How the Mueller Investigation Could Play Out for Trump

[Spartanmack]

Don't worry, a bunch of US media stars made the same mistake, many of which were from MSNBC which was guilty of pushing this absurd Russian collusion story, almost to the exclusion of all other news. one example.

It's like the tubes in the propaganda machine got clogged and it started spitting out clearly factual errors. Oops!

"The Soviets... Errrrr Russians... communists, or whatever they are now. *ugh* keeping all these names straight is hard!"

joy reid sounds almost as paranoid and deranged as Vic.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay, so we're counting pretend wars too then.

which one of those actual wars was a pretend war?

 

[tinselwolverine]

the former, which I thought was clear but I guess I should have been more specific. Sorry for any confusion.

That makes sense; the Taliban and Al Qaeda were remnants of the mujahedin that the US had backed when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, so it would seem counterintuitive to me that that war was against Russia.

As far as the three wars you named, the consensus of historians on any account I?ve read corroborates that the antagonism between the US and the Soviet Union/the Soviet Union and China was definitely a root cause.

I had a linked to an article about Dana Rohrabacher arm wrestling Putin years ago, and when the article went in depth out of Rohrabacher?s background, he said he had come to see the Vietnam war more of a conflict between the US and the ideology of communism/socialism.

 

[Spartanmack]

That makes sense; the Taliban and Al Qaeda were remnants of the mujahedin that the US had backed when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, so it would seem counterintuitive to me that that war was against Russia.

As far as the three wars you named, the consensus of historians on any account I’ve read corroborates that the antagonism between the US and the Soviet Union/the Soviet Union and China was definitely a root cause.

I had a linked to an article about Dana Rohrabacher arm wrestling Putin years ago, and when the article went in depth out of Rohrabacher’s background, he said he had come to see the Vietnam war more of a conflict between the US and the ideology of communism/socialism.

many people in the CIA viewed supporting the mujahedin as a chance for payback at the Soviets for what they did to help the NVA and the Viet Cong in Vietnam barely 7 years before. Anyway, the point is we were helping the south (w/o much help from the south) fight the spread of communism against the north which was aided significantly by the USSR (I incorrectly said Russia, but Russia was clearly the dominant force in the USSR). Then in Afghanistan in the 80s, we similarly aided the Afghans in their war against the Soviets. In both cases we were effectively fighting the Soviets.

My first post was a hasty response to tiger and thumb - I should not have lumped Korea in there or I should have made the distinction in that case where we fought a force backed by communist china, not the USSR.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I should not have lumped Korea in there or I should have made the distinction in that case where we fought a force backed by communist china, not the USSR.

A search engine search for ?Korean War, Soviet union? Will link to numerous sources claiming that the Soviets were also adversaries along with China against the United States in the Korean War.

 

[Michchamp]

A search engine search for ?Korean War, Soviet union? Will link to numerous sources claiming that the Soviets were also adversaries along with China against the United States in the Korean War.

I read accounts that the Soviets sent pilots and advisers to train teh NK airforce,
and to teach the Vietnamese how to operate their missile systems.

Still not the same as being "at war" with the USSR, or China, unless were talking about some obscure definition of "war."

I mean "proxy war" is a phrase people had to invent to describe it, because it's not war. Weird to now claim "proxy war" and "war" are the same thing.

 

[Michchamp]

It also seems inaccurate to describe the Vietnamese war as a "proxy war" since the Vietnamese war was launched as a struggle for independence, first against the French, and then against us.

Apparently the Stalin's intentions in supporting NK in the Korean war were mixed (link). If he expected the South would be conquered before the US could intervene, it's not really a proxy war.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I read accounts that the Soviets sent pilots and advisers to train teh NK airforce,
and to teach the Vietnamese how to operate their missile systems.

Still not the same as being "at war" with the USSR, or China, unless were talking about some obscure definition of "war."

I mean "proxy war" is a phrase people had to invent to describe it, because it's not war. Weird to now claim "proxy war" and "war" are the same thing.

I would say we are down to splitting hairs at this point.

Was the Soviet Union an adversary in all three wars?

I would say the consensus would be that it?s a fact.

Were they literally wars with the Soviet Union?

Not literally, but if one accommodates for figurative and hyperbolic expression, I would not say that it?s inaccurate to say that.

Nobody is really disagreeing with anybody about anything here, except for the meaning of words in figurative or hyperbolic expression.

Which is short for splitting hairs.

 

[Thumb]

which one of those actual wars was a pretend war?

The ones that listed the Soviet Union as combatants. Sorry straw man, we were not at war the the USSR back then, the cold war was not an actual war, and trying to take ConspiracyMud's side in the whole idea we will be at war with China is loony, but par for the course when you think you're giving a lefty some kind of lesson.

