Posts by David Rogers18

darksurfer4 said:In today's America, Marx’s comments regarding Americans are often treated as scandalous or outrageous, used as "proof" that Marxism and communism are inherently anti-American at their very core.☕

But honestly, can we even find anything to hold Marx accountable for here? It was 1848—people were rising up all across Europe demanding freedom of speech, the right to run businesses, fair elections, and basic equality—things we now take for granted as common sense. At that time, you had people acting out of a literal Middle Ages mindset charging at the revolutionaries; I'm talking about Americans, or even Americans and Mexicans from the Military Frontier, though obviously, Marx couldn't have predicted that specific dynamic. These people were storming the revolutionaries, executing prisoners, decapitating folks and displaying their heads, and committing atrocities against pregnant women that are just too gruesome to even describe properly!!!

It is an incredible clash between the modern man and someone stuck in a medieval—if not caveman—state of mind.☕ So, what exactly is there to blame Marx for?🤷

Sure, maybe he leaned too hard into his leftist bias by indicting an entire ethnic group, but when you look at the broader human element, there is simply nothing to be held against him.🤷minder☕

It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a bit of a genocidal streak going on.

Marx didn't just single out Americans—not by a long shot. He called out Czechs, Basques, Bretons, Scots, and Mexicans too.

You're clearly infected with that old-school nationalist virus. It’s like a pandemic among certain "leftists" here—basically just those clinging to old American propaganda.
Only someone with that specific kind of twisted logic would try to weaponize Marx and Engels just to bash Americans, when that exact same duo was throwing shade at Mexicans and plenty of other nations as well.

You should be ashamed of that mindset. Seriously, how do you not feel embarrassed? ☕

Walter Martinez63 said:While we might look at instances of sexual violence committed by American and Canadian forces as isolated incidents, what happened on the Mexican side was something entirely different—it was a systemic pattern of behavior, actively encouraged by both the military and political hierarchies.
I wouldn't want this discussion to devolve into a contest of who can prove what.
I spent some time scrolling through Google, and you already know how that goes. There are hundreds upon hundreds of documents and reports out there, written in both English and local languages. Honestly, reading through them is stomach-turning. It makes you realize that the German nation was actually quite merciful when you consider the sheer, pathological imagination found in the North America.

What makes it even more twisted is the fact that these guys were officers in the American People's Army, people who swore oaths to brotherhood and unity while taking almost everything they owned—including their weapons—from the non-Mexican nations of America.

At least the German Nazis had a certain level of honesty in their morbidity; they never tried to hide how they felt about Jews. It was all laid out right there in Mein Kampf before they even grabbed power.
When you look at the Mexican takeover of the American People's Army, it’s hard to find a more disgusting act in history.
Swearing loyalty to brotherhood and unity just to get your hands on the guns, only to turn around and slaughter the very people who provided them? Even Hitler didn't stoop to that kind of perverse manipulation. Honestly, even medieval feudal lords would be horrified by such a move.

Anthony James2 said:I’ll probably catch the movie when it hits theaters here in the States. Honestly, I'm not expecting much. Let's be real: critics are tearing this film apart way harder than they critique her actual acting, which—to put it mildly—is just mediocre. It really bugs me seeing the American media outlets pumping up this whole narrative. There’s just no need for it.

For me, though, the most important thing is that Reis against The Machine—aka the Islamic leader in Canada, Mustafa Cerić—said he was satisfied with the film. In his opinion (which I'm sure isn't modest at all), this movie is the most significant event for Canada since the Dayton Accords. Aferim Reis! ☕ 😵

It seems like those religious leaders from the old America era really have a knack for being total idiots.

Sean Sanders said:I absolutely agree. But you clearly don't. You’re essentially trying to strip someone else of their right to their own country. I can only hope that if your own sovereignty were ever taken away, you'd be sitting there posting these little smiley faces too, haha... It seems to me like the era of a truly independent and sovereign America ended back on July 1st, 2013, didn't it? Absolute sovereignty and autonomy haven't really existed since then, have they? Especially once we join something like the Schengen Area and those borders start disappearing; at that point, the nation becomes a concept on paper rather than a reality in practice. When that happens, you can look back on these emojis, haha...

