Welcome to Keith's night, don't tread on anyone any libertarian
Institute today. I am joined by Dave to Camp, the
news editor, at anti-war.com, and host of anti-war news with
Dave de Kamp. Mr. De Kamp, thank you so much
for your time, sir. Thanks for having me, Keith,
what does it mean to be anti-war?
Well, to me being anti war and for us at anti-war.com, it means
more than just, you know, opposing your governments entry
into a war because usually at that, Point.
It's go most too late. It really means kind of opposing
all the policies that can lead up to, you know, the involvement
in the war or as we see with Ukraine right now, you know,
funding this proxy war on Russia's border by, you know,
funneling billions of dollars in weapons in and really for me
it's, you know, non-interventionism is the
policy. And that's very reflective in my
work and an anti-war.com where against sanctions were against,
you know. Trade Wars and things like that.
And so it goes beyond just being against, you know, once the hot
war starts just being against that and it's something that,
you know, more Americans need to understand because a lot of
people call themselves anti-war because they're against the wars
in the Middle East, let's say for now, which is great that
more people are against those Wars because of what a failure
they've been. But at the same time we have
these huge escalations with Russia and China Cold War style
as Escalations and relations are just souring so much with these
two nuclear-armed powers. And, you know, people really
need to be opposed to this stuff because it's not going to end
well. For any of us, people will often
look at the benefits of War. For example, stopping the German
National Socialist Party from expanding throughout Europe,
stopping stopping Japanese imperialism.
And their atrocities, the American Civil War leading to
the end of Plantation slavery. What would you say?
Are the costs or the downsides of war that people either
completely ignore or don't appreciate the depth of.
Well I mean you mentioned in World War 2 which is the one
that everybody always goes to that's the interventionists you
know greatest argument for every war is that somebody's next
Hitler but you know and we're really kind of at least my
generation. You know, I'm 32 and I was
raised on World War two movies, Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks
world war two movies and it was kind of glorified.
To us but really World War. 2 was the worst thing that's ever
happened in the history of the world.
I mean the scale of death and destruction in such a short
time. So the lesson should be how
could that have been avoided and there's many ways.
But it always goes back to really World War 1 and the
Treaty of Versailles and trying to you know destroy Germany and
punish Germany for what they did and it's just you know I mean
you look at there's so many ways.
I know you've gone over pack. Cannons book, Churchill Hitler
in the unnecessary war and and that's it.
You know I'm not it's not just me saying this some radical
anti-war libertarian guy. It's Churchill himself has said
you know that World War One Treaty of Versailles.
Why? You know gave rise to Hitler and
the events leading up to it. Didn't all have to happen.
So we have to look at these lessons and if you just look at
all these countries that have been totally destroyed by War
and for the United States, we kind of were seemingly
unaffected by it. Until 9/11.
And now, we're really starting to see the consequences of being
a global Empire and trying to control the world and
sanctioning everybody and the inflation.
And of course that goes into Central Banking and everything
which is why I think being libertarian is the most
consistent ideology with being anti-war because of the the
Central Banking aspect. But anyway, the cost of it, you
know, we're seeing the cost of being a global Empire right now
and that's it. Are rising costs and how nobody
can really afford anything. And we're starting to see, I
think really the decline of the American Empire and it's going
to really hurt Americans. I want to focus on the costs a
little more because we see a video in America of Eric Garner
getting killed or Kelly Thomas or Tony tempeh.
And we say what a horrible atrocity.
This is a person who could have lived and enjoyed life in the
absence of, you know, someone just unjustly taking their life
but When it comes to 60 million deaths in the second world war,
people say well it is what it is, that's what you got to do,
or, you know, the civilians and the donbas getting killed since
2014. Not really important.
But the second Russia goes into Ukraine, obviously, it's hell on
Earth which of course, is bad. But they have no appreciation
for both sides of the issue. They just almost randomly not so
randomly, pick a villain to hate.
So when it comes to deaths in war, when it comes, People
losing their limbs, getting PTSD, kids growing up without
parents. What else do people need to?
Really appreciate. So war is not some thing that's
in the distant that people in the military.
Focus on how do you really make the cost real to people and say
this matters? Well yeah I mean that's a tough
question because it's hard. You think about what our
government has done for the past 20 years?
Let's just talk about, you know, the terror Wars all the
civilians that have been killed in that children and and the
hospitals that have been bombed by the US and weddings and drone
strikes hitting Farmers as their harvesting their crops and just
Horrors that are really unimaginable to people in the
United States. So those types of costs, it's
just really tough to to get people to understand what that
means and it's really amazing to how easily they can shrug it
off. I mean, if they understand
what's happening in Yemen right now with the Saudi impose
blockade that Be happening without support from the US that
it's just, it's a war on the country's, most vulnerable
because children and, you know, elderly, people sickly people
pregnant, women are the ones that are suffering the most from
this policy. And it's really, you know,
people are starving to death in that country because of a war
that the u.s. is imposing on it. And you really just, you have to
try to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes, I mean you think
about what the US is trying to do to Russia when Russia
invaded. Crane abiding came out and said,
you know, that they're going to try to destroy the Russian
economy and all that. So just imagine, you know what
if Putin came out and said that about the u.s. you think about
how much everybody freaks out about all this.
These bogus stories about Russian election interference
and stuff. Or if China, if she's in pain,
came out and said we're going to make the American economy,
scream, things like that. Like just what the US imposes on
the world. And I know I'm speaking from
like, a very American perspective, when you're
answering You asking me these questions but the cost it's just
it's something that I think we have to really kind of get out
there to people, is the destruction and the deaths and
that's on my try to cover all the time about how us sanctions
are killing people in other countries because they lose
access to specialized medicine, and things like that.
And it's just such a brutal policy and it and it, you know,
creates enemies and all that, it just the atrocities were
unbelievable. People Oil, you know, saving and
working their whole lives to buy houses that end up.