 

[tigermud]

Those Q nuts have been awfully quiet lately. Calm before.....

 

[tigermud]

Yesterday’s WH spam was about Obligation to secure the border I didn’t and don’t have time to read and ponder it but then see headline today saying he’s already backed down from closing the border talk

Twitter cowboy caves again. This keeps up I might have to start hollering wimp along with that long alien neck Ann chick

I don’t have time to get into long winded debates with you people! There is no such thing as multitasking, it’s actually rapid focus shifting and no it isn’t healthy

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yesterday’s WH spam was about Obligation to secure the border I didn’t and don’t have time to read and ponder it but then see headline today saying he’s already backed down from closing the border talk

Twitter cowboy caves again. This keeps up I might have to start hollering wimp along with that long alien neck Ann chick

I don’t have time to get into long winded debates with you people! There is no such thing as multitasking, it’s actually rapid focus shifting and no it isn’t healthy

The numbers I've heard in different stories don't really make sense. It seems like not long ago there were claims that border crossings were at an 18 year low. More recently, I've heard that crossings are spiking back up - to numbers we haven't seen in 12 years. But that would mean we have seen this much activity and more - so why are we so swamped and overrun now?


Obviously, the numbers are something to be skeptical of, but doesn't the general narrative follow that trend?

 

[Spartanmack]

The ones that listed the Soviet Union as combatants. Sorry straw man, we were not at war the the USSR back then, the cold war was not an actual war, and trying to take ConspiracyMud's side in the whole idea we will be at war with China is loony, but par for the course when you think you're giving a lefty some kind of lesson.

They weren't listed as direct combatants with the US in any of the wars - they were specifically identified as "proxy wars" w/ the Russians (Soviets), it's not a big stretch to say we were essentially at war with them in those conflicts.

And I've said nothing about going to war with China but I am giving a couple lefties a lesson, they're just not catching on.

 

[Spartanmack]

I read accounts that the Soviets sent pilots and advisers to train teh NK airforce,
and to teach the Vietnamese how to operate their missile systems.

Still not the same as being "at war" with the USSR, or China, unless were talking about some obscure definition of "war."

I mean "proxy war" is a phrase people had to invent to describe it, because it's not war. Weird to now claim "proxy war" and "war" are the same thing.

This isn't splitting hairs, this is the pedantic nit picking of a moron. you don't have to have an obscure definition of war to make my point but you do need a pedantic, technical definition of war to make yours - like it has to be a declared war with a direct combatant. If that's what you're saying then Vietnam wasn't a war at all from the US perspective.

Phrases are made up to describe things all the time, that's how a lot of things get described.

And the Vietnam war wasn't a war for independence from the US - French rule was over by 1950 at which point the conflict became a civil war between communists in the north, recognized by China and the Soviets at the legitimate government and the French backed government in the south recognized by the Brits and the US as the legitimate government. The French cut out completely in the mid 1950s.

 

[Michchamp]

This isn't splitting hairs, this is the pedantic nit picking of a moron. you don't have to have an obscure definition of war to make my point but you do need a pedantic, technical definition of war to make yours - like it has to be a declared war with a direct combatant. If that's what you're saying then Vietnam wasn't a war at all from the US perspective.

Phrases are made up to describe things all the time, that's how a lot of things get described.

And the Vietnam war wasn't a war for independence from the US - French rule was over by 1950 at which point the conflict became a civil war between communists in the north, recognized by China and the Soviets at the legitimate government and the French backed government in the south recognized by the Brits and the US as the legitimate government. The French cut out completely in the mid 1950s.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu was 1954, which was the decisive battle that lead to France seeking to withdraw, so your dates are wrong, which is actually the least of your errors.

Ho chi minh only turned to Communism as an ideology after the US let France back into the country, and he saw the US would allow colonialism to return after WWII. PRIOR to that (1946) he based Vietnam's first constitution on the US and other Western democracies' constitutions... (link). That was a huge blunder on our government's part.

Regardless, the US was involved in Vietnamese internal politics in some way shape or form from the moment WWII ended, by backing France, and supplying their war effort in Vietnam. and in 1956, after France washed their hands of it, the US was fully involved in Vietnamese internal politics until the South finally collapsed in 1975.

So, yes, this was the Vietnamese struggle for independence. ideology was just a side issue. and there was plenty of animosity throughout the conflict between the Chinese and Vietnamese (even though they were both Communist), and they even went to war in the late 70's, with China launching a full blown invasion of Vietnam.

but please keep lecturing us from your conservapedia cliff's notes, or wherever you're getting wrong information from.

 

[Spartanmack]

The battle of Dien Bien Phu was 1954, which was the decisive battle that lead to France seeking to withdraw, so your dates are wrong, which is actually the least of your errors.