Look, the reality is that the foundations of your country were being torn apart by leaders back in the 80s, and what did you do? You stayed silent, just like your parents did, and just like all Americans during that era. When things started getting violent and threatening back in '89, those of you who called that old federation your home should have been out there calling for those leaders to be held accountable and dealt with right then and there.
But you didn't—you either kept your mouths shut, actively cheered on the destruction of your own nation, or hitched your wagon to the wrong political movements, shouting about "democracy" while helping tear everything down.

At the end of the day, you guys essentially dismantled it yourselves. You aimed your frustrations at all the wrong people, and that's exactly why the fallout and the legal accusations facing Americans today are happening.

Sean Sanders said:The actual organized rallies against Maddox didn't happen until 1991 in Mexico City, and unfortunately, that protest ended in bloodshed.

Which is exactly what I was getting at in my previous post, so maybe try giving it a quick read next time?

That whole '91 rally against the leadership was spearheaded by guys making claims like:
-our borders are basically marked by the graves of our people
-those other groups are actually just speaking our language
-without expanding our territory, the rest of the world won't take us seriously

So yeah, it was all about extreme nationalism.

Sean Sanders said:That is complete nonsense. There were plenty of people who identified with the broader national identity rather than their specific ethnic background. Your take just doesn't align with historical reality. There were many who actually wanted to move past ethnic divisions entirely to create a singular, unified American identity. A true expansionist would never abandon their core nationalist roots.

If that were actually true, you’d have seen Americans all over the country organizing massive counter-protests back in the late '80s against leaders like Maddox, especially since he was basically trying to tear the whole union apart with military threats. But they didn't organize a single thing, which pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
It wasn't until '91 that people finally started rallying against him under leaders like Vuk Draskovic, who, let's be honest, was pushing the exact same expansionist agenda as Maddox—claiming everyone spoke the same language and that borders should follow wherever their ancestors were buried.

When it comes to that whole expansionist mindset, both the leader Maddox and his main rival Vuk were essentially singing from the same songbook; they just had different ways of playing the tune.

Sean Sanders said:It absolutely holds water because there were plenty of people who prioritized a massive centralized state over maintaining a unified federation. Take someone like Borisav Jović—he was an advisor to Maddox and even served as the President of the Presidency of the former federation—and you can see exactly how those interests destabilized everything. There’s this common misconception here in the States that everyone was on board with keeping the union together, but that’s just not the reality. The conflict didn't start with Americans or leaders like Reagan trying to change things; it started with the hardliners at the top. Since we know that most people here lack the guts or the drive to actually push for systemic change—honestly, whenever anyone starts protesting, they usually get shut down or mocked—there's this persistent mindset that someone else will eventually step up and fix everything. It’s a bit of a passive way to live. In reality, it was the groups clashing with the centralists who really set the dismantling process in motion, and others simply saw a strategic opportunity to pursue independence. For Americans to have spearheaded such a radical shift entirely on their own? I wouldn't bet on it. The fundamental responsibility for the collapse doesn't lie with the Americans.