Getting bombed. One of my favorite Pap, you can
and moments is he's actually warning about NATO expansion and
a potential conflict with Russia because the u.s. is going back
on, you know, what, James Baker, had promised Mikhail Gorbachev
and he goes, you know, these sanctions that the u.s.
government imposing around the world, you know, Saddam Hussein
Fidel Castro milosevic. They Well fed to me who do you
think's getting punished by these and it's so so typical
that you know Waging War on Putin and you know holding
Saddam accountable. Well obviously Saddam and
Gaddafi ended up getting killed but that's just one person.
The massive amounts of you know, Terror.
That's actually happening is totally innocent people and of
course that that never gets any attention.
That's why I really appreciate places like anti-war.com when it
comes to Two politicians making predictions and saying, look War
isn't good, but we need to do it so we get this outcome.
Historically, have you found any correlation between the
predictions of politicians and real-world outcomes of Wars?
Well I mean you know just speaking with in our modern
history here like absolutely no correlation especially with the
terror Wars and what they said they wanted to do in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I mean at every Turn the
opposite happened in Afghanistan after.
They changed to regime change. They said we got to take the
Taliban out. What?
When the u.s. left Afghanistan a year ago?
The tablet, they left it. Like the country, it's more
controlled by the Taliban now than it ever has been before.
They never control the whole country, but they do now.
And now if you look at this economic war, that Biden tried
to launch against Russia, that's totally backfired.
And the line was, oh, this is going to help stop the war
tutor, the war, but that hasn't happened.
It's made Putin, you know, kind of solidify his control.
And, you know, it gives them a foreign Boogeyman 2.2 to blame
for all the problems. And, you know, going we could go
back further during the Cold War.
I mean, you think about the Domino Theory with Korea and
Vietnam and how Vietnam was just a total disaster and then, you
know, the Communists ended up controlling the entire country
against similar to Afghanistan after all that.
And it's just the promises that they Make a go back to World War
one. I mean that was about democracy,
right? Wasn't that about spreading
democracy across the world and it gave rise to Nazism and
bolshevism. So the I think there's a lot of
examples like that. If you go back in history and
the rise of Mussolini, don't strip them of a Mussolini
credit. And of course, the Domino Theory
didn't account for Hong Kong and Singapore being two of the most
capitalist places on on the planet places that the u.s. can
learn a lot from what do people need to know about the 9/11
attacks. Well, you know, we just had the
anniversary and it does seem like a lot.
There's are so many more people now willing to say and that
recognized that it was no blowback.
It was the war coming home. We talked about these policies
and one of the most brutal things that happen throughout
the 1990s was the US sanctions and bombing campaign against
Iraq. There's this PBS documentary,
you talk about people saving up to buy their houses and I have
to find this clip. I saw it on Internet somewhere,
I gotta seek it out, but they're interviewing these Iraqi middle
class people that are dressed, like, you and me in these little
suburban homes. And they're just saying how
they've lost their losing everything as a result of the US
sanctions, you know, post Gulf War and just what we did to that
country. And, you know, that was a major
major motivation motivation for bin Laden as he made very clear
as well as us support for Israel.
And And we just have to remember that.
It wasn't just some freak attack.
And you also we have to keep in mind that there are still
unanswered questions about 9/11, especially now we're recently,
more stuff came out about how Saudi Arabia gave material
support to the, to Al-Qaeda to the two hijackers that were in
the country. You know, when they came in,
they got help from the Saudi Embassy and stuff like that.
And we know that the CIA knew that these two guys were in the
country and they didn't tell the FBI Yeah, I and, you know, I'm
not saying because there's so much misinformation that was put
out and when it comes to 911 and like the truth or movement, all
the stuff, all there is no planes, they're Holograms.
It's really been flooded with misinformation.
And I think, you know, that might have been a purposeful
strategy because people look at anybody who questions, the the
official story, as one of those Kooks.
But really, there are a lot of questions to be asked and I,
Especially just really it's either more.
So about the failure of the CIA and FBI, how they couldn't
prevent it. When all the pieces were there,
yeah, well, no planes and Holograms are still more likely
than they hate us for our freedoms yet.
When it comes, when it comes to sanctions on Iraq, this is a
very fast one. That the neocons will often play
Giuliani touched on it when he was on stage with Lauren.
Polly goes. I've never heard that before
nine. It happened because we went into
Iraq. Well, when into Iraq is what
people associate with something that happened a few years after
9/11. So he's making it seem like Ron
Paul's argument as 9/11 happened.
Because years later, we went into Iraq, which is just totally
Bonkers. It is widely not known by the
average person that there were sanctions, what our sanctions.
And why were they imposed on a rack by the US and UN in the
90s, walk us through that history.
Well yes, so the You know, they were imposed on Iraq, you know,
the idea was to pressure them to get rid of Saddam, and they who
they accused of having weapons of mass destruction and
throughout the 90s. I mean, there, I believe two un
officials who were, you know, stationed in Iraq who are in
charge of that policy, that resigned and one of them, called
the policy genocide, the sanctions campaign and it was
also a bombing campaign. I mean, they bombed Iraq
throughout the IDs and this is things, you know, for me for my
personal journey into becoming anti-war and doing what I do.
Like I had no idea about any that whole situation until I
was, you know, in my 20s. I didn't realize what the US did
to Iraq. And, you know, especially they
target, you know, wastewater treatment plants and things like
that. They target the civilian
infrastructure in these attacks, which is a tactic that the u.s.
uses in just about all of its Wars.
Going back to World War Two. R2 you know bombing civilian
infrastructure. They did it in Korea, Vietnam
Cambodia, Laos Iraq, during the Gulf War and after, and it's
just such a brutal policy. That yeah, like Giuliani just
kind of inferring that we weren't doing anything to them.
I think speaks to the the attitude that American us
politicians have, it was kind of this thing.
You know, I was pretty young in the 90s, but just from, looking
back at clips. And C-SPAN and stuff.
You know, Ron Paul was really the only one saying, hey, we
should probably not be bombing Iraq.
This is gonna come back to bite us, but it seemed like it was
just kind of in the background for most people.
So we have the civilians and it also goes back to the first
world war when Lord admiralty at the time Winston Churchill
blockaded German civilians from getting food because of the
crimes of their governments. So the sanctions in Iraq and
then, and that was being done for.
