Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
A twenty eight to fifty five car see talk station.
Happy Tuesday extra special always because you get to hear
Daniel Davis with a Daniel Davis deep die from the
former retired lieutenant colonel talking. Of course we'll talk to
Ukraine and Russia. Welcome back to the program, my friend.
It's always a pleasure to have you on the show.
Always great to be here, Brian, looking forward to it.
(00:22):
Another day, another missile strike. It's depending on which article
you read. Russian missile strike attack kills four in Kharkiv.
And then there's another one says five killed, twenty four hospitalized,
and the missile striker and Kharkiv again the fog of war.
You never can't quite get a clue on how many
people have been injured or killed or died. But another day,
another missile strike. What's is the landscape changing since we
(00:46):
talked last tesday? Daniel? Are we still where we were?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, there hasn't been a whole lot of ground action.
There's just continue with the creeping a east or westward
movement by the Russian forces that hasn't stopped. But Russia
seems to be spending a lot more time hitting these
these missile strikes deeper into the Ukraine heartland, especially in
the u the Kharkivrea, as you mentioned, there going after
(01:14):
energy and electric production facilities, which keeps on limiting their
economic capacity to sustain the war. But there's also been
a recent upturn upturn in the use of specific drones
deep inside of Ukraine, and that's been a bit of
a change and we'll we'll have to wait to see
what it portends, but they've been using a lot of
(01:34):
these fiber optic drones deep inside behind the lines, which
either implies that the range of these things has been
significantly increased or that there are Russian partisans operating behind
the lines in larger numbers, and especially in two specific
areas around the Kupiansk and in the Sumi region of Ukraine.
(01:54):
It's just been devastating as you've spend one drone after another,
and if you're not familiar with these fiber optic cables,
they can't be jammed, so if they fly, they will
kill something and so far the Ukraine doesn't have an
answer to it, and the Russians are starting to use
more and more of them. And if you weaken the
lines behind the lines, then that means that at some
point you're going to weaken the fabric up at the
(02:15):
front line.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Are you're talking about something along the lines of it.
Used to be the tow missiles they had a.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Exactly the same Yeah, told me so, which has a
tiny of like a hair fiber optic cable or the
missile flew into it. Well, now they've used it the
same technology.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
In the drones. Wow, because obviously at least in the
early days I think those came out well, like in
the eighties or something like that. I mean, they're they
were limited in terms of the distance because of course
the limitations of having a fiber optic cable connected to
the missile. That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yeah, you have to have a spool that it unspools
as it flies, and you can barely see it. I
mean you can obviously you can see it when you're
on there, but you know, I mean even ten feet
away you have a hard time seeing it's that thin.
But it's enough to get the the signals so that
the thing can be driving on target and you literally
have something like HD video on the on the drivers
(03:07):
i mean on the operators handle and obviously you know
you have some issues obviously you can't fly around trees
because then it gets tangled up, but you can get
it on target. It's been very just devastating effective in
the Sumi region especially now.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Are these and I'm sure everything has some sort of
military target benefit like power plants and that I get
all day long, But when you're hitting buildings with these
where they just civilians are there, and coupled with the
point that it's further and further inland within the interior
of Ukraine, are these designed to be more of psychological winds,
(03:45):
like you know, posing the the real genuine existential threat
for the Ukrainians. And oh my god, the Russians really
are advancing. Look how far in they got with that
most recent missile strike.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I don't think so, because Russia has a relatively I mean,
they've ramped up production, but it's still comparatively limited, and
so these things are very valuable and they don't just
spend them for I think psychological effect very oftentimes, at
least what the Russians are claiming, and there does seem
to be some justification for it that some of these
buildings they hit are where the Ukraine side is housing
(04:21):
troops or where they were in some cases recently there's
been Western trainers and some of these Western people who
have been fighting for Ukraine have been stationed where they
think they've been safe in the rear to have this,
you know, civilian buildings be used to house these people,
and all of a sudden, Russia is saying, yeah, actually
nothing's safe. And by the way, that's also another product
(04:43):
of the growing number of Russian partisans on the rush
on the Ukraine side of the line of contact. And
as I had on a show last week with a
former NATO officer at Switzerland, he said that there is
growing belief that there could be a rise of an
actual partisan conflict in some of the rear cities like Odessa,
(05:05):
like Kharkips City, and then other these areas in between,
like where some of these missile strikes are coming. So
that's a big problem for the Ukraine side, and they've
actually conducted a thousand raids to try to find some
of these, but it's starting to be a real problem
in the rear well.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
If that is a growing concern and more and more
folks are moving over and embracing sort of the Russian
side of the equation, that presents a major intelligence problem.