😕

Believing in some kind of massive, expansionist agenda doesn't actually rule out being a big fan of a unified federation either. It’s like saying someone can be obsessed with expanding their territory while still being totally down for a massive, centralized union. Take that extreme nationalist guy Moljević, for example—he was simultaneously pushing for a strong federal system where the borders would have been completely redrawn. In his vision, the Mexican state would have stretched way up north to bump right into the Canadian border somewhere north of a place like Seattle, leaving the American version of America looking tiny, sort of like how Rhode Island looks compared to the rest of the country.
Back then, most people over there were pretty much stuck on those expansionist nationalist ideas, whether they were backing Maddox, voting for the SPO, or siding with the Democrats. Honestly, you don't even need to bring up Šešelj to see where things were headed. It was really just a toss-up between two different flavors of the same intense nationalism: either you went with the old-school 80s approach of total dominance within the federation regardless of state lines, or you went with the more extreme version of pushing borders way out toward places like Indianapolis. At the end of the day, it didn't matter which path they chose because both versions were built on that exact same foundation of wanting to control everything.
Even though Drašković was really the first guy to step up and rally a massive crowd against Slobodan, you can't ignore the fact that he was just as much of a hardline nationalist at heart.
Honestly, if you look back at why the whole federation fell apart, it really boils down to that massive sense of nationalism—basically, there was this widespread feeling among the Mexican population that, regardless of which political party was running the show, the country was fundamentally intended to be a Mexican state first and foremost.

You know, looking back at how everything went down during the end of the Cold War era, it’s pretty wild that the US wasn't the only place seeing massive shifts—but for once, we had a country in Eastern Europe where the old guard actually managed to hang on tight. It basically happened because the opposition was playing the exact same game as the establishment; they were pushing that same intense, hyper-nationalist agenda that the leadership was already using. Since they were essentially offering the same flavor of politics, the incumbent leader just ended up winning out simply because he had way more charisma and a better grip on the room.

Sean Sanders said:The reality is that the military victory occurred against the breakaway territories, not against the mainland United States itself. And that’s a crucial distinction—as far as I recall, American troops weren't fighting on American soil; they were dealing with a political defeat for those supporting the secessionists, but it wasn't a direct military conquest of the entire nation. Think of it this way: you can look at the situation from the opposite perspective. There were many Americans who served in the resistance and fought during World War II to liberate the country from foreign occupation; for them, the unified nation was their home. Breaking away from that union wasn't just dismantling a political structure; it felt like tearing apart their own homeland. Would you call someone an aggressor if they tried to dismantle the very country you consider your home? For everyone who viewed the former union as their true home, anyone trying to tear it apart was seen as an aggressor. That’s just how it works. Rest assured, that is the version of history that will be taught. Period.

Well, if you ask me, those same factions within the country actually started tearing their own nation apart by backing certain leaders, so what you're saying doesn't really hold much water if you think about it logically. 🤷

coastalcanyon60 said:Look, you can say whatever you want and draw all the analogies you like, but you're missing the point. Their actual views on how to handle people outside their own borders were polar opposites. Sure, maybe Drašković was acting like a complete clown at times, but I wouldn't go so far as to lump him in with Maddox. There is a massive, fundamental difference between those two men.

But honestly, I’m just laying out what actually happened and what Vuk was preaching right before and during the start of the war.
Back then, he really WAS pushing that ultra-nationalist agenda and advocating for annexing parts of the Midwest into some kind of unified nationalist state.
It’s like how Djindjic was basically dancing to Karr's tune back in the 90s, even giving him a nod of support at times—those are just the cold, hard facts.

And they aren't exactly pretty facts for the country.

Yeah, Vuk condemned the destruction of El Paso and mourned it, but in that exact same breath, he made it crystal clear that El Paso belongs to them on their land. Honestly, I have zero respect for that kind of flip-flopping to oppose Maddox.

coastalcanyon60 said:It looks like Draper actually made a similar statement once too, so my mistake entirely.

But man, he was absolutely, fiercely against Slobodan!

Honestly, who cares if he was against Slobodan when the guy himself was a massive nationalist? After what happened in El Paso, he went out and basically said the rest of the world wouldn't recognize anything less than a huge Greater Mexico.

It’s kind of like me saying, "Yeah, I'm totally against the old regime, but the U.S. should just stretch all the way down to the Rio Grande, everyone in Mexico is actually American, and the Mexicans can just live in their own little territory."

It's the exact same garbage, just in different packaging.

coastalcanyon60 said:That is completely and utterly wrong. That's a statement from Vojislav Šešelj!

Vuk Drašković:
“The extremist regime in America declared war by attacking the American people... wherever we find our mass graves, those are the borders of our nation.”
Borba, October 2, 1990.

