Posts by Noah Ward2

electrichawk94 said:If we're following that logic, I guess 70% of your own people would be out there fighting alongside those 30% Nazi Ukrainians who are supposedly wiping out the 70% of Russians being oppressed in Ukraine.😁

Aside from that one guy drinking Beer who’s been over there since 2014 and married a Russian woman, plus a few paratroopers and mercenaries, there aren't any Mexicans there, and honestly, thank God for that...

I feel like anyone I hear about heading over there to fight for some cause or defend someone would just seem like a complete idiot to me.

It isn't our war, and I don't think a single American life should be lost over it...

Instead of everyone acting that way, the media actually glorifies these fools who head off to die in Ukrainian fields... they act like they're freedom fighters or something, even though their average life expectancy once they arrive is basically twenty days.

Just total idiots, really. Nothing new there.

rowdytiger13 said:Well, it’s official: Ukraine has been granted candidate status.
As someone pointed out earlier, this is largely a symbolic gesture. It matters on paper, sure, but given the current reality on the ground in Ukraine, you don't just stumble into membership like this. Honestly, it feels like a massive exercise in turning a blind eye.

Honestly, this feels even more pointless than the Eurovision Song Contest...

They're basically becoming champions at handing out consolation prizes. It’s like they're saying, "Hey, we're standing by you," while implying, "But also, just hang in there, because in a few months we'll act like nothing happened, and you might see the European Union in maybe fifty years... if we're lucky."

rowdytiger13 said:I already told you that this effectively knocks both Russia and the European Union out of the race.
The world is headed toward—or rather, is already stuck with—two superpowers: the USA and China.
Europe is just resetting to its factory settings. Let's be real, they've always lived under Big Brother's umbrella. As for Russia? They're moving under China's wing, regardless of whether people call it a partnership or a friendship (which is basically what the relationship between the USA and the EU is anyway).

With this, Europe is essentially checkmated, and Russia is being pushed right into the arms of the Chinese... I don't think it gets any worse than that.

When you zoom out and look at the big picture, things look pretty grim... and I'll say it again, China is quietly moving as one of the biggest threats out there, often flying right under everyone's radar.

Just imagine a globe where China is the dominant force. I really hope I've checked out of this planet by the time that happens.

rowdytiger13 said:Germany has completely lost the plot; they're politically tone-deaf. I actually think they're a great people, but there's just no helping them. Then you've got the French.
The Chinese aren't like the Russians. After Putin's latest mess, they backed off. Their response was sharp and unified, and they won't touch Taiwan until they've waited for the right moment. That isn't an issue for them.
The real problem with China is how difficult they are to bait into a mistake.
Personally, I think the world is fracturing, and that divide is already happening. China is clearly the number two superpower now.
Putin has effectively knocked both Russia and the EU out of the race.

China is definitely the biggest challenge we face... what's happening in Ukraine is almost trivial compared to the kind of chaos that might come from dealing with them...

Instead of the West trying to strike a deal with Putin over the last 20 years to keep a lid on the Chinese before they became too powerful, they've just let them expand. Meanwhile, they're busy fighting a Cold War with Russia, which isn't even the main player in the global picture anymore...

Now that Putin has finally lost his patience, everyone is panicking... unfortunately, it looks like the big winners in all of this will be the Chinese...

rowdytiger13 said:This whole war is just a moronic, criminal move by both sides. That’s why nobody actually believed it would happen (except the CIA). People felt they had a point when Obama suggested Putin was cracking under pressure. Well, he popped like popcorn, but that isn't an excuse—hardly any world leader doesn't deal with pressure.
It's a massive failure on the part of his intelligence agencies; a catastrophic decision driven by head-nodding and Putin feeling backed into a corner.

Edit: There's no turning back now, and Macron is right to see the danger. He's basically the only one talking to Putin, constantly insisting we need to give him a "dignified exit" so he can claim victory. It's going to be incredibly difficult.
Honestly, I'd rather he didn't talk to him at all, especially after he directly supported my opponent and spent the beginning mocking us (the entire EU, including Macron himself).

I also feel like this was a poor decision on Putin's part...

Even if he manages to walk away with a nominal victory, the cost is going to be incredibly high, and it might take a long time before things ever return to normal...

