Iran getting a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 5 (05:49):
Depends who ends up in charge. You know what happens
five ten years down the line. But no, I agree
with you. It's not an open and shutcase. But I agree.
A couple of notes very quickly from the online world.
First of all, I came across this the great David Berg,
Iowahawk blogger. The worst consequence of the Internet is the
almost universal delusion that your opinions are shared by the majority.
(06:13):
Once again, the worst consequence of the Internet is an
almost universal delusion that your opinions are shared.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
By the majority.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
It's even worse than that, though, David, It's that my
opinions are shared by enough people that they're right anyway,
He says. The countdown of the top four sufferers of
acute delusions of popularity Number four, transactivists number three true
uh yeah, no kidding, and then the stupid idiot corporations
that believe that well they had the media in education
(06:41):
too anyway. Moving along, Number three Neo Nazi podcast bros.
Number two campus garbage babies.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
What's a garbage baby?
Speaker 5 (06:51):
It's your It's I don't know, it's your campus cafea
wearing dopes.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Number one Caitlin Clark haters.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
An He mentions, there's this weird cult of paleo WNBA
fans who are literally trying to organize a boycott for
people to not watch games featuring Caitlin Clark.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
That is the reason I bring that up is that's
a pretty good encapsulation of the Internet. It's an echo
chamber for everyone, no matter how stupid their opinions.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
And the algorithms.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
Algorithms are built to feed you people that agree with you,
to help reinforce it.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
The whole for you, you know, section at Twitter for instance.
So anyway, as Maga America is at each other's throats
over the whole helping Israel thing.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Jacob, I gotta jump in on that because you just
said this drives me crazy. This is just the way
politics works. But you always claim that the other side
is doing something unique to them and it doesn't happen
with you. I watch MSNBC and CNNA fair amount lots
of discussion about the civil war within the Republican Party
and how was a problem from the get go that
(08:00):
the magamum Maga movement is a coalition of different groups
that don't agree and it's coming apart and blah blah blah.
Are you gonna tell me the Democratic Party hasn't been
a coalition of groups that don't agree forever.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Right, give me a break.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Virtually every political party, every political party, yes, but the
Democrats especially. Oh yeah, yeah, what a trans people have
to do with militant Muslims in Hamtramck, Michigan, for instance,
church going boy in the same party. That's what they
have in common. Yeah, church go will go ahead and
finish that up.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Church going black women who are the least likely to
support any of this trans stuff, or even gay marriage
for that matter.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
With all the other people with queers for Palestine, Yes,
in the same political party.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Right, okay, Union leaders who had to hate illegal immigration.
Speaker 5 (08:47):
I mean, there's all kinds of examples, so really interesting
study of how this works. Jade Vance is just tweeted, Look,
I'm seeing this from the inside and admittedly biased towards
our president and my friend, but there's a lot of
crazy stuff on social media, so I want to address
some things directly on the Iran issue. Then he gets
into the whole enrichment thing and he says is he
said repeatedly this would happen one of two ways they
(09:09):
can't have I'm sorry. First, Potus has been amazingly consistent
over ten years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy
team to reach a deal with the Uranians to accomplish
this goal. The President has made clear that Iran cannot
have uranium enrichment, and he said repeatedly that this would
happen one of two ways, the easy way or the
(09:30):
other way. And then he gets into the whole enrichment question,
which we've already dealt with. It's one thing to want
civilian energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capability.
It's still another thing to cling to enrichment while simultaneously
violating basic non proliferation obligations and enriching right to the
point of weapons grade uranium. Josh Rogan, I've yet to
(09:52):
see a single good argument for why Iran needs to
enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've
yet to see a single good argument for why Iran
was justified in violating his non proliferation obligations. I've yet
to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings. Meanwhile,
the President has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our militaries
focused on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He
(10:14):
may decide he needs to take further action and Iranian enrichment.
That decision belongs to the president. And of course people
are right to be worried about foreign entanglements after the
last twenty five years of idiotic foreign policy tippiness.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Gap toward that crowd, which.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Is fine, it's a good point, But I believe the
president has earned some trust on this issue. Having seen
this up close and personal, I can assure you that
he is only interested in using the American military to
accomplish the American people's goals.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Whatever he does, that is his focus. And so that
is interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
But the reaction, including some pretty significant accounts.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
One guy says, yeah, it makes sense to me. Death
to America. He can't get away with it. Then this other.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
Blue check mark Twitter account, he has a bunch of
tweets over the ears from Trump's from Trump in order
to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.
Barack Obama will attack Iran in order to get reelected.
A year later, I've predicted President Obama will at some
point attack Iran in order to save face.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
There's a list of them that he shows.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
That's interesting, nice words, but it's still another war in
the Middle East provoked by the Israelis.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
That will suck up a lot of resources.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
People are just tired of seeing Israel first, not America first.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Oh my god.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
So that other stuff about how he criticized Obama or
Bush forgetting US involved in wars, Okay, fine, leave that
to political historians or something. Let's get back to the
bottom line we started with. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
I don't care who said whatever, doesn't make any difference.
Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Now the President coming
(11:53):
out yesterday and saying, look, I invented America first, I
get to define it. It is America first to stop
around from getting a nuclear weapon. I Jack Armstrong agree
with that position.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
JD.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Van and he doesn't need ever run again. So you know,
if he loses a chunk of people whatever JD. Vance
is in a different situation, he can't lose that hole.
We don't get involved in war'st crowd if he's going
to run for president in a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Right.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Interesting, The only pushback to JD that I've seen on
the IAEA thing saying that Iran is clearly trying as
fast as they can to get a nuke that's the
fing UN's conclusion. So JD says, I haven't seen a
single good pushback, and somebody says it was contrary to
what our own DNI says. Can you help clarify? Well, right, yeah,
(12:47):
Telsey Gabbard in March test. If I know they're not,
she's going to be gone by the end of the week.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
So you take the word of Telsey Gabbard over the president.
I do know from that crowd though, because I know
a couple of people personally that a part of the
you know, maybe some of you, the Tucker, Candice Owens,
whatever crowd, Alex Jones, which we're about to talk about.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
They think I've had a person tell me this to
my face.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
It proves that Trump is on the Epstein list and
they have information about him that he has now flipped
and had to go the other direction.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
Okay, I don't even have time to refute that because
the people that hold the cards on the whole Epstein
thing have him dangling at the end of their puppet strings.
You are being manipulated by people who are smarter than you,
that know how to trip your trigger.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Sorry, I know that's hurtful.