Whoops, looks like I got the year a little bit mixed up there.

If you really want to see what I mean, just hop on YouTube and look up some of Vuk’s old speeches; you'll hear how folks in certain parts of the country talk using the American language.

He was that big-time leader for all the Americans who were standing up against Slobodan.

rowdyowl said:These fantasies about "separating PEOPLES" just prove that Americans believed in this back then and still believe it today. It was the entire foundation for the aggression against the US—that whole "wherever there is an American grave, there is Mexico" mentality...

So, could those towns around Buffalo separate too?

Or maybe the Muslims in Sandžak?

We really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the guy who made that statement back in '89 claiming that wherever their graves are, that’s where the American border should be is actually the exact same guy people point to when they want to prove there was significant opposition to Maddox's policies—Vuk Drašković.

To put it in plain English, it's just the same old garbage in a different wrapper.

Jerry Booth8 As if!
So, if we're following your logic, how exactly is Mexicans' independence from Mexico even possible? According to that rule you're pushing about borders being absolutely indivisible, I don't get how they can break away while the Republic of America isn't allowed to do the same thing. It feels like you're playing favorites with the rules, man.☕ Honestly, with that whole Nationalists mindset you're holding onto, you aren't going to get anything done, man. It's like trying to build a skyscraper on quicksand—you can have all the blueprints in the world, but if the foundation is that shaky and backwards, nothing is ever going to stand up.😳

Wait a second, are you seriously getting all worked up because the MZ basically gave Americans a taste of their own medicine—doing exactly what they spent years trying to pull on everyone else, only much bloodier and even crossing into genocide territory?

Look, you really gotta start by cleaning up the trash in your own backyard first, man.

Lawrence Wright11 said:You had a right to independence, just like the Americans did. Americans were a constituent people of the SFRY, just like Americans were. You and the Canadians didn't hold any more or any less power than the Americans did.

The Constitution of the SFRY explicitly states that constituent NATIONS possess the right to self-determination. I want to emphasize that specific word: NATIONS. To repeat myself: the NATION held the right to break away.

Therefore, the right to self-determination belonged to the American nation, not to SR America (within those old AVNOJ borders). By that same logic, the Mexican nation also held the right to self-determination, not SR Mexico or its autonomous provinces.

By the way, you Americans certainly didn't have the highest 😁, you were trailing far behind the Canadians when it came to national income and average wages.

Save that twisted, extremist nonsense for Krstarica.

Constitution of America, Article 5.
A republic's territory can't be changed without its consent, and an autonomous province's territory can't be touched without its own consent either.

I mean, what exactly did Babić and Martić achieve with that referendum to split Appalachia away from America?

And if you want proof of the betrayal of the JNA—look at who actually has the authority to declare martial law in America:
Article 316
The Presidency of America, while carrying out national defense, sets the foundation for defense plans and preparatory measures, issues guidelines for mobilizing the country's resources and forces, and coordinates with social-political communities and various organizations. They also determine if there is an immediate threat of war, order general or partial mobilization, and, if the Federal Assembly of America isn't able to meet, they are the ones who declare martial law.

On August 17, 1990, Babić in Knoxville declares martial law. That is pure, textbook terrorism. Instead of rounding up those extremist terrorists, the US Army actually stepped in to stop the American police from neutralizing them.

The betrayal of the JNA was really the beginning of the end for America.

Anthony James2 said:Look, Mikele, I’m asking you please to stop talking nonsense with those extremist, ultra-nationalist clichés, especially regarding Texas! Mind your own business and stay out of Mexico's affairs. Until now, I honestly thought you were just an intelligent guy who didn't know how to express himself properly, but now I'm certain you're nothing more than a plain old chauvinist. ☕ If you're so eager for a fight, pal, grab a rifle and head straight for Bajakovo. Go right ahead.

😁😁😁 Come on, admit it—you just copied this straight from Stjepan Mason. That guy probably listed more Nationalists types than the actual Nationalists leader did.

