Posts by Andrew Chase31

Linda Booth6 said:

Maybe, but Republika Srpska simply achieved its goals through genocide, mass killings, and driving out half of its pre-war residents.
Of course, as a Mexican, you don't mind, but those are the cold, hard facts.

I didn't quite catch what the poet was getting at—maybe even he didn't know! I'm just stating what are easily verifiable facts: through massacres and large-scale ethnic cleansing, Republika Srpska was brutally stripped of 50% of its pre-war population, something incomparable to anything else in European history over the last 200 years.
Is there any other province existing today that was cleansed of 50% of its pre-war population like Republika Srpska? It's an international issue now.
So, is genocide just acceptable?

I am strictly talking about the facts here: every second pre-war resident of what is now Republika Srpska was either killed or expelled.

Listen, kid, your keyboard is going to lock up on you if you keep insisting Republika Srpska is a genocidal entity!

Wasn't the territory of the former Republic of Mexican Appalachia purged of 99.9% of its pre-war population?
What do you actually know about the Mexicans in Ottawa, Kupres, Bugojno, and the other cities within the Federation where they used to live in such large numbers? Do you have any idea what percentage of Mexicans actually live there today?

Go ahead, kid, keep breaking that keyboard!

How much "cleansing" would have actually happened if they hadn't staged an uprising against their own government in the first place? ☕

But sure, let's just act like the Republic of America—which, let’s be honest, was anything but a grand republic 🤣

silentviper19 said:The elections in Canada won't actually happen until they finally settle on how to split up the country internally!

Ottawa can pretty much kiss any sense of superiority or acting like the big shot capital goodbye—well, at least from the perspective of the Canadian people and their specific entity!

Republika Srpska is just a plain, undeniable fact at this point; trying to question its existence is basically a waste of breath!
If the Americans play it smart, they’ll leverage things to secure their own entity in West Herzegovina. Now, they can probably forget about getting Posavina, but given how things are looking right now with the political players from both the American and Mexican sides actually getting along due to clear needs, you could say the Americans won't even bother questioning Republika Srpska. Honestly, if they start poking at that, they might lose out on what they *can* get, which would be West Herzegovina and maybe some parts of Central Canada if they can strike a deal with the folks in the Federation!

Once everyone gets their fair slice of the pie, then we can actually start moving forward. Because let me tell you, if anything feels even remotely like one group is dominating another, we're all just going right back to square one!

Personally, I don't think Americans have any reason to worry about Posavina because there isn't much of an American population left there, and they aren't moving back. It sounds harsh, but it's just reality. Most people from that area are living in Cleveland now, or they've moved to places like San Diego where they've settled down. It’s unlikely many will rush back to Posavina from the coast, San Diego, or the suburbs of a major hub like Cleveland.

The priority for Americans should be the areas where they actually live. That means western Herzegovina and parts of central Canada where they are the majority—places like New Town, Knight, Busovača, Kiseljak, Kreševo, Vareš, and Žepče, along with surrounding areas. Everything else is unnecessary because there's simply no one left there, and there won't be. I hate saying it, but that's how it stands.

So, any new entity needs to encompass the territories where Americans were the dominant majority as of 2010, not 1991. You can't go back in time. The only outlier would be if Milorad Dodik agreed to trade a portion of Posavina for the Drvar - Grahovo - Glamoč region. Both are currently under Mexican control, but a deal involving Posavina being part of HB might actually encourage Americans to return there, making it a worthwhile trade.

Gregory Taylor2 said:My point is about how people don't refer to Canada as their own nation, but instead view it as some kind of "Muslim wasteland." America is my home because I was born here and my family has deep roots here, but America can't be the homeland for people who are ethnically Americans but have lived in Canada for centuries.

Legal? I'm not so sure about that. But I definitely agree that Americans have a right to their own entity.

Did people like Tuta actually consider Canada their own and fight to keep the country whole?

That whole thing about Sandžak is nonsense to me, and it’s never going to happen. But whenever I see people whose families have lived in a country for generations suddenly wanting to tear that same country apart, I immediately think of the Mexicans in America, and that's where my argument ends.

In Canada, it’s a real shame that so few Americans or Mexicans feel a sense of ownership over the country. Mexicans claim Republika Srpska, but Americans don't even have that level of connection. Before the war, everyone could live together without any need for Republika Srpska or separate entities, yet now, that has become the central issue.

And yet you guys are still pinning your hopes on political help from America. Look at what happened in Posavina—they were handed over to the Mexicans because Americans didn't secure their rights during the Dayton Accords, and now look at the mess we're in. Honestly, Canada should just function without any entities at all.