Speaker 5 (13:34):
It's much easier to fools people than to convince them
they're being fooled, but they.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Are anyway going to get to some text four one, five,
two nine five k FTC you today with a decent
chance of drones driving. That's the Iranian NewsCap series.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
In the middle of her uh.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Her report on the latest stoning at the soccer stadium
or whatever she was doing the Iranian news and the
drone hit from a Iran from Israel.
Speaker 5 (14:12):
I'm enjoying some of the memes. It sounded like angry
ranting about how you will now we all not bow
to you. Alla will protect us, No bomb will reach us.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Kerbloey.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
So we got a number of texts very interesting on
this topic of going to war with Iran or not.
I taken a decent amount of Candace Owens and Joe
Rogan and they are not saying Trump is doing this
due to the Epstein list. I just said, I know
two people that follow that world of Candas Owans and
Tucker Carlson and they and they have said that. But
(14:45):
it's interesting to me that this person lumps Candas Owens
and Joe Rogan together. I don't see that at all.
Joe Rogan has those people on. But I've never got
the sense that he believes everything they say. Another text,
After trillion's and dollar dollars and thousands of lives wasted
over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're really this
hung gung ho about the US jumping into the fray
(15:07):
and doing a repeat in Iran a repeat. The repeat
would be there were no weapons of mass destruction. So
you think there are no there's no nuclear program or
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
And you think Donald Trump's going to try to install
a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, like George w did, No.
I reject your premise. It's a dumb question.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
Next, Alex Jones just tweeted out a picture of him
and Tucker as he was on Tucker's show. I am
proud that Tucker Carlson is standing his ground against the psychotic,
warmongering neo cons that have brought the world to the
verge of thermo nuclear armageddon.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
By preventing Iran from having a new exactly.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
So, yes, we're bringing the world to the edge of
a nuclear war the country that doesn't have nukes because
we're stopping them from getting news.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Exactly is that they've been making that plea about Russia
and Ukraine too.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Right, and Russia does have nukes obviously, does Alex Jones
and Tucker Carlson do they believe that? Do they believe
things would be fine if you let a Ran get
a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I really don't know.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Alex Jones, in his famous lawsuit his trial, had to
admit that, look, I say all sorts of stuff. I
don't believe that's true. He did say that, right. Wow,
it's like I'm playing a character. Yeah, I'm playing a character.
I'm pandering to a certain set of people who want
to believe certain things. So I tell them what they
want to believe, and I sell enormous amounts of you know,
(16:47):
subscriptions and advertising in the rest of that to them.
Now again, as I said the other hour, I guess
there are some people. I think our ninety percent grifter
and ten percent sincere, there's someho or the other, or
even one hundred percent since here.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
They're just misguided and wrong. Wow.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It'd be interesting to see how this plays out over
the next couple of days, because it's coming.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
It's gonna happen, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:18):
Given the fact that Israel and Iran you're engaged in
a very active conflict right now in the short term,
How do you declare victory? What is or defined victory?
What is your definition of victory?
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Right now?
Speaker 7 (17:34):
The ability to destroy Israel through nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles is eliminator.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
That's the victory. That's our victory.
Speaker 7 (17:44):
And if the people in Iran then choose a different government,
it's going to be great for the entire Middle East
and really for the world, because the people of the
Middle East want normalization with Israel and Israel wants nothing
more than normalization with its neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
That's an open question.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I think we went through the air spring just because
the regime has changed. The one that replaces it might
not be better for the world, So you can't state
that openly. But the idea that this ends when they
no longer can have a nuke that makes good sense
to me.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
Yeah, yeah, your whole regime change statement is absolutely true
because we have made that statement to in reference to
you know, people who think you can like boot out
to the United States government or something and it'll become
this paradise or that paradise Marxist or whatever. Now, the
history of that sort of thing is bad. You destabilize things,
(18:37):
and the power vacuum can suck something even worse into
the seats of power, over and over again.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
See France from seventeen eighty nine until Napoleon arrived.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
And so the guy who asked is somewhat bligerent question
before the break that I answered rudely and dismissively. I'm
sure he's thinking, well, wait a minute, you're making my
point for me. Would you like to reset that briefly?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Do you remember it was about I don't remember.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Oh, the guy said, oh, so you wanna you want
to do another iraq? Hey, you want to get sucked
into another you know, quagmire of a just replicate a
rock and uh And I wish you had that in
front of you, because it was asked in the typical
online belligerent This is simple and if you don't get
this your stupid way, which is why I responded in
(19:28):
a yeah, you're stupid way. If I were to ask
that question more uh, reasonably and intelligently, it would be Dudes,
in what ways do you believe this is a different
situation than the weapons of mass destruction in a rock
or given the experience of a rock how can you
(19:52):
advocate for attacking Iran?
Speaker 2 (19:54):
This seems similar.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Now, that's the way like a civilized human would ask
the question, and here's the response, and it's it's book length.
So I'll summarize. The One thing about the Iraq experience
is there are mistakes made so monumentally stupid it's difficult
(20:17):
to believe they happened.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Starting with, they had like three months of funding planned
for the war after Sadom was booted out, like it'll
be over, everything will be fine, and we'll just leave.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Yeah, you've got George W. Bush.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
And and you know, if I had to leave my life,
my fortune, my children in the hands of one man,
George W. Bush or Donald Trump, it would well, if
it was my fortune, it'd probably be Trump. But in
terms of being a good, decent, moral human being, I
think George Bush wins by a mile sure, which led
him down the garden path.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
He had this.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
Unbelievably silly idea that the people of the Middle East,
including fundamentalist Muslims, just couldn't wait for Jeffersonian democracy.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Well, and you know Dick Cheney famously saying I think
will be greeted by liberators. Well, I think we were liberators. Yeah,
but immediately they all, Okay, who's in charge. Now I'm
in charge and no, no, no, you're not. I'm in charge.
And that happened, like it always happens. Somebody's going to
be in charge, and if you don't agree, sometimes you
got a war over it.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
It's called the Civil war.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
Well, and the de bathification of the government of Iraq
was one of the most monumentally stupid moves that's ever
been made in world history. They essentially said, well, if
you're a member of the Bath Party, which is Saddam's party,
then you can't be part of the government. Well, that
was the entire government, from the people who like handed
out paychecks to civil servants, to the army generals, to
(21:48):
the school lunch program people. They were all in the
Bath part. It was a single party efing government. It's
such a to dismantle that and say all right, let's
restart now, except this Sar decision.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
It's such a crapshoot and so complicated. The Soviet Union falling.