For the Ukrainians because someone's going to ferret out to
the Russians where these soldiers are hiding.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, clearly, that's that's exactly what's going on right now.
That's the only way you can get these even the
drone strikes with the fiber optic tables deep behind Ukraine lines.
Almost the only way you can do that is either
have partisans tell you where they are, or you are
the partisans themselves are operating the drones. So it's you're right,
it's a real problem.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Well, also a corollary problem you and I talked and
I have talked about before in the past, but I've
just seen, you know, since our last comeration more reports
Ukraine soldiers deserting their posts.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, and there's a new category also that was also
revealed in since you and I have talk last, is
that there are and the quote was, hundreds of thousands
of Ukrainian men just refusing to fight. So when they say, hey,
like we want to conduct this this defensive counter attack
here against the Russians in the in the po Krowsk area,
actually over the last twelve hours, many of them are
(06:27):
just refusing. They're saying, no, we're just not going to go.
So it's just a compounding problem because listen, I mean,
how are you going to be motivated to risk your
life on an attack when you can see on your
own news feed that Trump is aggressively trying to figure
out how he's gonna end this war. Is he going
to take the you know, as payment the rare earth
minerals from the Ukraine side and all that. So you
(06:49):
see used to get ready to talk to Vladimir Putin,
you know that the war is effectively over. You're just
figured out how it's going to end. You don't want
to be one of the last ones to die for
a war that's already over and we're seeing the results
of that battlefield.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Well, and isn't it an interesting reality that Donald Trump
and the United States alone might have that impact. What
about all of the other countries who have been pushing this,
I mean, Britain was pushing arming Ukraine and the rest
of the NATO country are the ones that were being
so alarmist about the encroachment by the Russians And they're
(07:20):
going to be in our back door and oh my god,
this is an existential threat to the existence of the
European Union. Or whatever, and you and I have pointed
out that that's just it's not within the realm of possibility,
at least you and I perceive it to be that way.
But where's everybody else? I'm sort of asking, well.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
This I also yesterday afternoon you had to Keir Starmer
meet with not just Deeltenberg, Mark Rutcha, the new NATO
Secretary General, and they're still talking like it's the second
or third month of the war. Yes, we're gonna uk said,
We're going to give more support, ammunition, training, and everything
else to Ukraine in twenty twenty five than in any
(07:57):
other year of the war so far. And it just
boggles my mind. What are you trying to accomplish when
you have Donald Trump sitting there saying we're doing the
exact opposite, trying to wind it down, and you're talking
about send it up now. If his thought is well,
we'll just do this to keep the pressure on Putin
so that he'll make a better deal. I mean, that
train left the station a long time ago. That's not
(08:18):
gonna happen. There's no pressure you can bring to Putin
that's gonna bear, or it would already have been done.
And yet we seem disconnected at the highest levels in Europe,
even from what Trump's doing much less battlefield reality.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Well, on the heels of our moments ago discussion about
how the Ukrainian soldiers aren't even fighting and they can't
replenish the front line troops. Who in the hell are
they going to apply this training to? Daniel? I mean,
who are you gonna train?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
That's exactly the disconnect I'm talking about.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Oh my well, pivoting over Tulsa Gabbart, Cash, Mattel, where
are you on these? And good, bad, indifferent? How are
we looking on this?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Yeah, Tulsi Gabbert in particular is in my view, the
best cabinet level pick that Trump has made, bar none,
and I mean all of them. And she's also facing
the most fierce resistance of any of them, precisely because
she's the most qualified, meaning that she will actually faithfully
do the job, which she said in her inner statements
(09:19):
that she's gonna faithfully tell the president what the intelligence
assessments actually are, meaning she's not going to swear it
and bend it because of a perceived bias that she
wants or that the you know, the establishment in Washington,
which almost always reflectively wants whatever the d n I
says to the President to be Yeah, we have to
(09:40):
use military force here. That's what's happened quite frankly most
of the time in the past, and what the industry
in Washington really wants. And so they have just brought
out the knobs against her. It doesn't look like it's
going to succeed. There's been a couple of key senators
and just in the last twelve or twenty or eighteen
hours that have come out and said out of the
(10:00):
intel community, they're going to vote for her, because it's
just it's an eight to nine vote just to get
her out of committee, to get her into the the
overall Senate vote, which apparently is supposed to happen today.