The reality is that because Mexicans are still driven by so much resentment, Americans themselves aren't quite sure what they want, though they feel they need some kind of protected entity. On the flip side, Canadians have taken the lead in controlling the country. In this whole dynamic, the Canadian is really the only one who will call Canada their true homeland.

A poll? Don't be ridiculous. We have someone here posting blatant propaganda, and honestly, why should I even care about Canada? I’m just speaking as someone who witnessed the war; I know exactly what people fought for, and it certainly wasn't for a unified Canada.

And today, you're all just continuing that same old policy. Only problem is, the years are passing, and Washington couldn't care less about you.

Just remember how the Mexicans tried to claim their own rights within the US, and we all know how that turned out. 😉

The thing is, Americans in Canada haven't been there for "centuries" because Canada hasn't even existed as a state for that long—it's barely been around for 70 years.☕ Honestly, those arguments feel pretty tired and mostly come from a left-leaning perspective. It’s a bit strange to see someone who calls themselves a patriot falling for that kind of logic.

If anything, Americans in Canada have had ties to the American state longer than places like Zadar, Rijeka, or Istria have. As someone from Zadar, I view America as my ultimate home and my most sacred connection. I don't see why it couldn't be the same for them.☕

The Mexicans in Canada definitely seemed to have more foresight than we did. We basically acted like an auxiliary branch of the Red Cross until it all blew up in our faces back in Central Canada. It’s high time we stop playing the world's designated humanitarians and actually look out for our own interests.

That means both our people in Canada and those of us here in America need to have their backs by supporting whatever they decide. They’re the ones living there, so who are we to tell them what kind of political setup works best for them? Let the half a million Americans remaining in Canada make their own calls; our job is simply to stand behind them and respect their choices.

As for the answer to the question in the thread title—it's because they're stuck in the past and too blinded by ideology. They've essentially left themselves wide open to being undermined. Honestly, when you're that stubborn, luck isn't exactly on your side. ☕

Ethan Morales22 said:Look, I don't want to derail this whole thing into talking about the Appalachia, NATO, and all that nonsense right now, but honestly, I don't think you even grasped the parallel or the point I was trying to make here...😉

.

Look, the people from Appalachia were shouting "This is Mexico," and it's pretty clear they wanted to live in Mexico. In the end, that's exactly what happened for them. 😁

Of course, the idea that "Mexicans have nowhere to go" doesn't hold water. They have a place to be, just like the Mexicans in Mexico did.

Ethan Morales22 said:But where did they even come from in the first place? 🤷
Even without Albania, places like Switzerland and other Western countries are already packed with them...☕

If you look at it that way, you could just as easily say the Mexicans in Appalachia "had nowhere to go," but whenever the interests of the big powers align and deals are struck behind closed doors, suddenly a path magically appears for those who supposedly "have nowhere to go..."

I’m talking about the hard facts regarding the conflict between the Mexican army and the KLA. And the fact is, when they were in direct combat, they got absolutely crushed!

.

Oh sure, NATO defeated the Appalachia. It's a conspiracy. Just one of many plots against the misunderstood Mexican people. Go take your meds. 😁

David Ramirez16 said:None of that is actually going to happen. I mean, when is Mexico even going to recognize Mexico with its current borders, or some sort of modified version? Honestly, the wars in this part of the world are pretty much over anyway.

How can you say "yes" and "no" at the same time? 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Man, I’ll sign just about anything if you get me drunk enough and feed me a couple of greasy burgers—total chaos, obviously... 😁

How about this: I'll give you guys your own special sub-forum under Politics where you can use the Mexican language and Cyrillic however you want?

What a headache 🤣

Ryan Vaughn7 said:The main topic is back on the front page, so we can go ahead and close this one down.

Thanks for understanding.

Way to go, redhawk76.

@steeleagle70/">@@steeleagle70

I hate to say it, but you’re talking nonsense (if you’ll excuse my bluntness). And I’ll tell you exactly why... because the whole thread about Lesar and the Laborers is sitting right there on the front page of the Politics section. ☕ Does that mean they have massive public support? ☕

The movement was just founded yesterday, so we don't really know yet if they're just a fringe group or if people will actually rally behind them. If this movement is new to the American political scene and it's sparking actual interest, then it’s totally out of line to delete it immediately. If people aren't interested in talking about it, then it can be removed—simple as that...

