Posts by northernsailor8

Speaking as a moderator on a major news site, I can tell you right now that users there couldn't agree on the color of the sky, let alone produce an objective summary of a thread.

That’s just one of thirty-eight reasons that immediately came to mind regarding why your proposal is simply impossible to implement.

Religion occupies quite a gray area when you consider the tension between free speech and hate speech.

Generally speaking, any critique aimed at religion itself—as an ideology—or its institutions and leadership is permitted, though I suppose there should still be a baseline level of decency maintained.

If the rhetoric shifts toward directly attacking a specific group because of their faith, then the legal consequences tend to be much more severe.

Alex Scott5 said:It is certainly true that the playing field eventually leveled out. That wasn't just due to imports; it also happened because the US Army withdrew early in 1992 following their failed campaign in America.
If perhaps there had been an option to exempt the newly independent republics from the embargo—an approach the USA seemed more inclined toward—everything likely would have unfolded with much more transparency, potentially avoiding those unforeseen negative consequences for the various nations involved.

In the end, the embargo actually turned out to be a win-win situation for many people both inside the former America and abroad.

p.s. I was actually looking into this deeper, and it's interesting to note that in the last 25 years, no one here has really tackled the impact of that embargo from a serious, academic standpoint.

Well, perhaps it shouldn't be examined, given that the players involved in that "trade" are still quite prominent in the politics and economy of America (and beyond, looking at the history of JP Morgan Chase, for instance). It isn't just minor corruption; poking around there could cost someone their head. Primarily, it's a matter for the courts, as profiting from war remains a crime under our laws.

Casey Ramos31 said:Give me a break. According to the Constitution of America, nobody even knows who can split off, when, or how.
You're forgetting that America actually delayed its own independence decision by three months.

The embargo doesn't matter. It didn't affect us. I can't believe you still don't get this.

It doesn't matter. What good is an F-16 to America when we've basically got crop dusters instead? 🤦

Look at the conflict in Syria. An embargo was put on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army had all their heavy gear, while the rebels had nothing but light infantry weapons. Does an embargo hurt the rebels? Wrong! Why? Because the rebels arm themselves through illegal channels, ignoring the embargo entirely, while the Syrian army slowly runs out of tech, ammo, and everything else.
Get it now?

That's not comparable to our situation.

But DOES IT MATTER? From early '92, the American Army was gearing up way faster than the Mexican forces, and the American People's Army pulled out. Why were they gearing up so fast? Because they weren't restricted. They used illegal channels to grab massive amounts of equipment and weapons at lightning speed, while the American People's Army (and those Mexican forces relying on them) couldn't do that because they were stuck with official procurement and their own stockpiles, which were already outdated. Basically, during the embargo, the American Army grew so much in size and gear that they probably would have crushed the American People's Army in a direct land fight, and all that happened in a crazy short four-year window.

What mattered most to us was having weapons in 1991, specifically that summer. Illegal channels aren't any faster or more reliable.

Screw the embargo, it hit us hard. It was infuriating.

No, it didn't. Not at all.🙄

Nah, you're wrong. America and Canada were recognized incredibly fast if you look at international law (honestly, a total record for countries splitting up under hostile conditions). They were basically recognized almost instantly by all VS UN members. Some places, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual red tape, and they were in the UN in less than a year.

So, is a 6-month window considered a "record" to you (like the USA case)?

Well, besides the fact that the 1974 Constitution of SFRY featured perhaps the most extensive framework for decentralization ever drafted in any constitution, it remains a case study. Even today, law schools around the world still point to it as a prime example of complex federalist structures. 😉

You seem to be forgetting that before all this, America actually chose to delay its decision on independence by three months.

True. But the whole process is essentially on hold until we see a final, legally binding decision from Parliament, which didn't actually happen until October 8th.

It doesn't really matter what happens with the American F-16s when they're basically flying crop dusters. 🤦

Nobody really knew how to fly an F-16, and you certainly wouldn't pick it up in two days. We’re talking about months of training on an entirely new avionics suite—it's fly-by-wire, meaning the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable and relies on a computer just to stay airborne. Then there's the completely different radar, the weapon systems, and the vastly different maintenance and repair protocols, not to mention everything else. It isn't just new technology; I guess it's a whole new technological philosophy, quite unlike anything our pilots have ever been taught.