Ho chi minh only turned to Communism as an ideology after the US let France back into the country, and he saw the US would allow colonialism to return after WWII. PRIOR to that (1946) he based Vietnam's first constitution on the US and other Western democracies' constitutions... (link). That was a huge blunder on our government's part.

Regardless, the US was involved in Vietnamese internal politics in some way shape or form from the moment WWII ended, by backing France, and supplying their war effort in Vietnam. and in 1956, after France washed their hands of it, the US was fully involved in Vietnamese internal politics until the South finally collapsed in 1975.

So, yes, this was the Vietnamese struggle for independence. ideology was just a side issue. and there was plenty of animosity throughout the conflict between the Chinese and Vietnamese (even though they were both Communist), and they even went to war in the late 70's, with China launching a full blown invasion of Vietnam.

but please keep lecturing us from your conservapedia cliff's notes, or wherever you're getting wrong information from.

no, my dates are not wrong. You're wrong. The French were no longer in control after about 1949, from then on, they backed the government of the State of Vietnam in Saigon which was led by the former Emporer, Bao Dai and created in 1949. In February of 1950 the US and GB joined France in recognizing it as the legitimate government of Vietnam after the Chinese and Soviets had recognized the Viet Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam as the legitimate government of Vietnam in January. by 1954 we were paying 80% of the cost but the French troops were doing the fighting to support the State of Vietnam. About the only thing you got right is the battle of Dien Bien Phu was in 1954 - when the French garrison surrendered to the Viet Minh, the French pulled out completely soon after that.

Again, my dates aren't wrong, you are.

LOLOLOLOL

Ho chi minh only turned to Communism as an ideology after the US let France back into the country, and he saw the US would allow colonialism to return after WWII.

From Uncle Ho's Wikipedia page:

Many authors have speculated that 1919 was a lost "Wilsonian moment" when the future Hồ Ch? Minh could have adopted a pro-American and less radical position if only President Wilson had received him. However, the available evidence shows that at the time of the Versailles Conference he was committed to a socialist program. While the conference was ongoing, Nguyễn ?i Quốc was already delivering speeches on the prospects of Bolshevism in Asia and was attempting to persuade French Socialists to join Vladimir Lenin's Third Communist International.[28]

You're aware the Versailles conference was in 1920, right? He was a member of the Poliburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam since 1935. Here's a little more about how Uncle Ho practiced "democracy":

Several sources relate how[40] during a power struggle in 1945 the Việt Minh killed members of rival groups, such as the leader of the Constitutional Party, Bui Quang Chieu, the head of the Party for Independence as well as Ngo Dinh Diem's brother, Ngo Dinh Khoi.[41] When asked by a reporter about the murder of Tạ Thu Th?u, a leading Trotskyist and personal friend, he answered matter-of-factly: "Anyone who does not follow the line determined by me will be smashed"

shocking that Truman wouldn't recognize the government of an avowed communist who murdered his political opponents. Vietnam is only communist because of US political blunders - LOLOLOLOL. Of course, you also believe Hugo Chavez was a legitimate democratically elected leader and Venezuela is a mess because of the Imperial US trying to spread capitalism in South America. You're like Sean Penn but without the success.

 

[Michchamp]

well, you said "French rule was over in 1950"... in the context of it being a purely civil war at that point.

I guess the 100,000 or so troops they had in the country, and major battles they were fighting, and treaty they negotiated to leave in 1956 were all unrelated to the whole "ruling" thing, but I think maybe your speaking a different dialect of English or something where the words mean different things to you.

 

[Spartanmack]

well, you said "French rule was over in 1950"... in the context of it being a purely civil war at that point.

I guess the 100,000 or so troops they had in the country, and major battles they were fighting, and treaty they negotiated to leave in 1956 were all unrelated to the whole "ruling" thing, but I think maybe your speaking a different dialect of English or something where the words mean different things to you.

hey, where are you going with those goalposts? Also, I didn't say "purely" civil war. And even if I'm wrong about when the French lost power (I don't believe I am), I'm nowhere near as wrong as you've been about all of this.

Maybe Gulo will come along and sacrifice more of his credibility to take your side on this by making it seem like I'm saying something I'm not and you guys can pretend that validates your nonsense and proves you were right all along.

 

[Michchamp]

hey, where are you going with those goalposts? ...

Says the guy holding them in his hands and walking away...

Maybe Gulo will come along and sacrifice more of his credibility to take your side on this by making it seem like I'm saying something I'm not and you guys can pretend that validates your nonsense and proves you were right all along.

LOL, wonder why you think he'd take my side here...? maybe because he's capable of reading?

 

[Gulo Blue]

This isn't splitting hairs, this is the pedantic nit picking of a moron.

Whoa. We've got to distinguish between nit picking and splitting hairs now? Isn't the literal meaning of nit picking when a person sifts through hair to remove lice eggs?