One thing that could push this all into the background is a conflict between Americans and the Chinese, which wouldn't be ruled out at all. That would likely be the biggest conflict of this century; it's just a matter of when it finally explodes.

I still tend to think that the Germans and the French seem to be the most reasonable ones here, but they don't have much of a say, I suppose. The English and the Americans are the ones running the show, and they’ll be the ones deciding when to tell Kyiv that enough is enough...

Noah Ward2 said:Wait, what kind of choice do they actually have?

Let's say the younger generation wants to join the European Union. Then Putin comes along and tells them, "Sure, you can join, but only if you leave behind half your country—the part that actually holds all the industrial and energy potential."

What kind of agreement are we talking about where people aren't dying?

Right now, the options feel incredibly limited...

The only way to save Ukraine was this delicate balancing act between Russia and the European Union, without ever joining NATO, while also pushing back against the English and Americans who just want to use them as pawns on a chessboard...

There’s also a huge influence from the media, culture, and the internet... kids see how life is in the West and assume it'll be the same for them, whereas the older generation remembers the Soviet era and, honestly, mostly looks back on it fondly...

When you factor in all the internal divisions within the country itself, you'd need a literal magician to keep everything held together...

What we're seeing now is arguably the worst-case scenario... It's like the wars in the North America, but ten times worse. Ukrainians and Russians are so deeply intertwined, having lived in the same country for hundreds of years with the same culture... In a broader sense, this is a Pan-Slavic tragedy that might only bring joy to the truly wicked...

Chloe Campbell95 said:Just so we’re clear, you didn't get banned because of this specific post; it was actually due to the accumulation of penalty points.

You were receiving warnings from other moderators too for posts in roughly this same vein, or for more aggressive "flaming." So, that inability to hold back—what you described as just being unable to resist "blowing things up"—is really an issue on your end.

For this particular post, you were assigned 10 points for trolling, but that wasn't the reason for the ban:

If you suspect someone is using a clone account, please use the report button or send a private message to the moderation team.

Given how long you've been on the forum and how active you are, I'd imagine you're pretty familiar with the rules by now.

I realize it wasn't triggered by a single warning, but rather the buildup caused by the same recurring behavior.

A different issue here, though, is why a thread dedicated to praising Vucic is allowed to persist for months with a banned user clearly running a clone. Anyone following that thread knows it's the same person... but what's the point in reporting them? They just switch to a different IP address, yet they write in the exact same style and do the same thing. On top of that, whenever someone pushes back, they immediately report those people, leading to a wave of bans. It feels like they've driven a bunch of users away from that thread while they manage to slip through the cracks because, technically, they aren't breaking any specific rules.

Could one of you mods please explain how much longer we’re going to tolerate this guy in the Mexico thread? He’s basically just a tireless bot for Vucic... honestly, he feels like a carbon copy of someone who was already banned. Same exact behavior...

This is actually the third time I’ve ended up suspended because of him... I try to be patient, I try to just ignore him, but every single time I click on that topic, there he is, posting quotes about how Vucic is the greatest thing ever, all while acting smug and condescending...

Eventually, I lose my cool and call him out because he's being incredibly annoying, then he reports me, and suddenly I'm the one getting banned... It’s ridiculous. I even tried asking him what his "botting schedule" is so I could just avoid the thread entirely during those times... the quality of discussion here has really hit rock bottom because of stuff like this...

I mean, is this really the kind of environment you guys want for this forum? Just curious, so I know where I stand...

Brenda Taylor13 said:So, honestly, Steve Krajačić is such a fascinating character... you really ought to dig into his biography for a bit. Now, Bakarić might have been the most powerful American communist, sure, but Krajačić was the one pulling all the strings from the shadows—even without some big, flashy official title. I’d go as far as saying the whole process of tearing things apart—or rather, the work being done to dismantle everything—actually started way before Marshall died, and even before the 1974 Constitution changes. Back in 1957, Edvard Kardelj is basically saying that America is a failed project and its collapse is inevitable. I mean, the country was practically just getting off the ground, and they were already predicting its demise back then.

