Status
Not open for further replies.
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Ronald Reagan, and his Contras off-the-books guerrilla War. Definitely got Trump beat. Everybody Loved Reagan. Especially corporate America with his trickle down economics the taxpayers had to pick up the tab 30 years later. Yeah big crook Ronald Reagan!!
Yep tripled the national debt. Beats all others.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Yep tripled the national debt. Beats all others.
Yes he did,. He is the one who started the roll that the taxpayers, had to bailout all them big banks, Fannie Mae General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and so on. Reagan and Obama like peas and carrots.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Ronald Reagan, and his Contras off-the-books guerrilla War. Definitely got Trump beat. Everybody Loved Reagan. Especially corporate America with his trickle down economics the taxpayers had to pick up the tab 30 years later. Yeah big crook Ronald Reagan!!
Did you know that the US was involved in Vietnam well before the troops were sent? CIA is always in places we never hear about.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Yes he did,. He is the one who started the roll that the taxpayers, had to bailout all them big banks, Fannie Mae General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and so on. Reagan and Obama like peas and carrots.
I knew someone who was the head of one of the largest mortgage guarantee insurance companies and in 2003, he testified in Congress that we were going to see financial problems like no other if the mortgage lending practices didn't change and they (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Franklin Raines, among them) ignored his comments. He started a group called 'Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac Must Die' but the problems still happened, leaving the mortgage guarantors holding the bag. If that sector had failed, things would have been worse.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Oh, it takes much more, like being more skeptical perhaps.
Knowing when to be skeptical requires education. Otherwise, a discussion may go like this-

Dumb guy- "Nooo!"
Smart guy- "Yeah!"
Dumb guy- "Really?"
Smart guy- "Absolutely"
Dumb guy- "Wow-I didn't know that. I guess it's true"
Smart guy- "Uh-huh"
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Did you know that the US was involved in Vietnam well before the troops were sent? CIA is always in places we never hear about.
So very true, it wasn't till I watched that movie with Tom Cruise American Made. I started doing some internet research myself, yeah, CIA what a bunch of sneaky f..ks in my book. But do we really think or believe the White House Reagan's administration or even Reagan himself didn't know what was really going on? When in fact CIA flying gorillas into Arkansas to train to fight a War off the books so to speak.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Did you know that the US was involved in Vietnam well before the troops were sent? CIA is always in places we never hear about.
There's a longer history to the CIA's and the USA's involvement in Vietnam. In 1945 as WWII was drawing down in Asia and the Pacific, UK and US intelligence agents were sent to all Japanese occupied countries that hadn't been invaded by the US, Australia or Great Britain. Their mission was to learn who had opposed the Japanese with arms, and who had the support of the local populations. This happened throughout South East Asia, the former Dutch colonial Indonesian islands, and the Philippine Islands. The ultimate goal was to determine who should receive the surrender of the Japanese occupying forces. It was also the goal to prevent former colonial occupiers, such as France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, or the USA from continuing in their roles.

In the former French Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) the only choice was the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh. The French Colonial government had surrendered to the Japanese in 1941 without any fight at all. That advice from intelligence forces on the ground was followed in 1945, and continued until 1953 when the Republican Eisenhower administration replaced the Democratic Truman administration. Instead of supporting independence in Vietnam, US policy shifted to supporting the French Colonial regime. The reason for the reversal was anti-communism – the Red Scare.

This long sad history leads to the conclusion that the US went wrong when it ignored the intelligence on the ground from 1945 that most Vietnamese people supported the independence forces led by the Viet Minh. Our politicians and higher ranking military ignored that advice. We would all have been much better served if they had stuck to the original plan.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
There's a longer history to the CIA's and the USA's involvement in Vietnam. In 1945 as WWII was drawing down in Asia and the Pacific, UK and US intelligence agents were sent to all Japanese occupied countries that hadn't been invaded by the US, Australia or Great Britain. Their mission was to learn who had opposed the Japanese with arms, and who had the support of the local populations. This happened throughout South East Asia, the former Dutch colonial Indonesian islands, and the Philippine Islands. The ultimate goal was to determine who should receive the surrender of the Japanese occupying forces. It was also the goal to prevent former colonial occupiers, such as France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, or the USA from continuing in their roles.