From Saudi Arabia. Why were their bases in Saudi
Arabia? And if they were, and if the
base is existed, doesn't that mean that the Saudi Arabian
government wanted them there? Well, yeah, that's a good point
because that was another one of Bin Laden's.
One of the things he cited for the for why he turned, why the
u.s. became his his Target, you know, after the Soviet Union
collapsed and they built those bases to launch the war It's
Iraq to launch a war on the Arabian Peninsula.
So that's why it was such a sensitive thing for not just Bin
Laden. Not just extreme, you know,
extremists like him but for Muslims in general, you know,
it's their. Holy place in the u.s. it turned
into a hub of the US War Machine and they were supposed to just
be temporary basis but they stayed there throughout the 90s.
And again, it was one of the main factors into Al-Qaeda,
starting to attack the US and Then support for Israel who were
the first countries to recognize Israel going back to May of
1948. Well, yeah, that was I mean the
the British and the, the us and it was the UN mandate that
created Israel as a country and it they drove out the
Palestinians when it was first created about 750,000, people
were driven from their, their homes and what they call the
nakba in Palestine the catastrophe.
And that thousands of others were also killed people that
didn't leave and that was, you know, they created a country on
top of Palestine which was a country and that's another thing
that just gets lost in. I think for me personally,
another thing I just really had no knowledge of and that they
don't teach in public schools in the u.s. at least is how I just
was under the impression that Israel was there forever.
But it wasn't and it was created by this man.
And eight and you know there's just a long history of the
crimes that have been committed against the Palestinians since
then and just that was, of course, such a another big
factor in the war coming home. When it comes to Israel and
Palestine today, what is the nature of the situation?
Because you can say, well, a long time ago, the Palestinians
did some bad things, the Israelis did and let's just call
it even. And today Israel is mainly the
good guys because they're very westernized.
Now a lot of them come over to America.
They have their own organization, American Israeli
political action committee Israel's very legitimate
Palestinians are the The Savage people with rockets and who will
use Omens as as a human Shields. So when it comes to that
narrative, what are people missing about Israel, Palestine
today? Well right now, you know you
hear a lot about a two-state solution and kind of what's
implied is that the Palestinians don't want a two-state solution.
But that leaves out a huge part of the situation is that in the
West Bank, they're slowly. Israel is slowly expanding into
the West Bank. Through settlements is already a
lot of settlements that are, if you look at the map, You know,
Trump, the Trump Administration put forward what I think he
called the deal of the century or something.
This peace plan for a two-state solution, but it would have, you
know, the West Bank looked like swiss cheese like the territory
that Palestine would have gotten because all these settlements
would have become Israeli territory and there would be
Israeli only access roads, really?
It would have formalized apartheid rule because there
would be all these roads and stuff that the Palestinians
couldn't access which is already the case.
But but you know it just would have formalized everything like
I said and it would have been a tunnel to the Gaza Strip and
that's a big part of why there hasn't been a two-state solution
or anything like that. And it's not really a feasible
solution now because of the settlement expansion and its
continued, they keep approving new settlements under Trump.
They approved record amount and they're demolishing, Palestinian
homes demolishing villages to build these settlements.
And on top of that, you have Gaza, which is a small little
Enclave of few million people that is under siege, it's been
under blockade since 2000 and end of 2006 and to 2007.
And when we see Israel launched a bombing campaign, you know,
the narrative is that Israel is defending itself from terrorists
in Gaza, but the people of Gaza are under seizure.
I mean, that's if you want to look at international law, I'm
not trying to justify anything, you know, a country that's under
siege under blockade, has the right to defend itself.
So, technically the people in God, Aza, do you have under
international law? Have the right to defend
themselves? And of course, the way they do
it is indiscriminate because they fired these Rockets, but
there's just so crude compared to the weapons.
That Israel gets a lot of them from the US and this Iron Dome
system. They have that shoots down all
these rockets and then Israel bombs the hell out of Gaza every
once in awhile and always kills children.
Because it's one of the most densely populated places on the
planet and it's just a, it's a horror show over there.
And Gaza and you know, you always hear these numbers about
just how unsustainable that it is.
How they don't have any clean drinking water and stuff like
that. So the situation and the
unemployment I remember I was always like pretty shocked by
the unemployment rate in Gaza. It's about 50% and for young
people it gets up until like 70%.
I mean imagine being in your early 20s and living there, and
you can't go anywhere. And there's no just no prospects
for anything. It's just such a bleak existence
for them. What do people need to know
about the relations between us Taiwan and China?
Well, this is a big one now, because things are starting to
really heat up and just going back, the history of it, you
know, the US backed Shanghai Shack, and his kuomintang it in
the Chinese Civil War, which officially ended in 1949, when
Mao, and the Communists won and Chiang Kai-shek fled to the
island of Taiwan. And then in the 1950s, There
were some Chinese attempts at taking outer Islands, not the
island of Taiwan. Exactly.
But Taiwan also controls some very small Islands on the
mainland, they still do to this day and, you know, the u.s.
intervened twice in the 1950s when Mao tried to take those
territories and, you know, the US Navy, Eisenhower sent the
Navy in. And at the time in both cases,
the US military planners were pushing to Nuke China.
Ah because they didn't have nuclear weapons at that point.
So this is history and there's a lot to it but really the current
situation as it stands today exists, really?
Because of the US intervention in the Chinese Civil War.
Now I don't think Mao had the capabilities to launch an
invasion of the island of Taiwan at the time.
But the situation would have would be very different if not
for the US intervention. And now so the US after Mal one,
the u.s. didn't recognize China, they Is Taiwan the Republic of
China as China and they had a seat at the UN and everything
and then that changed in the 1970s.
When Nixon went over there, he shook hands with Mal and then
that led towards normalization which was formalized in 1979 in
79. The u.s. severed diplomatic ties
with type A which is Taiwan and opened up with Beijing.
And since then the US has pursued with day call this
strategic ambiguity policy and really The one China policy that
the u.s. follows is that they don't have formal relations with
Taiwan, but they do sell them some weapons that have good
relations with Beijing until recently.
But for the over the decades, big trade relations, and really
help build China up. And but now, that's that's all
changing. And that has changed
significantly in the past few years and it really started
under Trump because part of this policy is that, you know, the US
doesn't send officials, Taiwan, they don't have a fit an
embassy. They don't have official
relations. And we saw under Trump, he
started sending cabinet officials there.