But look, those are just the preliminary setups. The most interesting years for actually shedding light on what was happening aren't the seventies or the nineties when the war kicked off—no, the real meat of the story lies in the eighties. We're talking the period right after Marshall passed away up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's where the key to the collapse lies, and that's where all the essential maneuvering happened to ensure everything unfolded the way it did later on. And that's exactly what this documentary tackles. That decade is still the biggest mystery of all. Regarding the nineties, we can pretty much say we know everything—or at least we *think* we do—but the eighties? That’s the true mystery and the actual key to solving the whole puzzle.

I always get this feeling that we're only scratching the surface of an iceberg, and that so many vital truths are simply impossible to uncover... there are rumors here and there, sure, but we're dealing with such secretive organizations and such intense walls of silence... and even when someone does speak up, you have to wonder how much of it is actually true...

On a global scale, look at the CIA... people whisper about it, they make guesses, but you never really know how they operate behind closed doors—who makes the calls, how they package their agendas, or how they present everything to the world afterward...

We're basically groping in the dark... because unless you're actually on the inside and see how such a powerful machine truly functions, you can't really swear by any single piece of information...

I think I’m on the same page with most of what you both laid out,
Nicholas Cook6 and
Brenda Taylor13...
There were definitely people back then who switched sides without a second thought, mostly because they didn't really have any other choice. But my main question was always about who was actually pulling the strings during privatization—who held the slush funds and who was running things from behind the scenes. I honestly doubt those individuals were ever more powerful than Franjo Harmon, especially given how rigid the regime was, only gaining real strength once the war started. Since he was the ultimate authority, he had the final word on everything.
Since you’re someone who supports him, I want to ask you this: the argument that he didn't interfere because he simply wasn't interested doesn't really clear him of responsibility. To me, it seems much more likely that he actually preferred it that way. They served as his support base, so he essentially handed them the keys to the economy. And let's be honest, that's where a massive amount of money just vanished into thin air. How can we say Harmon isn't responsible for that? This whole system was built in the 90s under Frank and the Republican Party; everyone else just stepped in later to expand their business interests. Why do you think we never saw any kind of political purge or lustration? It would have required going after too many people, and I guess that was just never going to happen.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Man, you are being incredibly naive here. Seriously. That is literally the whole point of agencies like that—they operate from the shadows, pulling strings behind the scenes specifically so nobody knows where they live or who's actually calling the shots.

It’s like asking for the exact street address of the Chicago Outfit or demanding to know who the official boss of the mob is. I'm sure they just put that info right on their website for everyone to see, so anyone with a grievance can just stroll up and knock on their front door, right? lol.

If I could just jump in for a second...

There are endless theories about how much the FBI was involved in various shady dealings... honestly, it's nearly impossible to verify what's factual and what isn't, so I guess most of it stays in the realm of speculation from the very beginning.

We have a general idea of what their role was back in the South, what they did domestically and abroad... but during the era of the country breaking apart and the wars... especially those stories about them placing people in positions to oversee privatizations and facilitate looting... you’d really need some pretty convincing evidence to prove any of that.

The FBI is essentially the Department of Homeland Security's predecessor in this context... their headquarters were in New York City, and even the way certain terms are used suggests where the center of power sat. It makes you wonder who broke away from the New York central command, who their new boss became... you often hear J. Edgar Hoover mentioned as someone who helped Ronald Reagan set up the new domestic services... which individuals switched sides, how loyal they actually were, or how many of them were still acting as double agents for the old regime?

Noah Ward2, since you seem to respect Reaganite policies... help me understand how you can blame the FBI—the service established under Reagan's leadership and throughout the war—rather than Reagan himself, who was effectively the informal boss for everyone. Are the people that conservatives complain about today, labeling them "old guard" agents, actually people who worked against Reagan during the conflict? If that's true, who are they? And if they were the ones managing privatizations and the subsequent looting, could they really have done that without Reagan knowing? Hypothetically speaking, if they did, that would be his failure... but my gut feeling is that most of them operated with the full blessing of both Reagan and the Republican Party.

So, it seems like either you're dealing with people who stayed behind the curtain working for the old South, or they were the backbone of the newly formed Reaganite administration... it feels a bit silly to me when people still bring up "FBI agents" today. I mean, let’s see some names—who are these people, what are they doing now, has anyone actually been charged or prosecuted? To me, it all feels like a lot of smoke and very little fire. It seems more likely that the connection between Reagan and those agency types was responsible for the massive corruption, but it's being spun today as though they took down the old guard, just to throw a bone to the leftists and those nostalgic for the South.