If she gets through that, and then I think that
it's likely that she's going to be confirmed, but it's
it's going to be a tight one. But it's one
that I think Trump will will benefit from more than
(10:21):
any other.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So what I'm hearing is then she is not someone
like we've had before, married to the military industrial complex
and seeking to perpetuate it.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
She is an arms length distance from them because she
doesn't want to be swayed by that her whole career.
I mean, she she took all kinds of heat from
the Democratic Party because also she is not anybody's tool.
She's not anybody's puppet, as she said before, and that
got her kicked out of the Democratic Party. She was
a rising star in the Democratic Party, but she was
also an honest broker. And they don't want an honest broker.
(10:54):
They want somebody who was going to play the game. Well,
there's on the Republican side a similar kind of constitution.
And see, they want someone who's good, but only if
they can control them, and she can't be controlled, and
so that scares a lot of them, so they don't
want her in there. Uh. And that's why we need
her in there, because she'll just tell the truth, even
if it's if the truth is the intelligence says we
need to use military force, she'll tell him that. But
(11:16):
if it says no, this won't succeed, and the intelligence
says that this is not a good place to go,
she'll tell him that too. That's what we need in
that position, all right.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
And pivoting over to cash Betel.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Honestly, I don't have a lot of knowledge about him.
I I've got limited bandwidth, and I just haven't been
able to focus much on that when I go there.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
You know, that's quite all right. And I just got
out on the heels of a conversation about our southern
border and Pete Hegseeth is considering maybe launching military strikes
against the cartels in Mexico, And you know, being the constitutionalist,
I am uh and I I understand the value of
easily eradicating evil actors in the world. But you know,
(11:56):
if if an evil actor is in my country and
some other kind of decides to start launching missiles into
my country, as good intentions as that may be, I
might view it as an act of war. What's your
take on doing that? Because we've you know, we've blown
up targets literally in the four corners of the world
with rockets and just sort of random attacks out of nowhere.
(12:18):
I've always been sort of suspicious of our ability to
actually do that.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Well, our ability to actually take out a target anywhere
in the world is substantial, yes, and we can. We
have the capabilities, We have the technical capabilities, intelligence capabilities
and all that. But I am with you on this one,
and I know that there's a lot of different views
on Some of my close friends and colleagues have different
views than I do. But I am a staunch defender
(12:43):
of defending the border. Let's defend our border, let's prevent
anybody from coming in. If we have nefarious actors, we
should use law enforcement or military whatever to take out
that threat to our country in our country. But going
into another country, I think is a legal issue. It's
an international rules based situation because exactly what you said,
(13:04):
I don't ever want a president where some China, Russia,
any of other country can say, well, there was a
bad actor of ours in your country, so we just
took them out. We don't want that and we would
never tolerate it. So I don't think that. I think
that we should not do that tier. But there's a
bigger issue to me. You go after the cartails, you
make it a war in the cartels, they will bring
(13:24):
the war back to you. And as bad as a
lot of the stuff is right now, it's not been
open warfare. And just look in Mexico what the cartels
can do when they get mad and they start trying
to strike back. We don't want that to happen on
our soil.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, and Lord knows what the open borders we've been
dealing with, and the ten to fifteen million people, a
lot of whom were members of various gangs. They're firmly
entrenched in our country. They could start launching terrorist attacks,
and you know, I can see the reprisals coming, and
it does indeed concern me. Daniel Davis Deep Dive. Find
him online. You'll find his podcasts and we'll always find
(13:58):
it here in fifty five k see the talk talk
station every Tuesday beginning at eight thirty. Love the conversations, Daniel,
I help you have a fantastic week, My friend.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Same to you and Lis see you next Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Take care Brother eight forty two at fifty five KRC,
the talk station. How he can stick around. Phone lines
are open, feel free to call. We got a little
bit of time between now and the end of the
program to talk, so if you've got something you want
to talk about, I'd love to hear from you. To
be right back.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
This is fifty five KARC and iHeartRadio Station. Steve Perrins
Coordinated Finance
A twenty eight to fifty five car see talk station.