It seems like if you ran that experiment a thousand
times you would get the peaceful result we ended up with.
Once where the Soviet Union fell, and it didn't fall
into the hands of crazy oligarchs going to war with
each other and some of them had nukes or.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
All kinds of different things that could happened, but it didn't. Yeah,
that that's a separate discussion for another day. But it's
crazy interesting.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
I'm just thinking about ill Ran if this, if this
regime falls, is it going to be Is it gonna
be like the Soviet Union where somebody steps in that
everybody recognizes, Okay, you're the leader, and law and order
in the streets continues, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Or is it going to be more like a rack.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Well, it's got to be approached with brutal realism, friends,
that's what's going to make it different, aside from some
of the particulars that are different, but it's got to
be brutal realism. You let anybody who's part of the
government structure that makes the country run that says, hey,
(23:08):
I'm glad those mullas are gone. I'm gonna keep doing
my job and showing up. That's number one. You keep
the country functioning in a way that doesn't create an
enormous power vacuum in the streets. Secondly, you recognize Concentrated
enthusiasm is often how one group gets to power over
(23:30):
another one, and in the Middle East it's the fundamentalist
Muslim lunatics who usually have that concentrated enthusiasm, like, oh.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
What's his name? Al Baker or fat You remember fat
Head in Iran?
Speaker 5 (23:47):
What was his name? I can't remember, It'll pop into
my head. She leader, He had very close ties to Iran,
the guy in Irakaman. Anyway, you've got to be brutally
realistic that those people are gonna come gun and for power,
and you have to have a plan to suppress them.
I remember being fed the line, and I think inside
the White House the actual Neokans believed this Iraq is
(24:12):
really a secular society. I mean people, I mean people
are sites and Sunni's like you're a Baptist and I'm
a Lutheran. Well that was because Saddam repressed them like crazy.
And now those lessons having been learned, you know, whether
Trump and the Israelis and the Gulf States just.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Somebody has got.
Speaker 5 (24:35):
To approach it in a realistic way and not make
the horrific mistakes of Iraq.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Even if you took a religion out of it, which
is a hell of an even if since it's a
theocracy for the last forty some years, Even if you
took that out of it. Though, whoever's in charge of
the army might decide I want to be the leader,
and the person who's in charge of the Revolutionary Guard
might say, no, you're not, I'm going to and they
(25:00):
go to war like you've hardly ever seen before for
the next ten years, trying to decide who's going to
run the place.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
That's absolutely true.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
And then, you know you, folks, we historians are going
to say, would we better have been better off just
letting Iran have the new No, I don't think so.
Having to sign agreements non aggression packs like the other
nuclear powers on Earth an uneasy relationship, but blah, blah blah,
the difference being that the Mullas mean what they say.
A lot of those people are actual religious fanatics.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
But the classic Caesar crossing the Rubicon moment was he
decided to take his army after whoop an ass all
over the place. You know what, I'm going to run
the Roman Empire and crossed the river headed back into
the country and everybody knew, okay, it's on. He ended
up winning. But yeah, sometimes the generals decide they want
(25:53):
to be in charge.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
Yeah, well, I suspect that that's what will happen, So
it would be a fair question. Then if our questioner
were to follow up, he'd say, all right, so how
do you see the post regime change Iran taking shape?
That isn't way worse for humanity than if they got
the nuke.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It's a great question. It's impossible to answer.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
I mean, I could spin you out a scenario, but
it's unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
It is a classic example of being caught between a
rock and a hard place, having two absolutely awful alternatives.
There's a certain school of thought you run into a lot,
especially online, that likes to pretend not making a decision
is not a decision in and of itself, that if
you don't make.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
It, that Obama's really right? Is Obama? Don't do stupid s?
Was their motto?
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Okay, well, not doing stupid s allows Russia to just
keep gobbling up land.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
For instance, the late great Neil peart, if you decide
to this is well, if you don't make a decision,
you've still made a choice. And there is a belief
I think that if you just don't act, everything's frozen
in amber, and that the status quo continues.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
It's it's not.
Speaker 4 (27:20):
True, no, no, in your child rearing, marriage, career, whatever
it is.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Yeah, two miserable options. Pick one. That's life.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I think Mark Alpern wrote this today. I think we
agree that the most likely scenario is the United States
is going to help Israel here in the next forty
eight to seventy two hours bomb the but Jesus out
of Fordoh to the point that it can't make a
nuclear weapon, and and we're gonna we're going to help
(27:56):
in that.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Now. I assume at that point we're done.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Yeah, there will be diplomacy and aid and that sort
of thing, and pulling of strings behind the scenes, trying
to either get a more friendly regime in place, or
just saying, all right, mullas, if you can still run,
if your people will still let you run the place,
go ahead and run the place. Just remember what happened.
If you try to get a nuke again, it's gonna
happen again. You want to keep to yourself and like
(28:21):
revive your economy and be reasonably friendly to the nations
around you, Go ahead, knock yourself out. Don't try to
get a new kigin.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
I'm trying to be open minded for the other side
because I'm pretty hard shore. I think this is a
good idea. You know, nobody saw what was coming in
Iraq in that Isis was gonna get created and become
a thing. Maybe there's some sheite version of that that
comes out of Iran when you unleash the dogs of
(28:49):
war that nobody could possibly imagine with a year's long
insurgency of a deaf Cultis sheeite version of this?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Who knows?
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Not impossible. Nope, I didn't see ices coming to anybody else.
Don't disband the army that would.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
Help let them go to work. And she said it'd
be better than isis anyway, we will finish strong next.
You can always text on this topic. This is a
thorny one.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
This is a big deal. This is I do.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
I absolutely agree with the idea that this is the
biggest decision of Trump's life that he's going to be making,
depending on how it plays out. Our text line is
four one five two nine KFTC.
Speaker 8 (29:31):
A man was recently arrested at a Florida strip club
after he allegedly called nine one one from a private
room to complain that he had to pay three hundred
dollars but the dancer refused to have sex with them.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Of course, it's still Florida.
Speaker 8 (29:43):
Nine one one, so I'm sure they were like, try
five hundred.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
So God, it's hard to not continue on this same theme.