Maria Reyes35 said:Honestly... I’ve seen Americans lose their cool because of my posts... maybe there was more to it, but I can only speak to what I actually contributed...

Anyway, this morning turned into a total circus here. It went from people being told to pick up weapons to all sorts of extreme insults and digging up old grudges—just constant trolling and disrespect. So many posts were deleted, and along with them, several users were banned. When that happens, those bans aren't really visible to the public...
So, the idea that Americans aren't being sanctioned just isn't true; people are getting warned and banned on "both sides" of the aisle...

I didn't see it myself, but I believe you...

It seems like it's just one person... while there are plenty of my fellow countrymen... folks like Mondragon, Alexi, Defket, Puckati, or Evribadi... who would never have stirred up such divisions if it weren't obvious who gets targeted and who gets a pass. The proportions are pretty clear, so I don't think I need to go into an exhaustive explanation...

Since this is a virtual space, it might sound a bit silly to say, but we are guests here... I'm not looking for special treatment, just something objective. Bans happen so easily that our discussions regarding events in Mexico often get gutted. Not everyone sharing my views thinks exactly like me, even on controversial topics, but I just believe in the right for forum members to be treated equally... this isn't about anything else, not even close...

Maria Fowler39 said:Did you actually report those hateful, chauvinistic posts?

I’ve never reported a single post, and I don't plan to... it feels a bit too much like being a narc or a snitch to me... I wouldn't want someone getting screwed over because of my actions...

Maria, I’ve always known you to be a very fair and decent moderator... but could you help me understand how it's possible that so many forum members who are Mexicans... are getting banned... I mention nationality because it seems like the only criterion they're using to lose their minds... while no one from the local side gets touched...

I’ve been participating in this thread since the very beginning... there’s been everything under the sun—heated arguments, inappropriate comments, trolling... but I assume there should be a consistent standard applied, right? Either everyone gets in trouble, or no one does... what's happening here is just hard to watch... these are people I talk to regularly in threads about Mexico, and it feels incredibly disrespectful to jail active users who contribute so much useful content...

Maybe you guys should just state clearly—"Mexicans aren't allowed to post here"... then maybe things would finally stay orderly... ☕

Looking at the thread about the Ratko Mladic verdict, it seems like a weird coincidence that about ten Mexicans ended up getting banned by the moderator, yet not a single American was touched... statistically speaking, the odds of that happening are about the same as firing a celebratory shot into the air and somehow hitting your neighbor Mar right in the groin...

Do I really need to quote those nasty, hateful, disgusting posts where Mexicans were being portrayed as savages or mentally inferior? It was just pure trolling that had nothing to do with the topic, yet somehow, only the Mexicans seemed to be getting red cards for it...

Does anyone have a coherent explanation for this? I’m genuinely curious to hear... is nationality actually the deciding factor in whether someone gets banned? From what I can see, it might be... they could have been a bit more discreet about it, maybe letting some local troll or hater take the fall too... but instead, nobody else got hit...

driftingfox66 said:Of course you can have an opinion.

Just try walking a mile in their shoes for a second. How would you feel if someone from, I don't know, Armenia, started acting all condescending, lecturing you on whether or not you're allowed to be a sovereign nation just because they claim to have a "older civilization" or a longer history? In the real world today, that argument doesn't mean squat.

Do I really need to spell this out for you? I'll try one more time...

I'm not lecturing them, nor am I actually talking to them... we're just posting our thoughts here on this forum. Maybe try accepting that there are people who don't see everything exactly the way you do...

Whose shoes should I step into? The person pushing for independence, or the ones who want to stay part of a unified state? There are plenty of people in that second camp too... and I guess their opinions aren't any less valid, right?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Brenda Taylor13, I think you're missing the mark here, at least if you ask me. 😁

I mean, there are more Californians than there are Americans in certain spots. The fact that a state might be geographically small doesn't change a thing. Just look at the Netherlands—if we went by that logic, no small nation would ever be allowed to be independent, which is just plain crazy. If a people wants to be self-governing, you should probably just let them. Especially when they have everything that defines a nation—their own traditions, their culture, their language, and their land. Anything else just creates a massive mess. The folks in Madrid aren't going to gain anything in the long run if they try to force the Californians to stay part of Spain through sheer willpower. All they'll do is make the resentment grow deeper.