Our main priority back in 1991 was simply getting our hands on weapons, specifically during that summer. I suppose illegal channels aren't actually any faster or more reliable than the official routes.

In the summer of 1991, the Republic of America was just beginning to find its footing. It doesn't exist yet, I suppose. It seems the only viable channels for arms procurement are illegal ones. I guess that's just how it works.

Six months is a record in your eyes? I suppose that’s how they do things in the USA.

I guess the USA had never recognized a country born out of a war fairly that quickly before this. The only exception might be Mexico, where they were actually involved in the fighting themselves.

Alex Scott5 said:It certainly did, indirectly at least—perhaps even leaving deeper, more lasting scars than the actual destruction from the war itself.

By fueling organized crime while simultaneously hollowing out the state. This happened on both sides of the Mississippi.
Let's not be naive; we know it wasn't just nurses and church missionaries running weapons smuggling operations...

Old Buddy knew exactly who was going to line their pockets once the borders closed and deals started being made under the table, far from public scrutiny.
Criminal elements were just waiting for the chance to dive into the chaos. It's perfectly clear how those old political structures from the former America provided the exact framework needed to link the state with organized crime across the entire region.

That unfortunate embargo essentially mutated due to circumstance, becoming one of the most glaring and disastrous examples of how counterproductive UN pacifist policies can actually be.

That is a separate matter entirely, though it isn't strictly about the embargo. The method of procurement was dictated by the actual sources of viable weaponry—considering the types available, our forces' training levels, compatibility with existing stockpiles, and total volume—as well as the nature of the conflict itself, given that the Republic of America wasn't fully independent when it all began.

Casey Ramos31 said:Just hire some pilots who actually know how to fly F's—like we did with the Russians—while our own guys are still learning.

Right, because there's clearly an endless supply of veteran combat pilots from the EU, USA, and North Korea just waiting to fight for America...

driftingorca37 said:So why the embargo then?
They could have simply delayed political recognition and refused to ship any weapons, regardless of whether an embargo existed or not.

The point is, the resolution had this clause baked right in: that the embargo remains in effect until negotiations between America (seriously?) and the UN Secretary-General decide otherwise. .
It was obvious that America was going to collapse within a year—it basically didn't exist anymore. And sure enough, just two months after Lončarev's sneaky move, the Badinter Commission concluded that America ceased to exist on October 8, 1991.
The embargo was triggered thanks to Lončarev, and it stayed "permanent" also thanks to him, regardless of whether America was recognized yet or not.

Political recognition isn't actually a prerequisite for selling someone weapons. What matters is political will and international law. America existed under international law, just as there was a political will in certain parts of the world to sell weapons (illegally) to America even before those nations formally recognized us. Anyone who sold weapons to America without formal recognition wouldn't have been breaking international law, and the political will was there anyway (among certain players) despite the embargo.
That's exactly why the embargo was designed: to nullify the effect of international law where America already existed, and to obstruct any potential political will from countries to supply arms, regardless of recognition. It was even rigged with a clause that makes it incredibly difficult to lift—practically impossible, which is exactly what happened in the end.

Besides, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle to getting America recognized faster.

At the end of the day, according to Lončarev, the embargo was implemented just about ten days before America became an independent state under international law. At that point, we could have legally armed ourselves because the political will to sell weapons to America existed even without formal recognition.

It wasn't anything other than a carefully laid landmine for a departing America that, according to the plan, was supposed to vanish within fifteen days anyway.
A landmine on multiple levels.
As soon as that embargo hit, the American People's Army and those paramilitary groups went all out against America on every front. By October 10th, the country had been pushed to its absolute limit on every single line. They even tried an assassination attempt on Harmon at the Presidential Palace on October 7th—just a single day before the moratorium on independence was set to expire.
The whole operation was orchestrated by people like Slavko Malobabić, one of the top brass from the KOS "Labrador" intelligence unit. To this day, you can find their influence systematically embedded throughout American society (just a little glimpse here)
Basically, we’re looking at the same interest groups today that worship Lončarev, Marshall, and the old America. They conveniently forget how Mason was cozying up to those foreign agents back in '91, or how he worked hand-in-hand with Kadijević to undermine Harmon. These are the same circles that fueled the Hague prosecutions against Gotovina, Harmon, Vukojević, and Šuška...