We don't usually cover one topic this much, but this
is new. President Trump just tweeted out he actually did
a different whatever I'm gonna call everything a tweet that
comes out like this fine.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Donald Trump said.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
We now have complete and total control over the skies
over Iran. I read that and said to Joe, I
think the key word there is we. So somebody apparently
thought the we stuck out. Also, he didn't say Israel
has complete control over the skies over ran, so somebody asked,
According to a White House official, though we that President
(30:24):
Trump is referring to here is the United States, not Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
HM.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
So so Trump meant to say, we, the United States
now have complete control over the skies of Iran.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Therefore, we are willing to send in our b twos
with the moab bombs. I got is the unspoken end
of that sentence. I guess, so my final thought on
the previous discussion is that there's got to be something
transitional if indeed the current regime falls, and you've got
to it's got to be a temporary quote unquote military
(30:56):
dictatorship with people we can work with. We assure there's security,
tell them you just keep stability, don't try to go
for a bomb. We'll make sure none of the Arab
states decide they want snatch up your oil refineries or whatever.
And you go forward from there. It's a likely choice,
but it's a good one. Greed heads because the military
Iran is a bunch of greed heads. They make tons
(31:18):
of money. They have a like a societal hold on
big chunks of the economy.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
There are number of countries that are like that. It's
very typical.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
But you deal with the greed heads, not the religious fanatics.
The greed heads you know how to deal with.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
If there's an LCC in Iran like there was in Egypt,
to take over after m bark the dictator fell, I
don't know if there's one person or they'll be warring
amongst themselves as we talk.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Ol There may have been last week, but they're all
on now.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
If you don't follow OSI in t Defender Open Source
Intelligence Defender. On stories like this, you're missing out. You
will know so much, so much, sooner than you'll ever
get it from cable news or the newspaper.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
I look at it constantly anyway. They have this, Joe,
you'll like this.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Internet and cellultor outages occurring right now across Iran admitst
reports Iran Cyber Authority that they are currently under a
large scale cyber attack from Israel. So their cellutor outages
and they're in celliator and internet has gone down. That
might be the leading thing before we start bombing today,
like in the next couple hours.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
They have Israel has the cyber equivalent of a pager
in every network, every system in Iran, and it's about
to shut it down.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
That's my guess, something like that.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Before we, along with Israel bomb the but Jesus out
of them. Can you say when you got Jews bombing Muslims?
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Probably not, Yes, you can, you can absolutely free speech,
my friend defended.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Final thought.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Yeah, here's your host for final thoughts, Joe Getty.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew
to wrap things up for the day. There he is
Michael Angelo pressing the button as Michael Well.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
That news kind of ruined my final thing.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I was gonna guess that they were gonna text everybody
if they had wont to prize, send them.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
All to one building and the blow up the building.
I'll give the Super Bowl tickets. This classic Katie Green knows.
Speaker 5 (33:13):
Something about law enforcement and that sort of thing. Our
esteemed newswoman, Katie final thought has nothing to.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Do with law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
But I did just write grape nuts down on my
grocery list for today.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I love grape nuts. Yeah, I hope you your teeth
are good and harden.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
They are bland and you need tough teeth. Jack final
thought for us, I'll look into the picture of Tucker
Carlson with Alex Jones. Alex Jones lost a ton of weight,
looks fantastic, and he's no zimpic guy, I think, or
one of those drugs.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Man, Why aren't we all doing that? We all got
to get on that. My final thought. You know me,
I'm kind of a real estate freak. I love it.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
If you were thinking of purchasing a property anywhere near
the fod Oh reactor in Iran, I would hold off.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I would go ahead and wait week before you sign
that contract.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
Yeah, if you're going to vacation and do an airbnb
somewhere near.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
There, right, get a tour of the reactor. That sort
of thing in Richmond's.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Site Armstrong and Getty wrapping about. Oh they're grueling for
our workday.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
It's housed within a mountain that's soon to be a
former mountain. So many people who thanks so little time
go to Armstrong geddy dot com hot links. Are there
our email address that we linked to a mail bag
at Armstrong and geddy dot com. You disagree, we want
to hear from you. Make your points.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
You know that will be a spectacular show if it
goes down the way we think our planes with some
of the biggest bunker busters that exist.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
On Earth, over and over and over again. That'll be
something to watch. We'll see tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
God bless America.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
I'm strong and ghett.
Speaker 5 (34:48):
He has to stop like the day before yesterday?
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Are you sure? Oh? Dead show audio smofo, fuzzo ye
and boom goes to dynamite. You made it rights riding
a long time.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
One final message, Maybe the joke we've been making forever
will come true.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Everybody's beard will explode.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
I'm on your beard, your beard, ah, and they run
out of their room.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Beard's on fire, armstrong and getting
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jackie and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
I am saying this because I'm really afraid that my
country's going to be further weakened by this. I think
we're going to see the end of American empire. Obviously
other nations would like to see that, and this is
a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the
shoals of Iran, but it's also going to end, I believe,
Trump's presidency and effectively end it.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Trump responded to Tucker Carlson, call him kooky, and nobody
knows what he said, get a TV show. I think
he said Tucker has got way bigger following than if
he had a TV show. Actually, so if he had
a TV show, it would be very popular and he
would have his following online, so he would be bigger maybe,
But he's better. He's bigger than any of the current
TV shows out there.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
He just is. It's just statistically true.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
So this segment, we're going to really get into the
whole various shades of MAGA and that whole thing, And
is Trump betraying America first by wanting to go to
war with Iran, which he seems to be hell bent on,
And I'm I think he's right. And for instance, here's
Tulcy Gabbard in a hearing a little while back saying
(01:28):
Iran's not going to get a bomb.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The ICY continues to assess that Iran is not building
a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamani has not authorized
the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in two thousand
and three. The ICY continues to monitor closely if Tehran
decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
So I see the international community, that intelligence community, intelligence community. Okay, yeah,
I don't think that's right. But anyway, here Trump was
asking about delusion. Yeah, here's Trump responding to his DNI,
the Director of National Intelligence, she has access to everything,
saying Iran's not about to get a bomb.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Here's what Trump says about that. How close do you
personally think that they were to get it on?
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Because Tulsa Gartt testified at March the intelligence community said
Ran wasn't going into pure beverage.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
What she said, I think they.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Trump says, I don't care what she said when she
testified that Iran's not closing to getting above Trump decided.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I think they're very close to having one.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
He said, yeah, So he's speaking about the intelligence around
the most important issue right now, in the biggest decision
of his entire presidency. The first person you would go
to would be the DNIS. Like I said, they have
access to all of it in all the different departments.