He sent his health secretary there, which might seem kind of
like it's insignificant, but it was the highest level Us
official cabinet, official to visit Taiwan since 79 in decades
and decades, and that really started escalating tensions
around the island. So more Chinese flights.
In the region, few years later that stuff has kind of continued
more Congressional Oceans. And now we just saw Nancy Pelosi
going early August. She visited Taiwan and she's
that speaker of the house. So for China's from their
perspective, she's the third highest official in the US
government and its a big signal of the u.s. moving away from the
one China policy which, so, China's stance is that they want
reunification, what they call reunification with Taiwan.
And they want it to be peaceful. That's what they say.
But they oh they don't rule out using military force in the
thing that they say will make them use military.
Force is foreign support for what they call taiwan's,
Independence forces. And we've seen explicit warnings
from Chinese officials over the past year as the US has been
increasing support for Taiwan they say u.s. if you support
Taiwan Independence, It's going to lead to war between the US
and China and it's a confusing thing because Taiwan even right
now with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, if that the
DPP sighing, when is the president and their independence
leaning, but they have not formally declared independence.
Technically Taiwan, they act as an independent nation and they
are, you know, in everything that they do, but they still are
technically part of China and haven't declared independence.
But if they do declare independence, China says that
that's when they'll move and the US support in that direction
could also lead them to attacking Taiwan because they an
invasion of Taiwan would be the biggest and fibia sin Vision in
history of war and it would, you know, China doesn't want to do
it. It would be very costly for them
but again the thing that will make it more likely is the u.s.
support for Taiwan and we just saw the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Just is this bill that would
give Taiwan 6.5 billion in military aid, which is huge.
They've, they've never given Taiwan anything like that.
And it would, there is also other things in the bill, that
would really change the relationship and China after
Pelosi visited China launched its largest ever military
exercises around the island, ever simulated a blockade, and
they've been keeping up the pressure.
They're flying planes across the Taiwan Strait just about every
day now, and this is big changes that Happening.
And it's funny because they usually kind of overplay China's
military drills around Taiwan that the Western media but after
Pelosi's visit because it was so obviously like a u.s.
provocation that they're responding to it hasn't been
kind of covered in the proper light.
I don't think, I mean this is a huge deal and the road we're
going down is very similar to what happened with Ukraine and
NATO expansion. Of course, they can't stop
murders in Chicago, Murder rates a skyrocketing in major cities
but they're really going to protect Taiwan speaking of
protecting everywhere. Except the places, they've taken
an oath to protect the donbas region.
What do people need to know about nato-ukraine?
The donbas and Russia. Yeah.
I mean really you know, just to go back again in modern history,
people just need to know what happened in Ukraine in 2014
which was the u.s. supported the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych
Ukrainian president and there was the euromaidan protests that
were sparked by Yanukovych kind of scrapping.
His this plan to sign a trade deal with the EU and they
started these protests. And you know since Russia
invaded on February 24th, we've been getting a lot.
Push back to characterize that 2014 incident as a coup.
But you know if you look at the definition of a coup it's a
sudden violent change of power. And what happened in Ukraine was
that there is these protests for months.
And while this was happening, I mean, John McCain was there
speaking to the protesters, Chris Murphy, all these American
officials Victoria nuland who is in Obama state department at the
time she played Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar?
Yeah, yeah. All these people were going over
there and then there was a deal, worked out between the
opposition and the Yanukovych. That was brokered by the EU.
But then the more far right what they consider far, right, and
Ukraine parties didn't accept it and they called for him to step
down immediately and they storm government buildings and then he
fled Russia. So just that's what happened and
it was supported by the US and of course is there's the leaked
phone. Call a lot of your listeners
probably know this stuff about the Ukraine coup.
I'm sure. Between Victoria nuland and
Geoffrey piatt, who was the u.s. ambassador to Ukraine at the
time, right? Before the change, basically
saying who should be in the next Ukrainian government and then
look who is, you know, those people made up the next
government. So this sparked the war in the
donbas because the people that lived in the donbas and other
places in Ukraine rejected, the post coup government and
including in Crimea and Russia annexed Crimea.
And there was a referendum. It was it something like 97%,
they say of people in Crimea voted to join Russia.
So people always say it was a sham referendum.
But if you look at polling before that happened I mean
years going back years since before it happened.
And after happened that people in Crimea, overwhelmingly wanted
to join Russia and are happy that they did.
And what really demonstrates that is that Russia took Crimea
without firing a shot. I think there's like a few
people died but it was like an if you look at the Wikipedia
article but it was like it was like an accident or something.
But so that's lost in the narrative since Russia invaded
and also the war in the donbas, there's 20 blast in that region
two provinces that Donetsk and luhansk oblasts and they
declared independence from Kiev after the coup.
They wanted to secede and that sparked a war Ukraine didn't
want them to go. Oh, and there is a brutal war.
In the donbas for years, it was at a stalemate, most of the time
leading up to the invasion but about 14,000 people died, a lot
of civilians and that, you know, so this is a war on Russia's
border and we've seen learned from recent reporting that the
u.s. deployed CIA operatives to the front lines of the donbas
war to train them. And NATO was in the country
training troops and there's huge NATO military exercises in
Ukraine. So, Yeah, people just need to
know how involved the US was in all of this and not just the
coup, not just the war, just all the whole situation.
So, with this have been with poroshenko's government, or with
the sobota party, like are they directly involved with the major
government or they sort of working behind the scenes?
You mean, the more like right-wing like sobota and
stuff? Like how influential are they
you mean is the US government. Explicitly working with the
government or is it like these ngos like the guy in Belarus is
saying that America doesn't come in and say we the CIA want this
new thing. What their current scam is I
think his name is Luca Shango. What the what they do is they
use ngos as sort of proxies to sort of get the regime change
operation set in motion is that what's happening or is it direct
support poroshenko's on the phone with Obama.
Here's Going down or John Brennan.
Well, at that point it was a little bit of both because, you
know, in the events leading up to the coup is definitely the
ngos played a major role and you see them all over the world.
