Posts by jadeorca42

Gary Perez7 said:Why bother with such obvious trolling and playing the fool?

The United Kingdom doesn't even represent the entire West, let alone the whole world.
To be clear, the concept of Greater Mexico would have required including every entity like Republika Srpska in Canada within the borders of the Republic of America.
That was essentially the bare minimum requirement set by British policy from the very beginning of the conflict.

Cut out the trolling.☕

And did it ever cross your mind that they essentially engineered a bit of "controlled chaos" by giving—well, verbal—support to both sides at once, which is really just pouring gasoline on the fire? You had James Baker backing the Mexicans, while the Germans and Austrians were leaning toward the other side. Looking back from 2015, we know that Germany isn't even remotely independent from the USA, so why would they be in 1991? Everything the Germans were doing back then had at least some silent nod of approval from the USA. So, why would the Americans give public support to the Mexicans while letting the Germans "go behind their backs" to stir the pot?

There’s a whole lot of stuff here that Lošo just glosses over. For instance—and I'm just speculating, really—that besides having the people behind him, Harmon probably needed some "tangible assistance." Who exactly was pulling the strings behind Harmon to give him the guts to openly defy the American People's Army and push those confederation ideas, which, let's be honest, were likely just a way to buy precious time?

Is it just a coincidence that almost all the major players involved in the breakup of America seemed to vanish from the scene within just a few years? (I guess Gligorov managed to hang on a bit longer). Maybe they just knew too much?

James Nguyen13 said:Just like I called it, the folks in California completely folded and backed down.

I mean, people aren't exactly idiots—they aren't going to fall for those cheap little shiny trinkets you use to manipulate primitive tribal groups...

I mean, if they really want to go through with it, why not? It might be worth it just so they can finally realize that having independence isn't all sunshine and rainbows—it actually comes with some massive, heavy responsibilities.
Right now, though, this whole thing feels like little more than the pipe dreams of spoiled teenagers—you know the type—who think that once they finally move out from under their parents' watchful eyes, life is just going to be one big party. Some people make it work, I guess, and others don't. But you won't ever truly know unless you actually step out and try...

James Nguyen13 said:I get what you're saying, but we're living in 2014 now. Modern comforts and this whole cultural revolution thing have changed the landscape entirely.

Nowadays, Catalans—much like most people across Europe—have become pretty conformist. It just doesn't seem like they have the stomach or the drive to actually fight for independence.

I mean, who actually gives a damn about independence anymore? What does that even mean in this day and age? Just give me one actual definition of independence—some set of criteria that Catalans could realistically meet tomorrow to be truly independent, rather than just playing at it. Small nations can't really pull off true independence. A huge chunk of what they have right now is only because they're part of Spain; if they broke away, a massive amount of business and revenue would just bypass them entirely, while their overhead would probably just keep climbing.
If they were asking for more from the collective pot, fine. But independence is just an illusion for primitive peoples... I mean, even a powerhouse like Russia is struggling to maintain its autonomy today, let alone some Catalans or whoever else...

Justin Patel8 said:I mean, you’re basically just shouting into a void where anyone can chime in—it's a free-for-all. The leftists on the forums actually carry some weight.

We've already picked apart the situation in Cuba over and over again—across threads ranging from the USA to Venezuela and the rest of Latin America—and you could find all the links proving your nonsense wrong right there. Am I really supposed to go digging them up for you... again?
If I were you, I’d probably try a little harder, if only to avoid looking like an idiot next time...
But hey, to each their own, I guess...

Look, man—you’re seriously citing that US-photoshopped Wikipedia article about Cuba? That’s the same country the US has been targeting with aggression and illegal sanctions for decades now. I don't even feel the need to insult you when you're basically doing it to yourself 😁

Justin Patel8 said:If we’re talking about Cuba before Castro, then yeah, absolutely—back then, Cuba was easily one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America. It actually had a thriving, growing middle class, a high level of urbanization (most people were living in cities), literacy rates that were among the highest in Latin America, and average wages that were actually higher than what you'd see in West Germany or Japan at the time. Plus, they had private clinics that provided free healthcare to the poor.