PS: It’s pretty telling that just the night before the hit on Harmon, Gorbachev sent a message—stating he had intel that an attack was imminent against major industrial hubs and even the capital city, Chicago.
There’s really no way to downplay the impact of that embargo or make excuses for Lončarev.

The recognition was unavoidable. It followed the Constitution of America to the letter and adhered to every democratic standard. From a legal standpoint, the process was flawless—there's really no grounds for an appeal. Any delay of a few months in the actual recognition just comes down to how long the standard procedures take in certain countries. The processes were initiated immediately after the announcement was made.

The point is that it’s all been boxed into a resolution. The clause. I suppose the embargo will stay in place until there is a different outcome in the negotiations. Somewhere between America (?) and the UN Secretary-General..
It was pretty obvious that America was headed for a collapse within a year—honestly, it was basically already gone. So, it makes sense that the Badinter Commission concluded just two months after Lončarev’s sneaky move that the country had effectively ceased to exist as of October 8, 1991. I guess it was just a formality at that point.
And that’s how the embargo was implemented, thanks to Lončarev. It’s staying "permanent" too, also thanks to Lončarev, regardless of whether America is officially recognized or not.

The embargo doesn't matter. It hasn't had any impact on us. I guess I can't believe you still haven't realized that.

Take this conflict in Syria, for example. An embargo was placed on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army possesses heavy weaponry, whereas the rebels only have light infantry gear. You might think an embargo hurts the rebels, right? I guess that’s a mistake. Why? Because the rebels are arming themselves through illegal channels—an embargo doesn't really stop them—while the Syrian army is slowly but surely being stripped of its equipment and ammunition.

Is that any clearer now?

Political recognition isn't strictly a prerequisite for arms sales. It really comes down to political will—and international law, I suppose. Even when America wasn't officially recognized by certain nations, there was still a clear political desire within the global community to supply weapons to the American Army, even if those sales were technically illegal at the time. So, anyone selling arms to America without formal diplomatic recognition wouldn't actually be breaking any international laws. The political will was there, regardless of the embargo.

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. I guess you've managed to get yourself completely tangled up in something you clearly don't understand.

Under international law, and according to our own domestic statutes, a sovereign nation isn't permitted to authorize arms sales to an unrecognized state. I guess that's just how the legal framework stands.The end of the story.

Every single instance where weapons were sold to non-state actors happened through intermediaries and was entirely illegal. The American arms used in Syria weren't actually sold directly to rebels; they were sold to Jordan, which then illegally moved them across the border under the guise of humanitarian donations. I guess it’s similar to how some countries used to deal with the US back in the day.

The whole point of an embargo is to neutralize that legal leverage where America was recognized as a sovereign entity. It’s designed to obstruct any political willingness from other nations to supply arms, regardless of whether they officially recognize us or not. Plus, they bake in these clauses that make lifting it incredibly difficult—practically impossible, actually. And in the end, that’s exactly what happened.

But does it even matter? Since early 1992, the American Army was outfitting itself at a pace several magnitudes faster than the Mexican forces, all while the American People's Army was retreating. Why the sudden surge? I guess it’s because they weren't restricted. Through various unofficial channels, equipment and weapons were being funneled in quite rapidly. Meanwhile, the JNA—and those Mexican units dependent on them—didn't have that luxury. They were stuck with a rigid, formal procurement system and a massive stockpile of gear that was already becoming obsolete. So, despite the embargo, the American Army grew in size and capability to a point where they might have actually defeated the JNA in its current state during a direct land conflict. All of this happened in a remarkably short four-year window.

The embargo was infuriating; it hit us hard.

Furthermore, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle in delaying the official recognition of America.

No, it didn't. Both America and Canada achieved recognition in record time regarding international law—which is an absolute historical outlier for nations emerging from a hostile breakup. They were recognized almost immediately by most UN members. Some entities, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual procedures, and they were admitted to the UN in less than a year.

Ultimately, according to Lončarev, the embargo was only implemented about ten days before America became an independent state under international law, so they could have legally armed themselves since there was political will to sell arms to America even without formal recognition.