I mean, and if you can go to the any the National Endowment for
democracy, which is one of the big ones you could go to their
website and type in a country and it shows the all these
programs that they're funding. And one example I always think
of because I was writing about Bolivia and that they were
directly funding. You know, these like this
opposition to the president that this this group that wanted to
secede and declare independence from Morales and, you know, so
that is the any day is funded by the US government.
So it's it is have the u.s. does it these days?
You know, they famously said, when the NAD started, I forget,
what official was it was a CIA official who said that the any
day is going to do, you know, openly what we did covertly, you
know, for the past few decades. But in Ukraine now, I mean all
those ngos were involved and but it was also direct involvement
especially, you know, after the coup I mean it was the u.s.
training Ukraine for this war and NATO training them that they
never join NATO but sort of became a de facto NATO member in
a way because of all this support and Joint drills and
stuff. So yeah, it became more openly.
More open, the u.s. involvement in Ukraine.
After the coup. So if you were advising Bill
Clinton in 1999, when Putin asked Clinton, if Russia could
join NATO, what would you have told Clinton to do?
I mean, if NATO was still going to be around and, you know, I
would have told him to abolish NATO, but if it was still going
to exist, I would have said, you know you could let him join.
I mean that was the idea was to get to let Russia become, you
know, a part of Europe as they say and and Ukraine and this You
know, a realist point of view that, you know, people that
believe in the, you know, the state department and the
American Empire and stuff. Henry Kissinger has said this,
that he said this at the time, that Ukraine should serve as a
bridge between Europe and Russia and that it shouldn't be used as
a wedge against Russia, and that's what it became and that's
and William Burns, who's the current head of the CIA in 2008.
When Ukraine was promised that it would eventually become a
NATO member, he warned in a memo that was released by Wikileaks,
basically, what would happen. They said this, this would
probably spark a civil war in Ukraine and Russia would
intervene and that's what happened.
And that's another point. I mean, with the donbas war and
the view from Russia because people should know what the
Russian, you know, nationalists and supporters of the war thing,
you know, to them, this is Putin.
Is Russia, finishing that war in the donbas, and it's a war
against the US and NATO. And that's how they view it.
And just need to understand how dangerous it is to and just
where we are now. It's really amazing to me that
it got escalated this far, I didn't think we would be at this
point in 2022. Funneling all this money into a
war against Russia. When it comes to us relations
with Iran, what do people need to know?
Well right now, I mean things are really not looking good with
with the ran and what people need to know now is that the
nuclear deal that the Trump Administration withdrew from and
they impose all these sanctions back on Iran.
That was really a policy driven by Israel.
Now, of course, the Republicans are right Wingers, they were
against the Iran deal and stuff, but the real opponent of it.
And the one that just looks like, they just sabotaged a
return to this deal because it looked like for a minute there
that the bottom ministration might have signed a deal with
Iran. Israel is really pushing against
this they want to keep up. This kind of cold war with Iran
that they have, which involves covert attacks inside Iran,
against Iran's nuclear. Program.
There's really no reason for the u.s. to for Iran to be an enemy
at this point. I mean it goes back to the coup
in the 1953 coup that the CIA backed and the Islamic
revolution was a response to that and that's why the hostage
crisis happened. Because the coup in the 50s was
orchestrated from the US Embassy.
That's why they stormed the embassy.
So that's important context. But really since then, you know,
since the 80s and the bombing in Lebanon that The Marines, you
know, Iran could be tied to that since then.
They haven't really done anything major against the US,
and as Scott, Horton has put it. And I think he put it very well
that the worst thing that Iran did in Iraq was take advantage
of the US invasion. You know, really how much that
Invasion benefited or ran and gave their friends power just
shows the shortsightedness and you were talking earlier about
how politicians for just predict the wrong.
The thing with Iraq I mean we how much that Invasion helped
the rent but right now all the scare mongering about their
nuclear program is just totally ridiculous that there's no
indication right now that they'll that they're going to
build a bomb. And I would say if I thought
there was but right now I don't think that there is they've
explicitly forbidden it by their religion.
But, you know, it's a fatwa, which is a religious edict, they
cannot make weapons of mass destruction.
And what What's Happening Here is that is really something that
people need to understand is that Israel has a secret nuclear
weapons program. They have nuclear weapons, they
have a few hundred nuclear warheads.
Because another big part of the narrative is that if Iran gets a
bomb, it's going to start an arms race in the region as well.
Israel already has has nukes and Iran, doesn't, and that because
once you understand that, then you kind of start questioning
this whole entire Fire Narrative of.
Wait, why is Israel? So concerned about Iran getting
nukes? And why do I always hear about
that when Israel has these nukes?
And we don't even know about it. And Israel's always constantly
attacking Iran. I mean, assassinating people
inside Iran. It just happened.
This past may, they gunned down in irgc colonel in the capital
and and Donald Trump assassinated soleimani.
Yeah, and that was for Israel. I mean that that there is no
National interest in killing. Although many, I mean, it's
absolutely ridiculous. So, when it comes to, the day of
9/11, Donald Rumsfeld, talking about potentially in his memos,
saying we could use this to not just go after Bin Laden, but
also after Saddam it seems like anytime Israel has a big rival
in the region Saddam in the early 2000s.
Iran today we haven't gotten a lot of the u.s. going after
Hezbollah in Lebanon or anything but any time there's this big
major rival in the region that the Israeli regime sort of uses
the American regime in the American regime is happy to go
along because of whether it's Halliburton connections or just
increasing their social status or just having an enemy to
fight. You almost have this symbiotic
relationship between these evil ruling classes that are able to
operate at the expense of everyone else.
Is that really what's happening? This smaller country?
Pulling in this bigger country using its leverage.
Yeah, to an extent. I think so.
And it is also about control and power.
I mean the US wants to dominate the region and control the oil
resources more. So, I mean, if you look back at
what the neocon set of the 1990s and Dick Cheney said this that
because now the the us could be totally relying on itself for
oil, that it's more about keeping the resource out of
China's hands. Is that the Troll that they want
over the Middle East or another, you know, adversary let's say so
there's definitely aspect of power about it but and right if
you look at what's happening right now, you know, the US has
scaled back a lot from the Middle East and that's not to
downplay the wars that are still going on the war in Yemen.