Fast forward to today, and Cuba is just completely drained by Castro's social experiments—it's basically just poverty and a crumbling healthcare system. For the average Cuban, the ultimate life goal is either to emigrate to the USA or find some WASP to marry off their daughter to. Most Cubans can't afford a car, and if they do manage to get one, it's usually some ancient junk from the 60s—usually just driving around in old Beetles. Their houses are dilapidated and half-falling apart.

Anyway, if you want to know what that version of Cuba was really like, you don't have to look too far. I actually met a Cuban guy here in New York who works as a waiter for a few thousand dollars a year, and he told me that he actually views America as a well-ordered country compared to his own.

Could you maybe back up all this nonsense about pre-Castro Cuba with a single credible link? Even the US-leaning Wikipedia article about Cuba doesn't push these kinds of myths. I mean, you don't need to be a historian to realize that most Cubans lived in absolute misery before Castro—they were struggling, mostly illiterate, and that "urbanization" was limited to a handful of cities fueled by the American mafia laundering money through gambling, drugs, and slurs in Havana. Most Cubans just dreamed of being maids, drivers, servants, or elevator boys.
The big shots in the casinos only thrived if they knew someone close to Batista.
Oh yeah, Cuba was "rich"—sure, if you count the oil and gas, which just magically vanished the moment Castro took power, right?

Pick up a book and stop embarrassing yourself with this stuff.

ruggeddriver70 said:Not sure which guy you're talking about—but honestly, steffan66 actually wrote some of the most interesting stuff about Cuba on this entire board in his first few posts.

That isn't really "reading material"—it’s more like "The Sorrows of Young Werther," I guess. His illusions of some supernatural, superhuman, heroic, ghostly tropical paradise have all just sort of evaporated. The kid finally realized that people actually live in Cuba too—believe it or not... just regular folks...
And there's a real chance that little Cuban woman from the start of the story led him straight on... well, I mean, led him on. She had him as a boyfriend, while juggling a few other foreigners she booked at different times of the year, all while keeping her local sugar daddy around—the reason she suffers and why she’ll never leave Cuba... it's the same old story, seen a thousand times before...

There are hundreds of thousands of naive types like this scattered across the globe, and they all end up shedding the exact same crocodile tears when, say, their fantasy of places like India or Thailand as these mystical, sacred lands finally falls apart...

Honestly, these numbers are a disaster for us. I mean, it’s kind of surreal—we’re being outpaced by a country that’s been grinding under some of the most brutal and illegal sanctions on the planet for decades. Even North Korea didn't have anything quite like this until recently, I guess.
If we were hit with a ban on luxury imports like BMW or Audi, we’d probably be starving within three months. The few people left with any actual capital would just pack up, leave America for good, and burn every bridge behind them...

A little something for those who like to downplay the impact of these illegal, aggressive (according to the UN) sanctions against Cuba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...o_against_Cuba

Helms-Burton Act

Burton Act was condemned by the Council of Europe, the European Union, Britain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and other U.S. allies that enjoy normal trade relations with Cuba. The governments argued that the law ran counter to the spirit of international law and sovereignty.

Following a complaint filed by the European Union with the WTO, a dispute settlement panel was set up. Eventually, they paused everything to try and hammer out a deal through negotiations. A year later, the panel basically lost its authority over the situation, and the EU just... stopped pursuing it through the WTO.

The law has also been condemned by humanitarian groups because these groups argue that sanctions against an entire country will affect only the innocent population.

The law provides for compensation of only the largest of claims for confiscated property, which mostly means big multinational corporations (we're talking roughly $6 billion). It pretty much ignores the claims of individual members of the exiled Cuban-American community who lost their own homes.