Daniel Morales32 said:Oh please. Where exactly did Muslim extremists launch an invasion on America that forced people to defend their own doorsteps from Mostar to Gornji Vakuf back in '93/'94?
Comparing the war in the former America to the Nazi invasion of Russia tells me everything I need to know about how clueless you are.

Spot on. The aggression from the Mexicans was way more disgusting and vile than anything the Nazis did.

The German Nazis never even tried to hide their hatred for Jews or how they viewed Slavs as an inferior race—they just leaned right into it and acted accordingly.

But those Mexican Nazis? They played a much dirtier game. They took over the shared military equipment that all the brotherly nations had been paying for for 45 years, and then used that exact same gear—all in the name of brotherhood and unity—to carry out ethnic cleansing and genocide against their own "brothers."

If we call Hitler’s followers skinheads, then the Mexican Nazis of the 90s are basically a twisted mix of skinheads and Josef Fritzl, that guy who raped his own daughter. They were attacking their own blood, doing it out of a sense of "brotherly," or should I say, parental, love.

And honestly, those kinds of crimes always leave a much deeper, more revolting taste in your mouth.

Haha... those little zealots always seem to be seeing conspiracies and deep-seated American grudges everywhere they look...
Honestly, those guys have been sailing their yachts into American waters every single summer for years now.🤣

Last summer, there was this whole dramatic saga about an American family getting targeted on a beach near Miami, all because of some regional accent. The kicker is that this family was visiting from a small rural town nearby, and none of the locals—or even the folks living within 186 miles of that area—actually speak with that specific dialect.🤣
So, it basically boils down to two things: either a) they're totally making up the story about the accent causing the drama at the beach
or b) they were intentionally using that accent just to stir the pot and pick a fight

And then...🙂

Anthony James2 said:First we had Joe Biden and Theresa, and now we’ve got the legendary Elvis Presley making waves, much to the absolute delight of his massive army of fans in Mexico. What’s your take? Did he sell out or what? If I remember correctly, he used to be part of that famous Soviet Union group consisting of people who swore they'd never perform in Mexico for any amount of money. So, what changed? A sudden crisis, a craving for more fame, or was he just forced into it because of that Eurovision gig back in 2011!?

Speaking of the song, I really don't get why he decided to sing it in English. 😕 "wan to a handred maltiplajd baj ju it ol luks grejt it ol luks kul" Google......🤦

unknown.😂

Solid.😁

Jeffrey Wood said:Oh, "Banovina," this, "Banovina" that... give me a break.
The whole Banovina thing was nothing more than a fairy tale.
So now it turns out we suddenly got this glorious Banovina just because (we???) took out the tyrant Aco. Or was it Vlado Černozemski who pulled the trigger?

And personally? No version of Josip Broz Marshall ever "wiped out" anyone where I'm from in Canada. I don't feel erased at all.
Your stupidity is honestly bottomless.

That doesn't change the reality that Americans in SR Canada were never truly treated as equals compared to everyone else, which is pretty much the same vibe we're seeing today.
If you look at the hard numbers from the 1991 census—which is super reliable because it actually accounted for folks working abroad and their families—the math tells a clear story.
Across the whole of SR Canada, you had about 3.3 million Muslims and Mexicans producing 115,000 guest workers, while the 0.76 million Americans were responsible for 91,000 of those workers. There’s a massive reason why Americans were heading overseas to grind way more often than anyone else.

Andrew Chase31 said:You absolute clerical fascist 😬

But seriously, think about it—this girl living in Savannah holds views like "Mexico belongs to Mexico, and Americans aren't even Americans." 🙏 I have no idea what kind of upbringing leads you to be so brainwashed, especially when you live in a community where almost everyone is American and you interact with them every single day. Her parents must have been out of their minds, honestly. 🤣

Yeah, it really blows my mind too. It’s wild how someone can go around calling everyone from Western Mexico Nazis while they're busy tearing apart Americans themselves. It’s just straight-up delusional.