Happy Tuesday extra special always because you get to hear
Daniel Davis with a Daniel Davis deep die from the
former retired lieutenant colonel talking. Of course we'll talk to
Ukraine and Russia. Welcome back to the program, my friend.
It's always a pleasure to have you on the show.
Always great to be here, Brian, looking forward to it.
(00:22):
Another day, another missile strike. It's depending on which article
you read. Russian missile strike attack kills four in Kharkiv.
And then there's another one says five killed, twenty four hospitalized,
and the missile striker and Kharkiv again the fog of war.
You never can't quite get a clue on how many
people have been injured or killed or died. But another day,
another missile strike. What's is the landscape changing since we
(00:46):
talked last tesday? Daniel? Are we still where we were?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, there hasn't been a whole lot of ground action.
There's just continue with the creeping a east or westward
movement by the Russian forces that hasn't stopped. But Russia
seems to be spending a lot more time hitting these
these missile strikes deeper into the Ukraine heartland, especially in
the u the Kharkivrea, as you mentioned, there going after
(01:14):
energy and electric production facilities, which keeps on limiting their
economic capacity to sustain the war. But there's also been
a recent upturn upturn in the use of specific drones
deep inside of Ukraine, and that's been a bit of
a change and we'll we'll have to wait to see
what it portends, but they've been using a lot of
(01:34):
these fiber optic drones deep inside behind the lines, which
either implies that the range of these things has been
significantly increased or that there are Russian partisans operating behind
the lines in larger numbers, and especially in two specific
areas around the Kupiansk and in the Sumi region of Ukraine.
(01:54):
It's just been devastating as you've spend one drone after another,
and if you're not familiar with these fiber optic cables,
they can't be jammed, so if they fly, they will
kill something and so far the Ukraine doesn't have an
answer to it, and the Russians are starting to use
more and more of them. And if you weaken the
lines behind the lines, then that means that at some
point you're going to weaken the fabric up at the
(02:15):
front line.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Are you're talking about something along the lines of it.
Used to be the tow missiles they had a.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Exactly the same Yeah, told me so, which has a
tiny of like a hair fiber optic cable or the
missile flew into it. Well, now they've used it the
same technology.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
In the drones. Wow, because obviously at least in the
early days I think those came out well, like in
the eighties or something like that. I mean, they're they
were limited in terms of the distance because of course
the limitations of having a fiber optic cable connected to
the missile. That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yeah, you have to have a spool that it unspools
as it flies, and you can barely see it. I
mean you can obviously you can see it when you're
on there, but you know, I mean even ten feet
away you have a hard time seeing it's that thin.
But it's enough to get the the signals so that
the thing can be driving on target and you literally
have something like HD video on the on the drivers
(03:07):
i mean on the operators handle and obviously you know
you have some issues obviously you can't fly around trees
because then it gets tangled up, but you can get
it on target. It's been very just devastating effective in
the Sumi region especially now.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Are these and I'm sure everything has some sort of
military target benefit like power plants and that I get
all day long, But when you're hitting buildings with these
where they just civilians are there, and coupled with the
point that it's further and further inland within the interior
of Ukraine, are these designed to be more of psychological winds,
(03:45):
like you know, posing the the real genuine existential threat
for the Ukrainians. And oh my god, the Russians really
are advancing. Look how far in they got with that
most recent missile strike.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I don't think so, because Russia has a relatively I mean,
they've ramped up production, but it's still comparatively limited, and
so these things are very valuable and they don't just
spend them for I think psychological effect very oftentimes, at
least what the Russians are claiming, and there does seem
to be some justification for it that some of these
buildings they hit are where the Ukraine side is housing
(04:21):
troops or where they were in some cases recently there's
been Western trainers and some of these Western people who
have been fighting for Ukraine have been stationed where they
think they've been safe in the rear to have this,
you know, civilian buildings be used to house these people,
and all of a sudden, Russia is saying, yeah, actually
nothing's safe. And by the way, that's also another product
(04:43):
of the growing number of Russian partisans on the rush
on the Ukraine side of the line of contact. And
as I had on a show last week with a
former NATO officer at Switzerland, he said that there is
growing belief that there could be a rise of an
actual partisan conflict in some of the rear cities like Odessa,
(05:05):
like Kharkips City, and then other these areas in between,
like where some of these missile strikes are coming. So
that's a big problem for the Ukraine side, and they've
actually conducted a thousand raids to try to find some
of these, but it's starting to be a real problem
in the rear well.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
If that is a growing concern and more and more
folks are moving over and embracing sort of the Russian
side of the equation, that presents a major intelligence problem.