The European Union introduced a Council Regulation (No 2271/96) [9]—which is binding for all member states—declaring that the extraterritorial parts of the Helms-Burton Act aren't enforceable in the EU, while also allowing for the recovery of damages caused by it. The EU law also applied sanctions against US companies and their executives for making Title II complaints.

Read more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_S...nhancement_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Democracy_Act

Sanctions against Cuba for beginners

Charles Fox10 said:We asked you right in the very first post not to use terms like Nazis, fascists, gangs, or hordes—basically any language meant to insult people with different views—and more importantly, not to incite war or call for casualties, but some people just don't follow those rules.

Look, people read this thread who actually have loved ones in Ukraine or Russia, and there are just some things that aren't pleasant to write or even to read, I guess.

Then why don't you elaborate on how the biggest warmonger—provided he’s only pushing for wars against Russia or if America is leading them—doesn't face a permanent ban? Michael Collins seems to be doing just fine.

And if anyone can, oh my God, if someone could actually explain whether it's true that Konev has a perm ban and why.
If they can explain that, then why does Konev have one while the forum's biggest troll and war-monger, Michael Collins, doesn't? (For instance, Collins is going off lately because Finland is joining NATO and gearing up for a conflict with Russia. He couldn't care less about the Finns, Ukrainians, Georgians, or Poles; all that matters to him is that everyone is daily getting more ready for war with Russia, and he just keeps posting. I'd post a link, but he's dumped maybe a thousand posts in the last week or two, so finding it would be impossible...)

I'd mention Kansas too, but his posts lack the level of seriousness required to be labeled as malicious like in Collins's case.

One of the earliest posts in this Syria thread was my critique of celebrating yet another bloody imperialist war, but it was deleted, and Tyndall stepped in to clarify that "such hysterical screaming" contributes nothing to the topic. Meanwhile, thousands of pro-war blowhards and fanfares that followed actually contribute...

Honestly, who cares, as long as this site gets traffic and nobody comes after you legally. But in the last few months alone, there's been enough material here that this whole site could be permanently shut down.
Once this place ends up in court, maybe then the owners will finally realize what you moderators are doing... though, I suppose it'll help that you were officially assisting those little amateur warriors.
Rock and Bubi peace will probably end up with Purple Hearts...

hiddenrider66 said:Well, I guess Rocky is right, that's just how it is. A certain segment of the pro-Russia crowd treats this thread like their own personal blog—for instance, just the other day, I counted 8 posts on one page and another 6 on the next without a single link to back them up, just endless opinions. Blah, blah... there are actual blogs for that, really. Plus, the same guy claimed he doesn't care what I think—which, honestly, is exactly why you'd write a blog.
Some others constantly throw around the word "hunta." Given that there's a legitimate government there, using that term is just... off.
Some people here act like they're all buddies on Facebook.
If Practice and I don't show up, the only ones left defending the pro-Ukraine side would be Collins, who you guys have labeled "dim-witted" a hundred times over.
I have to admit, like many others felt, I thought about just staying away entirely because this "Ukraine" thread could easily be renamed "Pro-Russia" or "Glory to Putin," or whatever suits your mood better.
Calling it aggression is pretty much the only way to describe the situation in this topic.
If you want to be left alone, fine, no problem—just keep posting skewed Russian propaganda and inaccurate translations (like that bit about 9,000 hryvnia in three months).
But
the thing that keeps me here is something I read somewhere—that this is actually part of the Russian propaganda playbook: occupy all the online information niches and then use obnoxious behavior on forums to drive everyone else away.
So, I'm not backing down. See ya around.🙂)))))))

1) You seem incapable of grasping that among those labeled pro-Russian, there are also pro-Ukrainian people—meaning most of the folks you call "pro-Russian" actually just sympathize with the Ukrainian people and what happened to them, which was a coup orchestrated by the American directorate.
Supporting Russia doesn't automatically mean being against Ukraine, at least not in the minds of pro-American trolls. And supporting Russia doesn't mean endorsing every single thing Russia does.