And he says, I don't care what she said because
(02:53):
she's wrong, right, He's basically just saying, I mean he's
he's basically saying, she's part of that non interventionists don't
ever attack anybody crowd that I kind of catered to.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
But in this case, I don't believe is right. She
cannot be in her job a week from now.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
But just to make it more complicated, I would agree
to make it more complicated. You got John Fetterman, Democratic Senator,
arguing that supporting Israel and taking down the regime in
Iran will be the key to lasting piece in Middle East.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
He's pro regime change, not just.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Bombing, but regime change, which of course is a dirty
phrase for a lot of people after.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Iraq, which I saw somebody point out earlier.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
You have a whole bunch of hosts on cable news
who are four years old when the regime change in
Iraq has because that was twenty three years ago, twenty
two years ago. So if you're twenty eight, you were
five when that happens. On it's say, it's history to you.
Another interesting wrinkle from Who's Where on Politics and Weird
Bedfellows Josh Rogan, who we generally really like, although I
(03:58):
don't agree with everything he said a lot from The
Washington Post said, if Trump attacks Iran based on a
flimsy claim of preemption, what after running on a foreign
policy criticizing Bush for attacking a raq on a flimsy
claim of preemption, he either has no core principles or
has no clue what he's doing, or both scary times,
(04:20):
How is it think comparing.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Those two is? It's a canard, It's not accurate.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
How the hell is it a flimsy claim of preemption
when the IAEA and everybody has been reporting that they're
very close to getting a.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Bomb, When both the Ayatola and the chief negotiator of
Haran said one thing we're not going to give up
is enrichment. You don't enrich uranium to get the light
bulbs to light up and have civilian electricity.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
You do it to build a nuclear weapon. Period. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
I don't know if Josh is off his rock or what,
but I completely disagree with him on this.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
I will concede this point.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
And it's a the idea that this could lead to
regime change in Iran than what?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Then?
Speaker 5 (05:06):
What is a penny door's box of Middle East style?
God help us?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Do we have to? Well, Iran can't have the bomb.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
No, that's the bottom line, and that's what makes the
decision easier. No matter what happens, there's nothing that is
worse than letting them get a nuclear weapon, is there?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's the question I think. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
I can't even imagine a scenario that would be worse
than Iran getting the bomb.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Tucker Carlson disagrees with you.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Even if it devolved into full Iraq chaos, which I
seems incredibly unlikely to me, that would be better, wouldn't
it than Iran getting a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 5 (05:49):
Depends who ends up in charge. You know what happens
five ten years down the line. But no, I agree
with you. It's not an open and shutcase. But I agree.
A couple of notes very quickly from the online world.
First of all, I came across this the great David Berg,
Iowahawk blogger. The worst consequence of the Internet is the
almost universal delusion that your opinions are shared by the majority.
(06:13):
Once again, the worst consequence of the Internet is an
almost universal delusion that your opinions are shared.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
By the majority.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
It's even worse than that, though, David, It's that my
opinions are shared by enough people that they're right anyway,
He says. The countdown of the top four sufferers of
acute delusions of popularity Number four, transactivists number three true
uh yeah, no kidding, and then the stupid idiot corporations
that believe that well they had the media in education
(06:41):
too anyway. Moving along, Number three Neo Nazi podcast bros.
Number two campus garbage babies.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
What's a garbage baby?
Speaker 5 (06:51):
It's your It's I don't know, it's your campus cafea
wearing dopes.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Number one Caitlin Clark haters.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
An He mentions, there's this weird cult of paleo WNBA
fans who are literally trying to organize a boycott for
people to not watch games featuring Caitlin Clark.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
That is the reason I bring that up is that's
a pretty good encapsulation of the Internet. It's an echo
chamber for everyone, no matter how stupid their opinions.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
And the algorithms.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
Algorithms are built to feed you people that agree with you,
to help reinforce it.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
The whole for you, you know, section at Twitter for instance.
So anyway, as Maga America is at each other's throats
over the whole helping Israel thing.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Jacob, I gotta jump in on that because you just
said this drives me crazy. This is just the way
politics works. But you always claim that the other side
is doing something unique to them and it doesn't happen
with you. I watch MSNBC and CNNA fair amount lots
of discussion about the civil war within the Republican Party
and how was a problem from the get go that
(08:00):
the magamum Maga movement is a coalition of different groups
that don't agree and it's coming apart and blah blah blah.
Are you gonna tell me the Democratic Party hasn't been
a coalition of groups that don't agree forever.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Right, give me a break.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Virtually every political party, every political party, yes, but the
Democrats especially. Oh yeah, yeah, what a trans people have
to do with militant Muslims in Hamtramck, Michigan, for instance,
church going boy in the same party. That's what they
have in common. Yeah, church go will go ahead and
finish that up.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Church going black women who are the least likely to
support any of this trans stuff, or even gay marriage
for that matter.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
With all the other people with queers for Palestine, Yes,
in the same political party.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Right, okay, Union leaders who had to hate illegal immigration.
Speaker 5 (08:47):
I mean, there's all kinds of examples, so really interesting
study of how this works. Jade Vance is just tweeted, Look,
I'm seeing this from the inside and admittedly biased towards
our president and my friend, but there's a lot of
crazy stuff on social media, so I want to address
some things directly on the Iran issue. Then he gets
into the whole enrichment thing and he says is he
said repeatedly this would happen one of two ways they
(09:09):
can't have I'm sorry. First, Potus has been amazingly consistent
over ten years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy
team to reach a deal with the Uranians to accomplish
this goal. The President has made clear that Iran cannot
have uranium enrichment, and he said repeatedly that this would
happen one of two ways, the easy way or the
(09:30):
other way. And then he gets into the whole enrichment question,
which we've already dealt with. It's one thing to want
civilian energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capability.
It's still another thing to cling to enrichment while simultaneously
violating basic non proliferation obligations and enriching right to the
point of weapons grade uranium. Josh Rogan, I've yet to
(09:52):
see a single good argument for why Iran needs to
enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've
yet to see a single good argument for why Iran
was justified in violating his non proliferation obligations. I've yet
to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings. Meanwhile,
the President has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our militaries
focused on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He
(10:14):
may decide he needs to take further action and Iranian enrichment.
That decision belongs to the president. And of course people
are right to be worried about foreign entanglements after the
last twenty five years of idiotic foreign policy tippiness.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Gap toward that crowd, which.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Is fine, it's a good point, But I believe the
president has earned some trust on this issue. Having seen
this up close and personal, I can assure you that
he is only interested in using the American military to
accomplish the American people's goals.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Whatever he does, that is his focus. And so that
is interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
But the reaction, including some pretty significant accounts.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
One guy says, yeah, it makes sense to me. Death
to America. He can't get away with it. Then this other.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
Blue check mark Twitter account, he has a bunch of
tweets over the ears from Trump's from Trump in order
to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.