For the Ukrainians because someone's going to ferret out to
the Russians where these soldiers are hiding.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, clearly, that's that's exactly what's going on right now.
That's the only way you can get these even the
drone strikes with the fiber optic tables deep behind Ukraine lines.
Almost the only way you can do that is either
have partisans tell you where they are, or you are
the partisans themselves are operating the drones. So it's you're right,
it's a real problem.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Well, also a corollary problem you and I talked and
I have talked about before in the past, but I've
just seen, you know, since our last comeration more reports
Ukraine soldiers deserting their posts.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, and there's a new category also that was also
revealed in since you and I have talk last, is
that there are and the quote was, hundreds of thousands
of Ukrainian men just refusing to fight. So when they say, hey,
like we want to conduct this this defensive counter attack
here against the Russians in the in the po Krowsk area,
actually over the last twelve hours, many of them are
(06:27):
just refusing. They're saying, no, we're just not going to go.
So it's just a compounding problem because listen, I mean,
how are you going to be motivated to risk your
life on an attack when you can see on your
own news feed that Trump is aggressively trying to figure
out how he's gonna end this war. Is he going
to take the you know, as payment the rare earth
minerals from the Ukraine side and all that. So you
(06:49):
see used to get ready to talk to Vladimir Putin,
you know that the war is effectively over. You're just
figured out how it's going to end. You don't want
to be one of the last ones to die for
a war that's already over and we're seeing the results
of that battlefield.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Well, and isn't it an interesting reality that Donald Trump
and the United States alone might have that impact. What
about all of the other countries who have been pushing this,
I mean, Britain was pushing arming Ukraine and the rest
of the NATO country are the ones that were being
so alarmist about the encroachment by the Russians And they're
(07:20):
going to be in our back door and oh my god,
this is an existential threat to the existence of the
European Union. Or whatever, and you and I have pointed
out that that's just it's not within the realm of possibility,
at least you and I perceive it to be that way.
But where's everybody else? I'm sort of asking, well.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
This I also yesterday afternoon you had to Keir Starmer
meet with not just Deeltenberg, Mark Rutcha, the new NATO
Secretary General, and they're still talking like it's the second
or third month of the war. Yes, we're gonna uk said,
We're going to give more support, ammunition, training, and everything
else to Ukraine in twenty twenty five than in any
(07:57):
other year of the war so far. And it just
boggles my mind. What are you trying to accomplish when
you have Donald Trump sitting there saying we're doing the
exact opposite, trying to wind it down, and you're talking
about send it up now. If his thought is well,
we'll just do this to keep the pressure on Putin
so that he'll make a better deal. I mean, that
train left the station a long time ago. That's not
(08:18):
gonna happen. There's no pressure you can bring to Putin
that's gonna bear, or it would already have been done.
And yet we seem disconnected at the highest levels in Europe,
even from what Trump's doing much less battlefield reality.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Well, on the heels of our moments ago discussion about
how the Ukrainian soldiers aren't even fighting and they can't
replenish the front line troops. Who in the hell are
they going to apply this training to? Daniel? I mean,
who are you gonna train?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
That's exactly the disconnect I'm talking about.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Oh my well, pivoting over Tulsa Gabbart, Cash, Mattel, where
are you on these? And good, bad, indifferent? How are
we looking on this?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Yeah, Tulsi Gabbert in particular is in my view, the
best cabinet level pick that Trump has made, bar none,
and I mean all of them. And she's also facing
the most fierce resistance of any of them, precisely because
she's the most qualified, meaning that she will actually faithfully
do the job, which she said in her inner statements
(09:19):
that she's gonna faithfully tell the president what the intelligence
assessments actually are, meaning she's not going to swear it
and bend it because of a perceived bias that she
wants or that the you know, the establishment in Washington,
which almost always reflectively wants whatever the d n I
says to the President to be Yeah, we have to
(09:40):
use military force here. That's what's happened quite frankly most
of the time in the past, and what the industry
in Washington really wants. And so they have just brought
out the knobs against her. It doesn't look like it's
going to succeed. There's been a couple of key senators
and just in the last twelve or twenty or eighteen
hours that have come out and said out of the
(10:00):
intel community, they're going to vote for her, because it's
just it's an eight to nine vote just to get
her out of committee, to get her into the the
overall Senate vote, which apparently is supposed to happen today.