2) Regimes that seize power through force or coups/military takeovers are called—well, juntas. Yeah, juntas. Usually, people use it for military juntas, but in this context, the term fits perfectly. The only thing separating the current Ukrainian government from having democracy imported via bombs from American bombers is how well they play along—basically, how much they're willing to cater to the whims of the bosses in the White House. Otherwise, in any other reality, they would have been bombed months ago.

3) Michael Collins—how would you describe a man with a concrete sarcophagus around his head, similar to the one at Chernobyl, that even the most aggressive arguments in the universe can't penetrate? An adolescent without a life of his own who churns out 12,000 posts a year on this forum (under the Kyle Reese clone, he managed over 12,000 posts in his first year—that's 1,000 a month, or over 30 a day), a guy pretending he has a life, studies, or a girlfriend; a guy who trolls at least 6,000 of those 12,000 posts while the rest are just top-tier nonsense he repeated last year, this year, and will probably repeat next year? A guy looking for virtual friends and accomplices here, while everyone else rightfully writes him off as an immature kid and—as he called himself—a "forum lunatic"? Because, you know how it goes—if you go to bed with the kids, you wake up wet in the morning, and nobody needs that.
How do you label someone who presents himself as a victim of aggression by the strong against the weak, yet openly supports almost every brutal and illegal act of the strong against the weak over the last twenty years (unless, of course, the aggression is carried out by non-Americans)? How do you label a guy famous for saying he "doesn't support the strategy used in the Vietnam War, but he supports the war itself..." (he meant the war wasn't conducted efficiently enough...). What do you say when someone plays the victim of war, only to talk trash about millions of victims of wars, coups, and military interventions worldwide, simply because those events were organized by his idols—the presidents of the universe, the champions of democracy and freedom?
How do you even label someone who spins one story on one thread and then flips the script entirely on another? It’s like they just bend whatever facts are available to fit some pre-packaged dogma about how infallible America and the West supposedly are. Honestly, what you wrote in the bolded part... I don't know, maybe it's a bit too soft

The only thing that really gets to me is the lack of oversight—I mean, it feels like a child could lose their life on a forum and the social services wouldn't even blink...

goldenowl73 said:So, basically, the OHCHR just dropped a report regarding the situation over in Ukraine...
It’s a pretty massive piece—honestly quite extensive. I’ll just pull out the most important bits for now...