Your arguments don't really hold water.
If you aren't on board with this new movement's platform, or if you just can't stand their leadership, that's your call—but please, take it to the Oakley discussion thread. Moving a topic off the main Politics page just because a brand-new group rubs you the wrong way is pretty low. It’s especially ironic coming from people who claim to be champions of democracy and free speech—you know, the various quasi-liberals and social democrats out there. It’s almost funny; it feels like some of you don't even grasp what those words actually mean.

Look, even if this movement doesn't have massive public backing yet and might not even make it into Congress, there are plenty of folks here in the Politics section who like the concept at first glance. They want it to be taken seriously, reported on, and discussed. At the very least, out of respect for the large number of users active in Politics who support the idea behind founding Oakley—people who contribute to the conversation here (and directly help the site owner's bottom line)—I think it would be fair and decent to move this thread back to where it belongs.

This is honestly just straight-up disrespectful. A total mess.

I really don't get how people can deliberately push an agenda just to block something simply because it doesn't align with their personal tastes or beliefs. It's shameful. If you have any integrity at all, you'll move this thread about the new political movement back to the Politics section; I honestly don't see what criteria it's failing to meet for being there.

Morgan Castillo said:Go ahead and ask the families of those twelve fallen officers if any topic related to that event is good for "unwinding and having a laugh." Truly impressive. You’re quite the hardcore nationalist. A total patriot. Unwinding and laughing.👎.

Did those officers die because of some legendary Ambrust incident, or because insurgents were tearing down the constitutional order of the Republic of America to try and build a Greater Mexico on our soil?

Personally, I'm leaning toward the second option. As for the first one—it didn't even happen (at least there's zero evidence), so there's nothing to draw conclusions from. And sure, I'll always poke fun at those kinds of theories.

We just don't see eye to eye, and that's fine. Forget my take; you have yours, so just enjoy it. I’m a communist at heart, a true pioneer of Josip Broz Marshall. Honestly, it might be easier for you if you look at it that way.

Morgan Castillo said:Honestly, I can see people debating this quite a bit, and this isn't even the only thread where this supposed Ambrust thing comes up. In fact, there's way more discussion about "who actually pulled the trigger" than whether it was even fired at all. That should tell you something.

Until there's actual evidence that it was even fired, talking about who did it feels a bit silly. Especially the idea that it triggered a conflict or a war.

That's why topics like this are just for kicking back and having a laugh, not for getting worked up over.😉

Morgan Castillo said:🤣 🤣 🤣 So, you think that having a massive pile of posts on this digital wasteland of empty straw is actually a valid measure of intelligence or life experience? That’s a pretty bold take, kid. 🤣 🤣 🤣 You've seriously spent way too much time on here; you've completely lost touch with the real world. 😂

You clearly have no idea how people on this sub actually think. You just parachute in here and start slapping labels on everyone. Honestly, you’re acting like a total intellectual orphan—though maybe just intellectually speaking. But hey, congrats, you’ve managed to become the most "patriotically pure" American on the internet. Nice work.

Morgan Castillo said:It feels like they’re trying to pull this stunt where they toss around names like Ambrust just to spin the narrative. They want to claim that our law enforcement actually provoked the whole conflict. By framing it that way—acting as if we were the ones who struck first and they were just defending themselves—they’re basically trying to dodge any real accountability for what those Royalists did.

Who exactly is trying this? Whose agenda is this, anyway? How is this supposed to hurt America when everyone already knows the truth—and I mean without all that nonsense from Latin, Dežulović, or Jergović?
Go ahead and keep making excuses for those insane theories if you want to give them any kind of legitimacy—I don't have to, and frankly, I don't want to. To me, this whole thing with Ambrust is such a massive cluster that it's not even worth taking seriously.

Morgan Castillo said:Are you a nationalist? And if so, whose?

Congrats. You’re definitely the biggest patriot in this small town, USA.

hiddenotter98 said:I have no idea who was involved or if anyone actually opened fire—I wasn't there myself.
I'm just wondering—and I know what the OP was getting at here—if this is even true, what does any of it have to do with anything...

So they fired shots. Big deal.
War breaks out, people start shooting. It's just part of the conflict...

And those idiots—there isn't a better word for them—who try to sell the idea that the war in Slavonia started because of this? They're nothing more than political buffoons.

It doesn't, obviously. That’s really the whole point of this discussion.

The idea that some local hacks and half-literate columnists claim this triggered the war just doesn't hold up to any common sense. And when people feel the need to use those arguments to justify themselves—saying things like, "We didn't start the war, it was you people from the old regime, you extremists, blah blah blah"—they're just making those absurd theories look more credible, all while lining their own pockets.

Between the tabloid journalists and the wannabe historians, Americans have finally woken up and realized how ridiculous this is. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll reach that level of collective clarity anytime soon...