Barack Obama will attack Iran in order to get reelected.
A year later, I've predicted President Obama will at some
point attack Iran in order to save face.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
There's a list of them that he shows.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
That's interesting, nice words, but it's still another war in
the Middle East provoked by the Israelis.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
That will suck up a lot of resources.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
People are just tired of seeing Israel first, not America first.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Oh my god.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
So that other stuff about how he criticized Obama or
Bush forgetting US involved in wars, Okay, fine, leave that
to political historians or something. Let's get back to the
bottom line we started with. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
I don't care who said whatever, doesn't make any difference.
Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Now the President coming
(11:53):
out yesterday and saying, look, I invented America first, I
get to define it. It is America first to stop
around from getting a nuclear weapon. I Jack Armstrong agree
with that position.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
JD.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Van and he doesn't need ever run again. So you know,
if he loses a chunk of people whatever JD. Vance
is in a different situation, he can't lose that hole.
We don't get involved in war'st crowd if he's going
to run for president in a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Right.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Interesting, The only pushback to JD that I've seen on
the IAEA thing saying that Iran is clearly trying as
fast as they can to get a nuke that's the
fing UN's conclusion. So JD says, I haven't seen a
single good pushback, and somebody says it was contrary to
what our own DNI says. Can you help clarify? Well, right, yeah,
(12:47):
Telsey Gabbard in March test. If I know they're not,
she's going to be gone by the end of the week.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
So you take the word of Telsey Gabbard over the president.
I do know from that crowd though, because I know
a couple of people personally that a part of the
you know, maybe some of you, the Tucker, Candice Owens,
whatever crowd, Alex Jones, which we're about to talk about.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
They think I've had a person tell me this to
my face.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
It proves that Trump is on the Epstein list and
they have information about him that he has now flipped
and had to go the other direction.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
Okay, I don't even have time to refute that because
the people that hold the cards on the whole Epstein
thing have him dangling at the end of their puppet strings.
You are being manipulated by people who are smarter than you,
that know how to trip your trigger.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Sorry, I know that's hurtful.
Speaker 5 (13:34):
It's much easier to fools people than to convince them
they're being fooled, but they.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Are anyway going to get to some text four one, five,
two nine five k FTC you today with a decent
chance of drones driving. That's the Iranian NewsCap series.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
In the middle of her uh.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Her report on the latest stoning at the soccer stadium
or whatever she was doing the Iranian news and the
drone hit from a Iran from Israel.
Speaker 5 (14:12):
I'm enjoying some of the memes. It sounded like angry
ranting about how you will now we all not bow
to you. Alla will protect us, No bomb will reach us.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Kerbloey.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
So we got a number of texts very interesting on
this topic of going to war with Iran or not.
I taken a decent amount of Candace Owens and Joe
Rogan and they are not saying Trump is doing this
due to the Epstein list. I just said, I know
two people that follow that world of Candas Owans and
Tucker Carlson and they and they have said that. But
(14:45):
it's interesting to me that this person lumps Candas Owens
and Joe Rogan together. I don't see that at all.
Joe Rogan has those people on. But I've never got
the sense that he believes everything they say. Another text,
After trillion's and dollar dollars and thousands of lives wasted
over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're really this
hung gung ho about the US jumping into the fray
(15:07):
and doing a repeat in Iran a repeat. The repeat
would be there were no weapons of mass destruction. So
you think there are no there's no nuclear program or
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
And you think Donald Trump's going to try to install
a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, like George w did, No.
I reject your premise. It's a dumb question.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
Next, Alex Jones just tweeted out a picture of him
and Tucker as he was on Tucker's show. I am
proud that Tucker Carlson is standing his ground against the psychotic,
warmongering neo cons that have brought the world to the
verge of thermo nuclear armageddon.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
By preventing Iran from having a new exactly.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
So, yes, we're bringing the world to the edge of
a nuclear war the country that doesn't have nukes because
we're stopping them from getting news.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Exactly is that they've been making that plea about Russia
and Ukraine too.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Right, and Russia does have nukes obviously, does Alex Jones
and Tucker Carlson do they believe that? Do they believe
things would be fine if you let a Ran get
a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I really don't know.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Alex Jones, in his famous lawsuit his trial, had to
admit that, look, I say all sorts of stuff. I
don't believe that's true. He did say that, right. Wow,
it's like I'm playing a character. Yeah, I'm playing a character.
I'm pandering to a certain set of people who want
to believe certain things. So I tell them what they
want to believe, and I sell enormous amounts of you know,
(16:47):
subscriptions and advertising in the rest of that to them.
Now again, as I said the other hour, I guess
there are some people. I think our ninety percent grifter
and ten percent sincere, there's someho or the other, or
even one hundred percent since here.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
They're just misguided and wrong. Wow.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It'd be interesting to see how this plays out over
the next couple of days, because it's coming.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
It's gonna happen, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:18):
Given the fact that Israel and Iran you're engaged in
a very active conflict right now in the short term,
How do you declare victory? What is or defined victory?
What is your definition of victory?
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Right now?
Speaker 7 (17:34):
The ability to destroy Israel through nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles is eliminator.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
That's the victory. That's our victory.
Speaker 7 (17:44):
And if the people in Iran then choose a different government,
it's going to be great for the entire Middle East
and really for the world, because the people of the
Middle East want normalization with Israel and Israel wants nothing
more than normalization with its neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
That's an open question.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I think we went through the air spring just because
the regime has changed. The one that replaces it might
not be better for the world, So you can't state
that openly. But the idea that this ends when they
no longer can have a nuke that makes good sense
to me.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
Yeah, yeah, your whole regime change statement is absolutely true
because we have made that statement to in reference to
you know, people who think you can like boot out
to the United States government or something and it'll become
this paradise or that paradise Marxist or whatever. Now, the
history of that sort of thing is bad. You destabilize things,
(18:37):
and the power vacuum can suck something even worse into
the seats of power, over and over again.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
See France from seventeen eighty nine until Napoleon arrived.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
And so the guy who asked is somewhat bligerent question
before the break that I answered rudely and dismissively. I'm
sure he's thinking, well, wait a minute, you're making my
point for me. Would you like to reset that briefly?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Do you remember it was about I don't remember.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Oh, the guy said, oh, so you wanna you want
to do another iraq? Hey, you want to get sucked
into another you know, quagmire of a just replicate a
rock and uh And I wish you had that in
front of you, because it was asked in the typical
online belligerent This is simple and if you don't get
this your stupid way, which is why I responded in
(19:28):
a yeah, you're stupid way. If I were to ask
that question more uh, reasonably and intelligently, it would be Dudes,
in what ways do you believe this is a different
situation than the weapons of mass destruction in a rock
or given the experience of a rock how can you
(19:52):
advocate for attacking Iran?