The presence of armed People and weapons in The regions of Donetsk and Luhansk Has increased—it’s just one of those things that seems to be unfolding right before our eyes, I guess. It’s hard to wrap your head around how quickly things escalate, maybe because we’re all just watching from a distance, but the reality on the ground is shifting. It feels like a slow burn that’s suddenly catching fire, though I suppose that’s just how these geopolitical shifts tend to work. It's a heavy situation, really.
The presence of armed People and weapons in The regions of Donetsk and Luhansk Has increased. Representatives of The “ Donetsk People ’ S Republic ” have recognised The presence within their armed groups of citizens of The Russian Federation , including fra Chechnya and other republics of The North Caucasus. have recognized the
Representatives of The “ Donetsk People ’ S Republic ” have recognised The presence within their armed groups of citizens of The Russian Federation , including fra Chechnya and other republics of The North Caucasus Russiaincluding
...from Chechnya and other republics of the North Caucasus. In the period following the—well, I guess you could say things started shifting then, though maybe that's just how I see it. It’s all pretty complicated, really.
Regarding the elections—well, the HRMMU actually spotted armed men out in trucks and armored vehicles on the move... I guess that says a lot.
walking around downtown Donetsk in daylight.
The escalation in criminal activity resulting in human rights abuses is no longer limited—it’s spreading, I guess. It feels like everything is just spilling over the edges now, past where anyone thought it would go. Maybe that's just how things work when they start sliding downhill, but it definitely doesn't feel contained anymore.
It’s essentially about targeting everyone from journalists and elected officials to local politicians, civil servants, and regular folks in the community—it's just a broad sweep, I guess.
Social activists—it's a broad term, isn't it? I guess you could say they're everywhere these days, though whether that's a good thing or just more noise in an already crowded room... well, that's debatable. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching the constant cycle of protests and digital outcries—it feels like everyone is perpetually fighting a battle against some perceived injustice, which, granted, might be necessary sometimes, but it often feels like a treadmill of endless outrage. Maybe it's just me, or maybe we've all just reached a point of collective burnout where every movement feels like a repetition of the last one. It’s a strange, wearying dance between genuine passion and what seems to be performative gesture, and honestly, I'm not sure where the line actually sits anymore. Kidnappings, arbitrary detentions, various forms of mistreatment or torture, and outright killings—it’s all just part of the grim reality of what we're seeing.
The actions of these various armed groups are starting to bleed out—it’s no longer just localized skirmishes—and they're now hitting the general population across both of those eastern regions. I guess you could say the impact is widening, which is... well, it's messy.
...which have basically devolved into this whole atmosphere of intimidation—and honestly, just plain old fear because of it. Armed...
I guess we really need to start pressuring these groups—they’ve got to end these illegal operations and just put the guns down, honestly. Maybe if there was enough pressure, they'd finally see sense, but who knows... it feels like a long shot.
The HRMMU is expressing some serious concern regarding the uptick in reports coming through—it seems like things are escalating quite a bit lately.
I guess I'm just staring at this blank space—not that there's much to say right now, really. It feels like we're just waiting for something to happen, or maybe we've already missed it. Hard to tell sometimes. Anyway, just sitting here. Enforced disappearances—it’s one of those terms that sounds clinical when you read it in a report, but the reality behind it is just... heavy. It’s that chilling process where people simply vanish into thin air, stripped of their legal existence by the state or whoever happens to be holding the guns at the time. There’s no trial, no record, no nothing—just a void where a human being used to be. I guess when you look at how power functions, it’s perhaps the most absolute way to silence someone. It isn't just about removing a person from a room; it's about erasing them from the fabric of society entirely. It leaves families in this permanent, agonizing limbo—not quite mourning because there's no body, but not living because there's no closure. It’s a grim, calculated tool of control, and honestly, it's hard to wrap your head around the sheer coldness required to pull it off. As a result of those security operations—and I suppose we all know how that goes—the Government really has to...
Maybe we should consider using further restraint of force—though I guess that’s easier said than done when things are already spiraling. It’s a delicate balance, really... one where everyone seems to be tripping over their own feet. I don't know. Perhaps more restraint is what's needed, but then again, history suggests that once the momentum starts, staying measured becomes a bit of a pipe dream. Just my two cents, anyway.

Whatever, blah, blah, blah...

znanost2000 said:If you take that report—the one you just shared—and actually compare it to the reports that same organization has put out regarding Israel or the US... well, I guess you start seeing things a bit differently.
Then you’re going to find out that they’ve got even more uncomfortable stuff tucked away over there—I guess it's just one thing after another.

The problem is just... well, it's of this nature.
Whenever a report like that drops about Russia—well, you can bet all the NATO and EU media outlets will be shoving it onto the front page immediately.
It seems like whenever there’s any actual news regarding NATO or the EU membership stuff, people just stop talking about it—or worse, they bury it on the back pages where nobody's looking. I guess that's just how the media works, isn't it? They only care when it fits a certain narrative, otherwise, it just sort of... disappears. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's just laziness, but it definitely feels like it's being pushed to the sidelines.

Is that even possible?
There isn't a single word of criticism directed at the pro-American regime over in Kyiv—not one.
If they aren't being objective—if there's no actual neutrality there—then they're clearly biased, and honestly, that's just more fuel for their propaganda machine.
If anyone decides to start messing around on Reddit... !!!