The u.s. is still in Syria and Iraq and Biden was just bombing
Syria. Just launched, just a little
escalation in Syria. We're lucky.
That didn't spiral bigger, but It and in Syria, who was that,
would that be against Islamic State?
Fighters or Bashar al-assad's regime?
The latest airstrikes, they were against what the u.s. called
iran-backed Fighters. So, there are Shia militias
inside Syria that actually helped the u.s. they were they
were on the same side in the fight against Isis.
So when the war against Isis was really over when they were
obliterated by Trump, they kind of turned around and started
waging this. Low intensity war against these
Shia militias. And that's what led to sold,
mainly being killed the series of events was really sparked by
that, but Biden, said that because there's rocket attacks
on us bases in Syria and Iraq. Once in awhile, and they always
say, oh, it's a Rants friends and we have to bomb them and I
know one target was this, I forget the name but it says she
and militia actually Afghan. So, they're Afghans that have
traveled there to help fight Isis and stuff and all Is
groups, some of them receive support from Iran, but in
factories by group and they Clash sometimes, and they don't
always get along, they butt heads with the ransom times,
really? What's interesting?
Is that Iran was trying to get these she a militias in Iraq, to
stop attacking the u.s. to stop launching rocket attacks in the
u.s. because they wanted to cool tensions.
But they didn't want to listen to a rant.
So but those were the latest strikes and it seemed like what
Biden did there. I mean, I don't see any other
reason for For those strikes if it wasn't because it was when
negotiations with the u.s. and Iran, it seemed like a deal was
going to be signed and then Biden launched these airstrikes.
So it seemed like it might have been some sort of message to
Iran or just a way to kind of escalate tensions and kind of
killed the deal because he doesn't really want to return to
it. But just to completely useless
escalation, if you really just look at the facts because they
said it was for some rocket attack a few weeks earlier.
But nobody was injured or killed in it, it was very minor and he
went and killed a few. People.
So, that's what is going on in Syria.
I mean, Syria is another. It's a big messy situation that
the u.s. is involved in if you want to talk about that.
Well, this is another example of blowback Omar, Martin went to a
nightclub in Orlando, and murdered more or less 50 people
got on the phone with the 911. Operator and said five times
explicitly, the US and Russia are murdering civilians.
Ian's in Syria and Iraq. This has to stop the bombing
needs to stop the air, strikes are killing women.
They're killing children. This is horrible, and but both
Trump and Obama and Obama get out and just lie about it.
So, even these awards that we don't hear about, we still have
to pay the price for the crimes of the American ruling class.
So, Syria War, not that popular, people are not that passionate
about the holy war in. My generation was the invasion
of Afghanistan. What do people before getting
into the Afghan sanctions of recent, first talk us that.
Tell us what we need to know about the initial Invasion and
Afghan war. Yeah, well, this was another
thing. You know, just growing up, even
when I started becoming like more anti-war.
I always thought, oh, well Afghanistan was like the
necessary War because they did 9/11 and we had to go over
there. And, you know, No.
But really what? I mean, what Scott lays out in
his book Fool's errand in the beginning is that he makes a
strong circumstantial case that when the u.s. first invaded
Afghanistan that they let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora and
there's not if you that's the best case that I've seen for
that theory and it's a pretty strong one and now another thing
I remember listening to somebody on a podcast say this is years
ago again. Growing up as a post-911,
teenager and thinking the Afghan war was necessary.
I remember hearing somebody say, oh, the Taliban when they were,
they would have, they were willing to hand over Bin Laden
and I was like, what? That's not true.
And I went on Google and I just searched Taliban says, they'll
hand over Bin Laden and just article after article at from
2001, from September 2001 from October 2001, that the Taliban
said first, you know, oh well if you show us evidence will hand
them to a third country Tree to stand trial or a first.
It was will put him on trial and then we'll hand him to a third
country. And and then it just kind of
came back to me that we, you know, we won't negotiate with
terrorists. There will be no negotiations.
And it's like, oh that's what that was all about.
And then into think it was in 2002 there was that clip of bush
a reporter asked him. So what are we going to get Bin
Laden? Like what's next?
And he's like oh well it's not really about Bin Laden, you
know, it's about it's bigger than him and just looking back
on that stuff. It's like wow, you see?
Out. It was how they just use 911 as
an excuse to launch. This huge war in Afghanistan
against the Taliban and became regime change.
There was even a deal with the Taliban in December.
That would have pretty much disbanded that rule, but
Rumsfeld rejected that, and that was in December 2001.
There's a New York Times article about it, looking back on this
stuff. As I as I was, was just so
pivotal for me, like really understanding that it does,
Afghan war was totally unnecessary and of course,
staying there and nation-building.
You know, it's easy to say that that was a waste and unnecessary
just to have a look, how quickly the government collapsed.
But the initial, the whole entire thing didn't have to
happen, there could have been a, you know, post 9/11 could have
negotiated with the Taliban to get Bin Laden, or could have
been a quick raid to kill him. I mean, even if he got away,
they destroyed at what was what Al Qaeda was very quickly.
And they could have left after that.
But now they stayed in the had to turn it into this nation
building exercise in spent trillions of dollars.
Exactly, there are real. It's amazing these sources that
Scott uses in Fool's errand. White House says no to Taliban
demand for proof. September 21st 2001, CBC News
u.s. refusal of 2001, Taliban offer, gave Bin Laden a free
past intern, press ABC News, October 14th us for Jack's new
Taliban offer. I mean it is just unbelievable
how that was hidden from us. George Bush, wrote a book,
allegedly called the points and he goes, we had little faith.
That the Taliban would hand him over after we demanded that they
hand him over, but we needed that to increase the likelihood.
That we'd be able to get the International Community to
support us in going to Afghanistan.
I don't have the direct quote, it's in a chapter titled
Afghanistan. And he doesn't say we asked for
them to hand them over and they offered but we couldn't do it
because of the he doesn't even say that they took him up on the
offer and this whole thing could have been avoided.
They're constantly in search for enemies.