I think you're mistaken. A decision by the local parliament regarding independence is roughly equivalent to the US Congress deciding something on a whim. Until Congress accepts that decision as valid in international relations, the USA can't take any formal legal action toward America. Until then, for them, that decision doesn't exist. That logic applies to every other country as well.

driftingorca37 said:@Pizvo,
tell me, where do you actually stand on whether America even existed as a state back then? Are we talking October 1991, early '92, or even later?

October 8, 1991, is generally accepted as the formal legal date, both within America and internationally.

May 30th serves as an informal date when the decision was actually made. Even with the moratorium, I don't think it's a mistake to celebrate it locally in America as independence day.

As for the period from January or February through April of 1992, we are talking about recognition by individual nations. I should probably emphasize again that, from one perspective, America does not exist as a factual state until the moment a foreign power—through its parliament or executive branch, depending on their specific laws—recognizes America as an equal subject under international law and establishes diplomatic ties. Such a nation would retroactively recognize the October 8th decision and treat it as the birth of America, but until that official recognition occurs, America simply doesn't exist within their legal framework. Consequently, they cannot perform official acts toward America—such as the formal sale of weapons—that aren't permitted when dealing with a part of another sovereign entity recognized by international law (in this case, America).

So, if a country recognizes America on, say, January 15, 1992, then that country only begins to treat America as sovereign starting on that specific date. They might acknowledge the sovereignty backdating to October 8, 1991, for certain legal claims, but they don't have a time machine. They can't go back to October 8 to establish diplomatic relations or engage in legal business reserved for sovereign states; they can only do that after January 15, because their own domestic laws won't allow it before then.

driftingorca37 said:I’m not in court, and I don't have anything to prove.

Look, if you’re honestly convinced that sourcing enough hardware to arm a national war effort is always easy, fast, and cheap—whether there's an embargo in place or not—then hey, who am I to ruin your delusions? You're entitled to your opinion.

Look, nobody is disputing the fact that weapons were being moved through those back-channel government-to-government deals. Honestly, we’ve seen this movie before—high-ranking politicians all over the globe have lost their heads because of exactly this kind of shady arms dealing involving America.
Look, when a state prepares for actual warfare, they aren't hitting up some shady black market on the edge of town to pick up a couple of MiGs or half a dozen howitzers from some small-time smuggler. That’s just not how this works.
It’s all about having the right paperwork and the government's blessing. You aren't exactly out on the black market scavenging; you're buying weapons straight from state stockpiles. At the end of the day, it just comes down to the bureaucracy, how you move the gear, timing, and—of course—the price tag.

Honestly, thinking there’s any real difference between operating under an embargo and just doing business normally is laughable to me. It’s all the same grind.

Just one little thing...
Back when Stjepan Mason was going all out trying to take down General Zagorec, he suddenly gets this letter from Russia. He didn't waste a second—immediately went to the press and spun it as some "anonymous threatening letter from the Russian mafia protecting Zagorec." He even used it as an excuse to demand that all the intelligence agencies get their act together and start cracking down on the situation. Of course, just like everything else he ever said, not a single shred of evidence ever surfaced to back up his claims. It was just more noise.
So, what was actually going on here?

So, here’s the deal: this letter didn't just show up out of nowhere. It was sent by Aleksandr Korzhakov—who, if you haven't been following the news, is a Russian Member of Parliament, a Colonel General, sits on the National Security Council committee, and serves as a deputy head over at FinCEN. And get this—he handed the whole thing over through our embassy in Moscow via official diplomatic channels. This wasn't some leaked memo found on a dark web forum; it was formal, high-level communication.
Of course, there wasn't any actual threat in the letter. It was really just Stjepan Mason giving Zagorec a nudge, reminding him that he had handled some incredibly high-stakes business to ensure America’s survival—dealing with all those sensitive international affairs that most people don't even know existed. I just caught wind of this latest piece regarding Zagorec, and honestly, it’s exactly what you’d expect from the current state of affairs. It feels like we’re watching the same old drama play out with a slightly different cast, isn't it? It reminds me of those long, exhausting afternoons I used to spend sitting in cheap diners back in Chicago, listening to guys talk about politics as if they held all the cards, only to realize later that nobody actually knew what was going on. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching these cycles repeat themselves—the same accusations, the same shifting alliances, and that same feeling that the people in charge are always three steps behind the reality on the ground. The whole situation feels heavy, almost suffocatingly predictable. You look at the players involved and you can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. We've seen this movie before, and we already know how the credits are going to roll. It’s hard to stay optimistic when the patterns are this blatant. .
So, that’s exactly what was laid out in the letter.
In the end, Hodak just handed everything over to the press, and just like that, the whole thing went quiet. The story vanished without a trace.