Speaker 2 (19:54):
This seems similar.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Now, that's the way like a civilized human would ask
the question, and here's the response, and it's it's book length.
So I'll summarize. The One thing about the Iraq experience
is there are mistakes made so monumentally stupid it's difficult
(20:17):
to believe they happened.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Starting with, they had like three months of funding planned
for the war after Sadom was booted out, like it'll
be over, everything will be fine, and we'll just leave.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Yeah, you've got George W. Bush.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
And and you know, if I had to leave my life,
my fortune, my children in the hands of one man,
George W. Bush or Donald Trump, it would well, if
it was my fortune, it'd probably be Trump. But in
terms of being a good, decent, moral human being, I
think George Bush wins by a mile sure, which led
him down the garden path.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
He had this.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
Unbelievably silly idea that the people of the Middle East,
including fundamentalist Muslims, just couldn't wait for Jeffersonian democracy.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Well, and you know Dick Cheney famously saying I think
will be greeted by liberators. Well, I think we were liberators. Yeah,
but immediately they all, Okay, who's in charge. Now I'm
in charge and no, no, no, you're not. I'm in charge.
And that happened, like it always happens. Somebody's going to
be in charge, and if you don't agree, sometimes you
got a war over it.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
It's called the Civil war.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
Well, and the de bathification of the government of Iraq
was one of the most monumentally stupid moves that's ever
been made in world history. They essentially said, well, if
you're a member of the Bath Party, which is Saddam's party,
then you can't be part of the government. Well, that
was the entire government, from the people who like handed
out paychecks to civil servants, to the army generals, to
(21:48):
the school lunch program people. They were all in the
Bath part. It was a single party efing government. It's
such a to dismantle that and say all right, let's
restart now, except this Sar decision.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
It's such a crapshoot and so complicated. The Soviet Union falling.
It seems like if you ran that experiment a thousand
times you would get the peaceful result we ended up with.
Once where the Soviet Union fell, and it didn't fall
into the hands of crazy oligarchs going to war with
each other and some of them had nukes or.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
All kinds of different things that could happened, but it didn't. Yeah,
that that's a separate discussion for another day. But it's
crazy interesting.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
I'm just thinking about ill Ran if this, if this
regime falls, is it going to be Is it gonna
be like the Soviet Union where somebody steps in that
everybody recognizes, Okay, you're the leader, and law and order
in the streets continues, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Or is it going to be more like a rack.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Well, it's got to be approached with brutal realism, friends,
that's what's going to make it different, aside from some
of the particulars that are different, but it's got to
be brutal realism. You let anybody who's part of the
government structure that makes the country run that says, hey,
(23:08):
I'm glad those mullas are gone. I'm gonna keep doing
my job and showing up. That's number one. You keep
the country functioning in a way that doesn't create an
enormous power vacuum in the streets. Secondly, you recognize Concentrated
enthusiasm is often how one group gets to power over
(23:30):
another one, and in the Middle East it's the fundamentalist
Muslim lunatics who usually have that concentrated enthusiasm, like, oh.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
What's his name? Al Baker or fat You remember fat
Head in Iran?
Speaker 5 (23:47):
What was his name? I can't remember, It'll pop into
my head. She leader, He had very close ties to Iran,
the guy in Irakaman. Anyway, you've got to be brutally
realistic that those people are gonna come gun and for power,
and you have to have a plan to suppress them.
I remember being fed the line, and I think inside
the White House the actual Neokans believed this Iraq is
(24:12):
really a secular society. I mean people, I mean people
are sites and Sunni's like you're a Baptist and I'm
a Lutheran. Well that was because Saddam repressed them like crazy.
And now those lessons having been learned, you know, whether
Trump and the Israelis and the Gulf States just.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Somebody has got.
Speaker 5 (24:35):
To approach it in a realistic way and not make
the horrific mistakes of Iraq.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Even if you took a religion out of it, which
is a hell of an even if since it's a
theocracy for the last forty some years, Even if you
took that out of it. Though, whoever's in charge of
the army might decide I want to be the leader,
and the person who's in charge of the Revolutionary Guard
might say, no, you're not, I'm going to and they
(25:00):
go to war like you've hardly ever seen before for
the next ten years, trying to decide who's going to
run the place.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
That's absolutely true.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
And then, you know you, folks, we historians are going
to say, would we better have been better off just
letting Iran have the new No, I don't think so.
Having to sign agreements non aggression packs like the other
nuclear powers on Earth an uneasy relationship, but blah, blah blah,
the difference being that the Mullas mean what they say.
A lot of those people are actual religious fanatics.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
But the classic Caesar crossing the Rubicon moment was he
decided to take his army after whoop an ass all
over the place. You know what, I'm going to run
the Roman Empire and crossed the river headed back into
the country and everybody knew, okay, it's on. He ended
up winning. But yeah, sometimes the generals decide they want
(25:53):
to be in charge.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
Yeah, well, I suspect that that's what will happen, So
it would be a fair question. Then if our questioner
were to follow up, he'd say, all right, so how
do you see the post regime change Iran taking shape?
That isn't way worse for humanity than if they got
the nuke.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It's a great question. It's impossible to answer.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
I mean, I could spin you out a scenario, but
it's unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
It is a classic example of being caught between a
rock and a hard place, having two absolutely awful alternatives.
There's a certain school of thought you run into a lot,
especially online, that likes to pretend not making a decision
is not a decision in and of itself, that if
you don't make.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
It, that Obama's really right? Is Obama? Don't do stupid s?
Was their motto?
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Okay, well, not doing stupid s allows Russia to just
keep gobbling up land.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
For instance, the late great Neil peart, if you decide
to this is well, if you don't make a decision,
you've still made a choice. And there is a belief
I think that if you just don't act, everything's frozen
in amber, and that the status quo continues.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
It's it's not.