So we then replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Now there are Afghan sanctions what talk us.
Talk to us about the nature of the sanctions that the u.s.
regime put on Afghanistan since 2021.
Yes. So there's really two things to
discuss here and the first is the Afghan Central Bank assets.
So the u.s. froze 7 billion in Afghan Central Bank Reserves
that were held in the US and other countries, they froze,
another few billion. And so what happened there was
that you know, the u.s. built up this government and with it was
an infrastructure in Kabul mostly, but in elsewhere and
government workers, and they provided services, And
Afghanistan because of the war. And because of other reasons,
it's very poor country, and people were really dire need for
help. And by seizing this money, they
really kind of pulled that infrastructure out from under
them and you know there's an argument I guess that I've heard
you know, Rand Paul make that. Oh well it was our money to
begin with so we should just keep it from them.
But when you look at the situation in Afghanistan, I mean
I think you know trying to just take this This thing that we set
up from them, you know, it's, it would the right thing to do
would be to just release the funds.
And, you know, the Taliban is the government now, which is why
the US big part of the reason why they don't want to do it.
But it's just a, really being sore losers here.
I mean, they left billions of dollars in military equipment
behind. They can't just let them have.
What is rightfully, Afghanistan's, you know, money.
And also the sanctions on the Taliban So the Taliban are all
under sanctions, the group, all their leadership us and un
sanctions. And so now the Taliban is the
government in Afghanistan. So that means that the country
is under sanctions about as intense as they could be
sanctions like that are on Iran, Venezuela and places like that.
So that discourages discourages Banks International Banks and
companies from doing any business with Afghanistan.
So us sanctions technically have exemptions as for, you know,
humanitarian goods and Aid and medicine and things like that,
but history has shown us. And there was just a un report
about this in Iran. How those exemptions don't
really do anything because the US has the issue like a special
license. So, if you're a company, you
just not going to bother doing business with these countries
that are under these heavy sanctions because it's too much
of a headache, you have to worry about violating sanctions.
And if you want to do it, you have to get this special license
from the US. So Is f gansan is facing this
really bad food crisis food, shortages everywhere.
Millions of people facing starvation and these sanctions
are making the delivery of Aid harder.
The UN says, and it's just really it's turned into an
economic war against the people of Afghanistan.
Now, when it comes to Al Qaeda in other countries mostly in
Yemen, Obama gets in in 2009. And he says that there was a
justification to increase air strikes on aqap, Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula because the majority of people in Guantanamo
Bay were from Yemen. So we got a fight Al-Qaeda, not
just in one place. They are in a number of
countries. So now from like the USS Cole
bombing in 2000, you know, bush is working with President, Saleh
Obama increases strikes against aqap, something happens in 2015,
where the u.s. no longer is. Going to war against aqap in
Yemen. Walk us through what happened
there. Well yes, that was in 2015 was
the year that the US backed the saudi-led Coalition.
You know it's called the saudi-led Coalition but it's
really they wouldn't really be able to do this war without the
US. They need support from the US
but it's a coalition of the gulf countries Saudi Arabia and the
UAE or the most involved but also you know Bahrain and And
even Jordan is involved in stuff, but that was after the
houthis took power in North Yemen and they drove out the,
the saudi-backed government, the US backed government and haughty
the president, he fled to Saudi Arabia.
And so the US backed this war against the houthis.
But what's interesting about the houthis is that they are an
enemy of al-Qaeda. And just a few months before in
March, 2015, was when the Obama Administration And announced
that they were going to back this war and it's in the Saudis
launched the war. Just a few months before that in
January, there's reporting in the Wall Street Journal, and
other outlets that the u.s. was starting to share intelligence
with the houthis to help them fight.
Al-Qaeda So then they turn around and switch sides, really?
And because the UAE, there's been extensive reporting from AP
or there's a 20-18 report from AP about it. 20:19 report from
CNN about it from have all places of how the US war of how,
you know, they're backing al-qaeda-linked militants.
That the UAE is more so than anybody else in southern Yemen
there and, and how weapons that they're selling to Saudi Arabia.
And the UAE are ending up in the Ends of al-qaeda's.
So at the same time when Trump came in, he actually really
escalated, the Drone war against al Qaeda in Yemen as well as
ramping up support for the Saudis.
So that just shows what a mess u.s. foreign policy is, you
know, that raid when he first came into office, circuit killed
Al alack. We'd young girl, whose brother
was killed a few years earlier by Obama in a drone strike.
That was a raid. Supposed to be a raid against al
Qaeda. And so, yeah, I mean, it's just
a total mess, but really by backing this Coalition that use,
Al-Qaeda, guys to fight the houthis, you're on the side of
Al Qaeda in this war. So, even though, while caters
the enemy, they're on their side.
In Yemen, we know from Jake Sullivan's, emails, that Al
Qaeda and us are fighting on the same side.
Sometimes against Bashar al-assad's regime, and with a
solemn on E and Iran. Depending on which day of the
week, it is, apparently, is it true that LIF G?
The Libyan Islamic fighting group is Al-Qaeda in Libya and
the u.s. took their side against Muammar Gaddafi?
Yeah. I mean that's another thing that
came to light after the u.s. involvement in Libya was how
involved Al-Qaeda was in that initial stages of that war.
So, yeah, we've seen this all over the place and I mean right
now he's still in Syria. In idlib, province in the north,
that's still controlled by Hyatt tahrir al-sham HTS who were
there, formally al-nusra front, which was Al Qaeda in Syria.
I mean, they're out kada. They're trying to pretend like
they're not anymore, but they, they're in al-Qaeda group and
the u.s. there's another, there's other groups, her a Cell
Dean is one of them that are more there.
Another Al-Qaeda affiliate that the u.s.
Targets in drone strikes in idlib They target this one group
but then it's just such a mess because HTS is sort of is backed
by turkey, not openly. But if you look at what turkey
doesn't that region? They definitely have helped HTS
and the u.s. kind of nominally quietly backs with turkeys doing
in that part of Syria. But then they're against what
turkeys doing against the Kurds in Northeast Syria just over
here. I mean it's just such a mess and
it just shows how messy the foreign intervention can get.