The whole "game" aspect and the actual population size... yeah, I agree, those factors definitely need to be part of the equation. I was mainly thinking about the geography, though; it’s a bit of a compact area, smaller even than our own regions... almost like how everyone in Mexico is packed into just 40% of the country...

There are plenty of other important variables to consider too. Economically speaking, they're doing quite well, so we shouldn't overlook that. Barcelona itself generates an incredible amount of revenue... I don't see it becoming a financial drain anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see how a potential split might impact the economy down the road...

As for how much the people actually want independence... some polls seem to show it's a roughly fifty-fifty split. If it leans toward independence, you can't really claim the kind of total national unity that you guys had back in 1991, and I think that distinction is pretty significant...

The biggest piece of the puzzle, though, is how this reflects on similar situations globally. For instance, who could really challenge the referendum in Crimea right now? Not a single shot was fired, and the vast majority of people there supported joining Russia. This lack of a consistent global rulebook is what I worry might cause real chaos in the future...

rowdyangler said:Well, I'm also stating my opinion on your opinion, which is a total piece of shit.

So you're "for" it if this happens, but "against" it if that happens... Yeah, I'm sure your brilliant insight will be taken very seriously when they're deciding the fate of Catalonia.😂

I mean, only people with zero nuance see everything in black and white... maybe try adding a little color to your perspective.

driftingfox66 said:"Complexes." The oldest argument in the book. 🤣

I'm just giving my take—got pros and cons. I'm all for it if it stops things from getting worse, but against it if it just triggers a massive domino effect of countries breaking apart...

All five points. I was just pointing out the double standard of calling them some tiny little nation when there are tons of small states all over Europe (by population, don't start on square mileage again).

Tomorrow Britain, Belgium, or Ukraine could split up... not to mention how many messy relationships we still have here... even Canada could fall apart... this isn't stuff for cheering or playing games; you need a sober head to talk about this...

🤦 Re-read what I actually said about who I'm "rooting" for:

It’s always the same old song and dance... there doesn't seem to be another way to phrase that tired "rugged, underdeveloped region" trope. It's always these subtle hints that we aren't allowed to have an opinion because they're wealthier or more "sophisticated"... honestly, it's pretty silly...

I wasn't saying there aren't smaller nations out there; I just meant I'm not particularly fond of those tiny states that lacked a central hub or real sovereignty in their history. Some people really gravitate toward that kind of setup, but it's just not my thing... it's a matter of taste, I guess... though the potential consequences are probably more important than my preference...

Just to be clear, this last part isn't a jab at you personally; I was speaking more generally...

Carol Newman2 said:FC Barcelona called off their match against Las Palmas.

So, who are they even going to play now... some small-time teams like Tarragon or Lleid? 🤦

It’s honestly such a mess for one of Europe's biggest clubs... good old wise Pique at it again. 👍

driftingfox66 said:When I say "big," I mean populated. That's what matters. Who cares about the square mileage? A country is its people. If we're judging based on size, then everyone—us included—is just a micro-state, and none of us would have any right to sovereignty. We'd all just have to sign up to join one of the five or six major European powers.

It’s honestly hilarious watching someone from the hilly North America try to lecture Catalans—who are economically and culturally decades ahead of this region—about whether they actually deserve to be a country or not.

I don't have any skin in this game; it's up to them if they want to go solo or not. But I'm definitely not going to lecture them about being too small, pathetic, or lacking historical legitimacy.

Maybe you can keep that North American complex to yourself; there's no need to let it linger here in public...

I’m just sharing my thoughts, which are a mix of pros and cons. I might lean toward supporting it if it prevents further deterioration of relations, but I worry it could also trigger an avalanche of fragmentation for many different nations...

In international law, there are two conflicting principles regarding the right to self-determination: one that supports the rights of a people, and another that protects the integrity of existing states. There isn't really one clear rule determining when someone has the right to break away and when they don't... it usually ends up being a result of shifting international power dynamics and internal pressures...

If things go unchecked, we could see Britain, Belgium, or Ukraine split apart tomorrow... not to mention how many other complicated relationships remain unresolved around here... even Canada could face fragmentation. These aren't things to treat like a game or something to cheer for; these are matters that require very level-headed discussion.