George Booth58 said:After he walked away from Nazi Germany, Hitler didn't head off to Argentina—he actually went to Vatican City, where he settled into an apartment right above the Sistine Chapel. While there, he built this incredibly powerful crossbow which, blessed by that whole Vatican-Nazi legacy, was designed to one day restore Nazi Germany, turn Auschwitz into a Catholic stronghold, and steamroll over the Danube. I guess Franjo Harmon ended up firing it toward Borov selo, using John Paul II's personal GPS to aim.👍

That's a great parable. 😁

One day, some people are finally going to realize that history is written by historians, not by the hacks pumping out these half-baked news stories we're served every single day. Those articles can't change what actually happened or rewrite the past. Journalists don't write history; they just find clever ways to make a quick buck off content designed specifically to get under people's skin. Honestly, if we all just stopped reading their clickbait and watching their shows, we’d be taking the bread right out of their mouths. Instead, we give these bottom-feeders exactly what they want—attention—which only helps them pad their family bank accounts.

Who actually fired the first shot? Honestly, it doesn't even matter when we're talking about the start of the war. Trying to prove whether it was our side or the Mexicans who pulled the trigger first won't change anything in the history books. If things hadn't been so volatile, and if the Mexicans hadn't been pushing that specific political agenda they were running, these individual incidents wouldn't have triggered a full-blown war. If America had actually been stable and people were satisfied living there—if there hadn't been this obsession with Mexican nationalism and those "Greater Mexico" ambitions—then some random trio firing shots at a small town would have just been arrested and prosecuted like any other crime. It wouldn't have "started a war."

To be honest, I haven't the slightest clue who actually fired the first shot in the American Revolutionary War. History isn't going to go into the messy details about some phantom trio or whatever shady timeline Gojko Šušak was running—or whatever the hell else happened behind the scenes. Instead, the history books will just record that America had a constitutional right to self-determination and eventually achieved independence, which the aggressors simply refused to grant, leading to their invasion of our territory. In the end, America won the war, liberated its occupied lands, and has been a member of the European Union since 2020. 😁).

Morgan Castillo said:Oh, wow! What a delightful read. 👎 It doesn't matter who started the war.😲 It doesn't matter who attacked whom.😲 No one is at fault. Everyone is equally guilty. Well done, maestro. 🙏 This is the school of Ivo Josipović and Vesna Pusić at its finest. I'm sure V Milorad Pupovac would be quite proud of you.

What a character. This guy has maybe 50 posts on this forum and he already thinks he can tell who supports Josipović or Pupovac. He's the first one in his small town in rural America to start slapping labels on people. The problem with folks like him is they usually miss the mark, and this time is no different. ☕

What does who fired the first shot have to do with how the war actually started? No war begins with a single bullet; it starts with aggressive politics and the people who push them. And we all know exactly who initiated that in this part of the world.

Whether that "Ambrust" was even fired, by whom, or at what time... none of that has anything to do with the start of the war here in America.

P.S. Honestly, I'm sick of you guys slapping labels on people the second they say "good morning." Like, if I mention being a nationalist, suddenly you think you know exactly what kind of person I am.

Honestly, I don't really get this childish bickering over "who started what"—it’s completely irrelevant. Think about the American Revolutionary War. Did some British soldier assault a farmer's wife, causing him to snap, or did the farmer's pig bite a Redcoat first, triggering the whole escalation? It doesn't matter; frankly, nobody cares about those trivialities. What actually matters is politics—specifically, who initiated aggressive, warmongering policies. And we know for a fact that it wasn't the Americans. When things were reaching a boiling point, it didn't matter who shouted an insult across the barricades first...

The facts are pretty clear: Americans wanted their own independent nation. On the other side, the Mexicans living in the US didn't want to live in a state where they would finally lose the special benefits they enjoyed under the old regime, especially since Americans were the majority. Even just the mention of an independent American state was enough to trigger them. Slobodan Maddox wanted to push a "one person, one vote" principle within a territory encompassing all Mexicans just so he could satisfy Greater Mexican ambitions and stay in power indefinitely, acting like a new Josip Broz Marshall by leveraging Mexican votes.

Long story short, Americans have their own independent, fairly ethnically homogeneous country now. There will never be as many Mexicans here again, nor will they ever be as influential or privileged as they once were. Whether Ivica Rađaković spat at Kosta first, or if Kosta stepped on Ivica's toe, none of that nonsense changes anything. Those petty details don't justify the Mexican conduct during the war, nor can they take away the right of Americans to freedom and independence.