And when you find yourself in multiple countries, backing the
people that are supposed to be our enemy that were responsible
for 9/11. I mean, it's just such a
disaster. One of the most difficult things
to do is to wrap your head around people in large scale
involved in large-scale institutions people with a lot
of money. A lot of power and a lot of Fame
then being really, really wrong. Not just like a little bit away
from the bullseye, but, like, 50 kilometers in the other
direction. So, when it comes to, why are so
many of these wars occurring, if the anti-war position is, right,
shouldn't it have caught on globally and governments.
No longer being able to wage war.
How is it that war is able to survive if you have so many good
arguments against it? Well, I mean it's just you know
if we want to get back to more of a libertarian view of it and
you know, I always think of war is the health of the state which
was the essay by Randolph Bourne and it just you see how powerful
a state grows in war and how much more power they gain,
especially after 9/11, the Patriot Act, Just a few obvious
examples in modern history. And also, now with the US how
intertwined the arms industry is the military industrial complex.
I mean, there's just so much money to be made here and
sometimes I think it might just be as simple as that right now.
And today for the u.s., I mean with what's happening in
Ukraine, they're spending tens of billions of dollars on this
war sending weapons to Ukraine. And then part of that is
replenishing, the Weapons that they're sending to Ukraine.
And also the European countries are now buying more American
weapons because they're worried about Russia, and it's just this
cycle never ending cycle of just money money.
And now Taiwan they're going to give them billions in a teacher.
I mean, it's corporate welfare. It's just so obvious.
And on the face of it that I think right now, I think it is
as simple as that. I mean, Lloyd Austin is Biden,
Secretary of Defense, he was on the board of Raytheon before he
joined the B Administration and that happened under Trump to
James Madison. Forget blanking on it, but he
came from another, you know, our defense, contractor arms maker,
and then so did Mark esper his other secretary of defense.
So it's just that's become kind of a new thing that person.
It's just so blatant. Now the person running the
military comes from that industry where there's such an
interest in starting Wars and funding proxy wars and all this
stuff and it's just not sustainable.
What the US is trying to do right now.
It is like the most classic case of concentrated benefits and
dispersed costs that the economist could come across.
It's so important because we see, you know, but the first
world war, a little country of Serbia, you know, getting this
whole thing, provoked between Russia and Austria and Germany,
and Britain, and America. And then this little town,
Danzig starts a war between Poland, and Germany, and Britain
and everything else. And now again, we're back to
these two little places that On bass and Taiwan not say that
they're little and they don't matter.
But I don't think people appreciate the matches that that
the ruling class is playing with in the sea of oil that they find
themselves in. So that's why I asked that
people check out anti-war.com, of course, links to Dave's
writings will be in the description.
Final question for you, sir, what is your message to members
of the military past and present?
Well, so, my message, would be you know anybody in the military
right now I think people should I don't think people should be
joining the military and especially now we're we're
standing on the precipice of potentially two major Wars with
Russia and China. And that I think that's why
movements like defend the guard I think are really important
because they're trying to get the National Guard to not have
to be deployed to these wars that aren't even declared.
And you know, we really need to not give them people to send to
these wars, to send to die in this.
Wars and for past people that were previously in the military.
I mean, some of our strongest friends and allies are veterans
who have seen this stuff firsthand and every veteran.
I know have stories about just the exorbitant waste.
That's really the big one that you always hear.
And of course, if they were involved in combat, they have
horrific stories there or, you know, just about handing out
money to, you know. Tribal leaders in Afghanistan
and things like that, that they should share with people and
really tell people what it's about and we have to stop
glorifying it because the u.s. it's very clear.
Now it's a lot clearer now, I think that the government
doesn't have people in the military's interest at heart at
all so people should get out and should enjoy and I think it's
clear now more than ever that that's what people should be
doing. I used to kind of be hesitant
really too. Speak out about this because I
know so many people that have joined the military and had
thought they didn't have any other options and went there to
get the GI Bill and stuff. But now it's like, I think anti
recruitment activism and stuff is pretty important and I think
veterans can play a big role in that because if he hears from
some hippie it's not going to sound as powerful as somebody
who did a few tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And so it was really like. So let's name those name so
people can check them out. I know Douglas McGregor is a big
one. I know.
Her Van Buren worked at the state department.
He's great on the amount of waste who are some other
veterans that well, those two alone.
There's so much to read. You can be busy for a year who
are some of the other veterans that that come to mind.
Well, Danny surcin is one of the best and he hasn't been writing
recently, but if you just go to anti-war.com, I mean he's
written prolific like prolific worry about these issues kind of
talking about. I was really thinking of a lot
of his anecdotes when I was talking about the examples of
waste and Matthew, ho to he's another good one and then
McKnight, who's leading the defend the guard movement thing?
I think he's a really important voice.
And I think he can really speak to a lot of more people that
could be leaning toward the military and stuff and Yakko
willing was, was definitely in the Military and he had Scott
Horton on the show. That's right.
Yeah. Jack / Sobek was a naval.
I think psychological warfare officer something in that Arena
and he's come out and said, Ron, Paul was right about this
Libertarians are better than conservatives on foreign policy
so we're we're getting a lot of people there.
There's so many. Yeah, there is I think I've
mentioned Ron. Paul was in the Vietnam.
Yeah, that's right. I always forget that.
There's a lot to mention it. A lot of people that I could,
that I will probably think of after we talk here and that I
wish I mentioned. But yeah, there's definitely a
lot and I think again that some of them are most valuable people
are veterans because they speak from experience.
I mean, Tulsi gabbard, she had she just came out and said that
is Islam. Islamic terrorism is like the
number one threat to the world. She says, a lot of stupid things
about the war on terror. She's really bad on that but she
was kind of the You know, the anti-regime, change War
candidate in 2020. And it meant a lot coming from
her because she was there in Iraq and stuff, and saw it.
Exactly yes, she's really good. Sometimes just throws us under
the bus other times. Yeah, it goes to show you how
what we need to D politicize things as much as possible
because the best politicians are still just like the worst people
ever. The website is anti-war.com and
libertarian institute.org Dave DeCamp.
Thank you so much for your Time sir.
Thanks for having me.