If she gets through that, and then I think that
it's likely that she's going to be confirmed, but it's
it's going to be a tight one. But it's one
that I think Trump will will benefit from more than
(10:21):
any other.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So what I'm hearing is then she is not someone
like we've had before, married to the military industrial complex
and seeking to perpetuate it.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
She is an arms length distance from them because she
doesn't want to be swayed by that her whole career.
I mean, she she took all kinds of heat from
the Democratic Party because also she is not anybody's tool.
She's not anybody's puppet, as she said before, and that
got her kicked out of the Democratic Party. She was
a rising star in the Democratic Party, but she was
also an honest broker. And they don't want an honest broker.
(10:54):
They want somebody who was going to play the game. Well,
there's on the Republican side a similar kind of constitution.
And see, they want someone who's good, but only if
they can control them, and she can't be controlled, and
so that scares a lot of them, so they don't
want her in there. Uh. And that's why we need
her in there, because she'll just tell the truth, even
if it's if the truth is the intelligence says we
need to use military force, she'll tell him that. But
(11:16):
if it says no, this won't succeed, and the intelligence
says that this is not a good place to go,
she'll tell him that too. That's what we need in
that position, all right.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
And pivoting over to cash Betel.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Honestly, I don't have a lot of knowledge about him.
I I've got limited bandwidth, and I just haven't been
able to focus much on that when I go there.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
You know, that's quite all right. And I just got
out on the heels of a conversation about our southern
border and Pete Hegseeth is considering maybe launching military strikes
against the cartels in Mexico, And you know, being the constitutionalist,
I am uh and I I understand the value of
easily eradicating evil actors in the world. But you know,
(11:56):
if if an evil actor is in my country and
some other kind of decides to start launching missiles into
my country, as good intentions as that may be, I
might view it as an act of war. What's your
take on doing that? Because we've you know, we've blown
up targets literally in the four corners of the world
with rockets and just sort of random attacks out of nowhere.
(12:18):
I've always been sort of suspicious of our ability to
actually do that.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Well, our ability to actually take out a target anywhere
in the world is substantial, yes, and we can. We
have the capabilities, We have the technical capabilities, intelligence capabilities
and all that. But I am with you on this one,
and I know that there's a lot of different views
on Some of my close friends and colleagues have different
views than I do. But I am a staunch defender
(12:43):
of defending the border. Let's defend our border, let's prevent
anybody from coming in. If we have nefarious actors, we
should use law enforcement or military whatever to take out
that threat to our country in our country. But going
into another country, I think is a legal issue. It's
an international rules based situation because exactly what you said,
(13:04):
I don't ever want a president where some China, Russia,
any of other country can say, well, there was a
bad actor of ours in your country, so we just
took them out. We don't want that and we would
never tolerate it. So I don't think that. I think
that we should not do that tier. But there's a
bigger issue to me. You go after the cartails, you
make it a war in the cartels, they will bring
(13:24):
the war back to you. And as bad as a
lot of the stuff is right now, it's not been
open warfare. And just look in Mexico what the cartels
can do when they get mad and they start trying
to strike back. We don't want that to happen on
our soil.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, and Lord knows what the open borders we've been
dealing with, and the ten to fifteen million people, a
lot of whom were members of various gangs. They're firmly
entrenched in our country. They could start launching terrorist attacks,
and you know, I can see the reprisals coming, and
it does indeed concern me. Daniel Davis Deep Dive. Find
him online. You'll find his podcasts and we'll always find
(13:58):
it here in fifty five k see the talk talk
station every Tuesday beginning at eight thirty. Love the conversations, Daniel,
I help you have a fantastic week, My friend.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Same to you and Lis see you next Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Take care Brother eight forty two at fifty five KRC,
the talk station. How he can stick around. Phone lines
are open, feel free to call. We got a little
bit of time between now and the end of the
program to talk, so if you've got something you want
to talk about, I'd love to hear from you. To
be right back.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
This is fifty five KARC and iHeartRadio Station. Steve Perrins
Coordinated Finance
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.