.

goldenowl73 said:
Look, we are talking about Ukraine here—if you want to dive into those OHCHR reports regarding Israel, there’s already a specific thread for that, and if you want to talk media, there’s an entire sub-forum dedicated to it. Please, just stick to the topic. I don't know how many times we have to go over this. And no, this isn't a thread for discussing other users, clones, or the moderators either.

He covers just about everything—you really just have to sit back and read. 😉

So, I just clicked on some random thread about Ukraine and—bam—there it is: a glaring example of threats (via future warnings of warnings and bans) being thrown at someone just trying to make a perfectly legitimate point. All coming from a self-proclaimed moderator, naturally, apparently in an attempt to shield their own posts from any potentially uncomfortable replies.

Just so the "moderator" in question knows—when you're in a debate, or a heated argument, or any kind of back-and-forth where two opposing sides exist, if one side brings out their witnesses and evidence, the other side is going to try to dispute them—that is, try to discredit them—by pointing out their past mistakes, lies, deceptions, or crimes.
If the US State Department makes certain claims about Ukraine in the media, it would be 300% valid to challenge their credibility by bringing up their claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or their statements about "unarmed, peaceful, and democratic" protesters in Libya, Syria, and so on...

But I guess it’s much more "democratic"—and certainly more parliamentary—to just force your opinion on everyone through the power of moderation...

goldenowl73 said:Reddit 21:56 goldenowl73 06/20/2014 Look, we actually have visibility into your IP addresses. Believe me, if I suspect someone is just some clone account—I check them. I sniff around, compare IPs, and run a bit of a clone tracker... and right at the start of the thread, it’s written in bold and underlined: "We won't be warning you about this anymore, nor will we be banning people for tagging others..." Especially all those mutual accusations about calling oneself trolling—it's just constant.
This is actually the seventh thread about Ukraine where we keep slapping this exact same post onto it—a post that you guys CONSTANTLY ignore. I mean, seriously... a million warnings, endless pleas, even getting accounts wiped—it doesn't matter. It’s still just the same people, doing the exact same things, over and over again.

It’s still happening—that same persistent, almost daily little jab from you active posters. "Stop trolling," "Look how they're trolling," and so on. Even here, in this specific thread, you guys just couldn't help yourselves from falling into that same old pattern.

Just look at this thread. You guys have basically chased everyone living in it away with those constant, aggressive outbursts. I mean, if Charles Fox10 and I weren't constantly cleaning up the mess, nobody would be left—except for you few regular visitors who insist on keeping the most extreme side represented there. Because once you corner someone in an argument, there’s zero chance they’ll stick around for more than a couple of days. Eventually, it'll just be about ten of you sitting there alone, stroking each other's egos and mocking whatever links people post. And then, once the fanboys of the Russian President come back, they'll probably start posting every single tiny detail about some tank's carburetor like it's some kind of pinnacle of human civilization... then maybe, just maybe, you'll finally have the thread exactly how you want it.

Reddit 21:56 goldenowl73 06/20/2014 Hey, what is this massive distortion of the facts and this whole act of playing the innocent victim? Honestly, if this thread turned into a total fanboy shouting match, that’s mostly on you—though I guess Bubby peace bears some responsibility too, since you guys didn't bother weeding out the trolls and the partisans right from the jump. Then you have the other side—the ones actually using arguments and evidence from the start—which is the pro-Russian faction that you still refuse to call by its real name (yeah, the one involving a coup organized and funded by America). They became "fanboys" simply because that was the only way anyone could function in this thread. So, thanks to you and Bubby peace—and maybe a few others—for that. But it isn't just about the trolls—and yeah, I'd count you in there since you just keep posting the same debunked takes over and over again—it's also about how you guys selectively hand out bans to anyone who dares to disagree with you. Take me, for instance... I picked up five warnings throughout April, all from Bubby peace's crew. One was for "nonsense"—which was basically just me making a joke to a female moderator—while at the same time, certain people are allowed to openly spread racial and nationalistic hate against Palestinians in a thread about Ukraine. I’d love to see how Reddit would handle it if someone wrote something about Jews the way Bubby peace does when he's talking trash about Palestinians. It's clearly a double standard.