In the former French Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) the only choice was the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh. The French Colonial government had surrendered to the Japanese in 1941 without any fight at all. That advice from intelligence forces on the ground was followed in 1945, and continued until 1952 when the Republican Eisenhower administration replaced the Democratic Truman administration. Instead of supporting independence in Vietnam, US policy shifted to supporting the French Colonial regime. The reason for the reversal was anti-communism – the Red Scare.

This long sad history leads to the conclusion that intelligence on the ground all agreed that most Vietnamese people supported the independence forces led by the Viet Minh, which in 1954 became the North Vietnamese, and in 1975 became the Vietnamese. The politicians and higher ranking military that ignored that advice. We would all have been much better served if we had stuck to the original plan made in 1945.
Or, our politicians could mind their own damn business when it would serve better. Once the French realized they couldn't handle it, we stepped in with our 'advisors'. I knew someone who was sent there in '62- he didn't tell most people what he did, but the owner of the stereo store where I worked had been there in '69, so they had a very strong bond. Neither came out unscathed but compared with so many, what they ended up with was very minor.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
So very true, it wasn't till I watched that movie with Tom Cruise American Made. I started doing some internet research myself, yeah, CIA what a bunch of sneaky f..ks in my book. But do we really think or believe the White House Reagan's administration or even Reagan himself didn't know what was really going on? When in fact CIA flying gorillas into Arkansas to train to fight a War off the books so to speak.
Plausible deniability- they do things that very few know about because any connection could cause the removal of POTUS and others.

You mean 'guerillas', right? Members of a military, right?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Or, our politicians could mind their own damn business when it would serve better. Once the French realized they couldn't handle it, we stepped in with our 'advisors'. I knew someone who was sent there in '62- he didn't tell most people what he did, but the owner of the stereo store where I worked had been there in '69, so they had a very strong bond. Neither came out unscathed but compared with so many, what they ended up with was very minor.
By 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh, and they pulled out of Southeast Asia, never to return. A peace treaty established separate governments of North Vietnam (the former Viet Minh) and South Vietnam (the Vietnamese toadies of the former French colonials, aka the Republic of Vietnam, RVN).

Only some years after that, did the US begin supporting South Vietnam with money, advisors, and later troops. The RVN government seemed to never have the support of local populations outside of Saigon, and they never had the will to fight for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
So very true, it wasn't till I watched that movie with Tom Cruise American Made. I started doing some internet research myself, yeah, CIA what a bunch of sneaky f..ks in my book. But do we really think or believe the White House Reagan's administration or even Reagan himself didn't know what was really going on? When in fact CIA flying gorillas into Arkansas to train to fight a War off the books so to speak.
Don't make the mistake of learning US history from watching Hollywood movies. They rarely get it right.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Don't make the mistake of learning US history from watching Hollywood movies. They rarely get it right.
Yeah buddy, that's why i researched it myself even though the movie was based on a true story a lot of the facts where wrong.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Plausible deniability- they do things that very few know about because any connection could cause the removal of POTUS and others.

You mean 'guerillas', right? Members of a military, right?
Yep, lol dam autocorrect..lolo who knows with the CIA, just maybe they flew in some real gorillas, in case the people in Arkansas didn't know the difference between gorillas and gruelas. :D
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
Of course there is proof, just not beyond a reasonable doubt
Then it is not "proof", just evidence or allegation. Mueller admitted there was no inaccuracy in Barr's statement. Mueller wasn't complaining about Barr's statement. He was complaining about how the media spun it, and wanted Barr to "correct" the media. Hilarious karma.

There is a lot of interpretation in legal issues, and a lot of lawyers to do it. My post did two things. It poked fun at legal pedestrians who think they speak with authority on legal issues... par for the WWW. And it dismissed the liberal presumption of moral superiority. How can your morality be superior when it changes so often? Examples abound, and I gave just a couple. Here's another. Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman. Libs elected him president. 10 years later a Christian baker was the devil himself for refusing to go against his religion and sell a gay wedding cake.

It is the hallmark of liberals. Your values change. The reason for the changes can be debated, and I have my opinion. But it is so common, it can be predicted. In a nutshell, that's why your moral arguments are often laughable. You moral compass will likely swap poles soon... again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top