Speaker 4 (27:20):
True, no, no, in your child rearing, marriage, career, whatever
it is.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Yeah, two miserable options. Pick one. That's life.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I think Mark Alpern wrote this today. I think we
agree that the most likely scenario is the United States
is going to help Israel here in the next forty
eight to seventy two hours bomb the but Jesus out
of Fordoh to the point that it can't make a
nuclear weapon, and and we're gonna we're going to help
(27:56):
in that.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Now. I assume at that point we're done.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Yeah, there will be diplomacy and aid and that sort
of thing, and pulling of strings behind the scenes, trying
to either get a more friendly regime in place, or
just saying, all right, mullas, if you can still run,
if your people will still let you run the place,
go ahead and run the place. Just remember what happened.
If you try to get a nuke again, it's gonna
happen again. You want to keep to yourself and like
(28:21):
revive your economy and be reasonably friendly to the nations
around you, Go ahead, knock yourself out. Don't try to
get a new kigin.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
I'm trying to be open minded for the other side
because I'm pretty hard shore. I think this is a
good idea. You know, nobody saw what was coming in
Iraq in that Isis was gonna get created and become
a thing. Maybe there's some sheite version of that that
comes out of Iran when you unleash the dogs of
(28:49):
war that nobody could possibly imagine with a year's long
insurgency of a deaf Cultis sheeite version of this?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Who knows?
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Not impossible. Nope, I didn't see ices coming to anybody else.
Don't disband the army that would.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
Help let them go to work. And she said it'd
be better than isis anyway, we will finish strong next.
You can always text on this topic. This is a
thorny one.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
This is a big deal. This is I do.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
I absolutely agree with the idea that this is the
biggest decision of Trump's life that he's going to be making,
depending on how it plays out. Our text line is
four one five two nine KFTC.
Speaker 8 (29:31):
A man was recently arrested at a Florida strip club
after he allegedly called nine one one from a private
room to complain that he had to pay three hundred
dollars but the dancer refused to have sex with them.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Of course, it's still Florida.
Speaker 8 (29:43):
Nine one one, so I'm sure they were like, try
five hundred.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
So God, it's hard to not continue on this same theme.
We don't usually cover one topic this much, but this
is new. President Trump just tweeted out he actually did
a different whatever I'm gonna call everything a tweet that
comes out like this fine.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Donald Trump said.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
We now have complete and total control over the skies
over Iran. I read that and said to Joe, I
think the key word there is we. So somebody apparently
thought the we stuck out. Also, he didn't say Israel
has complete control over the skies over ran, so somebody asked,
According to a White House official, though we that President
(30:24):
Trump is referring to here is the United States, not Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
HM.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
So so Trump meant to say, we, the United States
now have complete control over the skies of Iran.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Therefore, we are willing to send in our b twos
with the moab bombs. I got is the unspoken end
of that sentence. I guess, so my final thought on
the previous discussion is that there's got to be something
transitional if indeed the current regime falls, and you've got
to it's got to be a temporary quote unquote military
(30:56):
dictatorship with people we can work with. We assure there's security,
tell them you just keep stability, don't try to go
for a bomb. We'll make sure none of the Arab
states decide they want snatch up your oil refineries or whatever.
And you go forward from there. It's a likely choice,
but it's a good one. Greed heads because the military
Iran is a bunch of greed heads. They make tons
(31:18):
of money. They have a like a societal hold on
big chunks of the economy.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
There are number of countries that are like that. It's
very typical.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
But you deal with the greed heads, not the religious fanatics.
The greed heads you know how to deal with.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
If there's an LCC in Iran like there was in Egypt,
to take over after m bark the dictator fell, I
don't know if there's one person or they'll be warring
amongst themselves as we talk.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Ol There may have been last week, but they're all
on now.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
If you don't follow OSI in t Defender Open Source
Intelligence Defender. On stories like this, you're missing out. You
will know so much, so much, sooner than you'll ever
get it from cable news or the newspaper.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
I look at it constantly anyway. They have this, Joe,
you'll like this.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Internet and cellultor outages occurring right now across Iran admitst
reports Iran Cyber Authority that they are currently under a
large scale cyber attack from Israel. So their cellutor outages
and they're in celliator and internet has gone down. That
might be the leading thing before we start bombing today,
like in the next couple hours.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
They have Israel has the cyber equivalent of a pager
in every network, every system in Iran, and it's about
to shut it down.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
That's my guess, something like that.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Before we, along with Israel bomb the but Jesus out
of them. Can you say when you got Jews bombing Muslims?
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Probably not, Yes, you can, you can absolutely free speech,
my friend defended.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Final thought.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Yeah, here's your host for final thoughts, Joe Getty.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew
to wrap things up for the day. There he is
Michael Angelo pressing the button as Michael Well.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
That news kind of ruined my final thing.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I was gonna guess that they were gonna text everybody
if they had wont to prize, send them.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
All to one building and the blow up the building.
I'll give the Super Bowl tickets. This classic Katie Green knows.
Speaker 5 (33:13):
Something about law enforcement and that sort of thing. Our
esteemed newswoman, Katie final thought has nothing to.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Do with law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
But I did just write grape nuts down on my
grocery list for today.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I love grape nuts. Yeah, I hope you your teeth
are good and harden.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
They are bland and you need tough teeth. Jack final
thought for us, I'll look into the picture of Tucker
Carlson with Alex Jones. Alex Jones lost a ton of weight,
looks fantastic, and he's no zimpic guy, I think, or
one of those drugs.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Man, Why aren't we all doing that? We all got
to get on that. My final thought. You know me,
I'm kind of a real estate freak. I love it.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
If you were thinking of purchasing a property anywhere near
the fod Oh reactor in Iran, I would hold off.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I would go ahead and wait week before you sign
that contract.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
Yeah, if you're going to vacation and do an airbnb
somewhere near.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
There, right, get a tour of the reactor. That sort
of thing in Richmond's.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Site Armstrong and Getty wrapping about. Oh they're grueling for
our workday.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
It's housed within a mountain that's soon to be a
former mountain. So many people who thanks so little time
go to Armstrong geddy dot com hot links. Are there
our email address that we linked to a mail bag
at Armstrong and geddy dot com. You disagree, we want
to hear from you. Make your points.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
You know that will be a spectacular show if it
goes down the way we think our planes with some
of the biggest bunker busters that exist.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
On Earth, over and over and over again. That'll be
something to watch. We'll see tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
God bless America.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
I'm strong and ghett.
Speaker 5 (34:48):
He has to stop like the day before yesterday?
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Are you sure? Oh? Dead show audio smofo, fuzzo ye
and boom goes to dynamite. You made it rights riding
a long time.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
One final message, Maybe the joke we've been making forever
will come true.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Everybody's beard will explode.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
I'm on your beard, your beard, ah, and they run
out of their room.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Beard's on fire, armstrong and getting
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!