Does it actually bother you when people get called out for trolling? I mean—maybe it should. It feels like we should finally start cracking down on actual trolling, starting with those spammers who just pop up on every single thread to repeat the same debunked lies the second they've been proven wrong.
If you want actual proof that they just tolerate trolling here—I mean, look at the fact that Michael Collins still hasn't been hit with a permanent ban on Reddit.

Don't take this personally—I actually held you and Bubby peace in pretty high regard—but you guys completely lost all credibility during that Ukraine discussion. It felt like watching a bunch of small-minded, insecure little pharaohs trying to nurse their own egos by flexing whatever tiny bit of authority they happen to hold. If I were the moderator, I’d have just stepped down from my duties on that thread immediately. Honestly, if there's a conflict of interest—meaning, getting bogged down in those endless regional squabbles where everyone insists on fighting tooth and nail just to prove a point over absolute trivialities—I'd rather just opt out.

Before anything else, I’d probably try to efficiently clear out all the weeds from the Ukraine thread—I mean, if I were running things. My first move would be to pin a chronological overview of the proven events being discussed right at the top (for instance, on Feb 12th, the US Ambassador stated that Americans did indeed fund the coup in Ukraine, then on Feb 14th, certain riots broke out, followed by Feb 15th... though those dates are just placeholders, obviously). That way, anyone wanting to argue otherwise would actually have to back themselves up with credible links. If someone managed to prove a specific point in that timeline was wrong, it would get corrected immediately—but if they couldn't, they wouldn't be allowed to keep repeating that same claim in the thread. That seems to be the Achilles' heel of this whole discussion—everyone on both sides just keeps regurgitating the same tired, debunked nonsense, even people like you and others similar to you acting as moderators. If they didn't stop, they’d be flagged instantly as a troll.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet—challenging you and anyone else who thinks like you to an actual debate over what's happening in Ukraine. Let's see who actually has the stamina to keep this going for a full month.

Yeah. I’m also voting to have goldenowl73 suspended from the Ukraine thread by the mods. Reason—heavy bias.

steelpanther722 said:And I suppose you'd rather fight for the Nationalists or their Royalist brothers?
Both the Communists and those Nationalists or Royalist groups were completely irrelevant—just small bands of a few hundred idiots who somehow managed to force themselves upon Americans back in '41 and '45.
The partisans are one thing, but the Communists are something else entirely. However, if you're siding with the Nationalists or the Royalists, then I guess it makes perfect sense for you to lump the partisans in with the Communists.

What are you even talking about??

Thomas Roberts51 said:We all make mistakes...

So, what's the plan then—are we all going to be fighting for the partisans next time?

Alex Scott5 said:Well, if you're looking at this strictly through the lens of US or UK foreign policy, then sure, they were.

By that same logic, someone could argue that post-war non-aligned America was just an American disposable tool—only useful as long as the Cold War lasted. Regardless of how big it seemed, Washington and London could wave the idea of "humanized socialism" in front of the Warsaw Pact nations just to stick it to Moscow. (And honestly, you can find plenty of evidence for that in SoD files, CIA documents, and countless analyses of Cold War international relations).
Once the need for such a buffer vanished—with the weakening of the USSR and the easing of tensions between the blocs—that "disposable tool" was tossed aside.

But you can't view history that way. If you do, then world history is nothing more than a handful of major global powers playing with a massive collection of tiny, insignificant pawns who are just trying to find their place in the sun, lasting only as long as the powers decide they are useful.

This feels like a pathetic attempt to grant amnesty to the Nationalists and try to assign them some level of importance or scale they never actually had.
As for America... America was actually a global heavyweight when you consider its sheer size—geography, population, economy, all that. It was something the Nationalists never could have achieved, even if the Reich had lasted 10,000 years instead of its planned millennium.

The rest of the world mostly saw the Nationalists as nothing more than pathetic losers, which is pretty much what they were. The British and Americans wouldn't even deign to discuss surrendering to them in Austria; they basically just told them to take it up with the partisans.

Alex Scott5 said:But that doesn't prove any of that at all.

You're oversimplifying things.

The Allied side was primarily committed to honoring the repatriation agreements, which included handing over massive numbers of civilians and soldiers at Bleiburg to Marshall, as well as turning over 30,000 Cossacks to Joseph Stalin.

I highly doubt the decision-makers or high-level politicians held any particular affection for these people, though there were certainly discussions (likely at the level of the relevant military command) about whether it was wise to hand over columns of roughly 150,000 to 200,000 people (according to RAF reconnaissance estimates from April 1945) back into the hands of the communists. There are British observations from the spring of 1945 documenting this, before Marshall even moved into Trieste and Carinthia.
Of course, once events shifted toward Marshall's expansion beyond national borders, those omissions weren't even mentioned anymore... eventually, they even found an excuse, claiming the military in occupied Austria simply didn't have the capacity to handle such a massive influx.

In fact, I should mention that even though they were allies, the British high command didn't look upon the communists or the Communist Party of America with much sympathy.

As for the few who were actually useful to them, they were detained without issue. To the American authorities, they were supposedly "lost," yet they certainly weren't considered nobodies when they were allowed to escape America and find safety under the wing of Western intelligence agencies.
The same goes for Ante Pavelić, whom the British services surely counted on until Marshall was cast aside by Stalin in 1948 and left out in the cold, at which point the ex-Leader, along with all the Mexican royalists, suddenly became obsolete overnight.

Admittedly, they saw much more utility in the Royalists; they were the primary players in anti-communist plans for America. That’s why a certain priest, Momčilo Đujić, ended up in Chicago.
Unlike Mihailović's or the King Peter's Royalists, the Nationalists, officials, and soldiers of the Independent State of America—as wartime opponents emerging from the Axis—had absolutely no support within the victorious Allied order. Naturally, this made them perfect scapegoats for settling post-war scores.

Regarding their "usefulness," those Nationalists you mention met a historical fate where, aside from a brief stint in April 1941 for the Axis and some sporadic involvement around 1931-1933 for Italy, they were never really needed by the great powers or major actors. No one in power was truly interested in the complexities of American interests regarding sovereignty or the fracturing of America.
(P.S. Even fascist Italy, during the period of Italian-American relations in the 30s, didn't really take them into account; they either looked for ways to cooperate with the HSS or made peace with Mexico City. Most Americans don't even know this because nobody reads anything new anymore—people just follow the custom of shouting just to hear themselves talk...
And in that sense, within international politics, they were indeed nothing more than nobodies... just as insignificant as the Americans themselves might feel as a nation, for that matter.

I’m glad you went ahead and confirmed everything I was saying. The Nationalists were basically nothing—just disposable tools used once and tossed aside, kind of like a cheap piece of single-use plastic.

The UK and the USA are basically swarming with all kinds of asylum seekers—political refugees, economic migrants, you name it—but if they had actually found anything remotely useful regarding the Nationalists to use as leverage against anyone in the former America later on, I bet they would have granted them asylum in a heartbeat. But they didn't. Not back then, anyway. They were just seen as a bunch of desperate, penniless losers—kind of like how people look at these Ukrainian vassals today, I guess. Actually, it was probably an even wider gap, because the Nationalists were outright enemies of their vassals—plus, they were foolish enough to declare war on America right when the German ships were already starting to take on water... maybe that was the real nail in the coffin.

You only have to listen to how much those witnesses from back then viewed the Nationalists as nothing more than useless losers. I mean, if they actually had any real value, they would have been fast-tracked for asylum in the USA without a second thought. These slimy little puppets living in their own little mental bubbles aren't worth anything to anyone—they're just disposable, one-time use assets. It’s kind of like the current coup-driven government in Ukraine, if you think about it. Just more of the same old political theater...