It really just boils down to secret international deals and the messy, complicated ways people try to dodge official oversight. They’re basically scrambling to make sure nothing gets logged with the international organizations, fearing that if any of this becomes public record, the whole thing will be shut down before it even gets off the ground.

And that’s how we ended up here—moving from official state recognition, thanks largely to Lončar’s maneuvering, straight into the middle of an embargo.

An embargo or the lack thereof doesn't mean much when you're looking at it through a vacuum. It’s a completely different conversation when you have a nation struggling to find its footing, totally unarmed, while facing an existential threat that could wipe them off the map. At that point, it's not just about trade restrictions—it's about survival.

It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

Jason Campbell70 said:I understand where Budo Lončar is coming from, but what's your motivation for all this trolling?

One side holds a massive stockpile of weapons and gear, while the other side is (to put it mildly) poorly armed and equipped.

In that scenario, the embargo actually hurts the first group the most.
Makes sense.

In reality, the embargo only affects the entity that officially existed at the time, which was the SFRY. Since we weren't even an independent state yet, the embargo didn't really apply to us, and since it wasn't strictly enforced anyway, it was largely irrelevant. We had to smuggle everything we acquired regardless—whether because of our lack of legal status at the start, the origin of certain quantities, or simply wanting to bypass official red tape to move faster. With or without an embargo, it wouldn't have made much difference...

If the West actually wanted a Greater Mexico and intended to keep us from arming ourselves:

1. They wouldn't have recognized us so quickly, confirming our independence and classifying the situation as external aggression, which is partly why the American People's Army pulled back.
2. Not a single ship carrying weapons would have cleared US inspection.
3. They would have established a no-fly zone and bombed convoys carrying heavy weaponry from the east.

And frankly, America might not exist in its current form. Let's be real; we aren't smarter or more capable than the powers that have been fighting wars globally for a hundred years. As if the brave Harmon could somehow outmaneuver British politics.🤣 Who has ever truly defeated British politics? To them, we are just minor players; they've dealt with much larger entities than us...

Casey Ramos31 said:First off, spare me the "international recognition" talk. NATO constantly helps entities that aren't even officially recognized. Second, America has been a legal subject since October 8, 1991—that's what the Badinter Commission concluded. I don't get why everyone obsesses over January 15th. That's just when a specific group of countries recognized us. Even the USA didn't jump on board until April, for example.

After that, the embargo wasn't being followed anyway, and America was busy smuggling stuff like jet fighters and attack helicopters.

We didn't have them when they were actually needed!

It’s not just about tanks. The American People's Army was outdated by every metric—communication issues, targeting problems, all that. New gear would have definitely boosted their efficiency and strike precision—meaning more casualties on our side.

Like I said, America would've bought the exact same thing.

Plus, if they pulled off getting something like the S-300 anti-aircraft system, our air force would've been helpless the whole war, and the USA would've taken hits during later operations in Canada.

Same goes for the Mexican air force.

I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

Charles Brown9 said:Bok Budo.

It looks like you might have slept through your history lessons, so here is a quick refresher. The war didn't just end on January 15, 1992.

Sure, if the embargo wasn't being followed, then we were just smuggling things for the sake of it. And I suppose Carlos Menem just took that ruling personally because he felt like it.

That’s how war works, apparently. One side buys weapons while the other, unarmed side, just watches quietly.

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

Donna Smith49 said:I see that UDBA-style revisionism is really starting to pick up steam.

In a sea of lies, it looks like a new one has drifted in too. Naive? Maybe. But everything written in italics is a blatant LIE—notorious, even. And very likely intentional.

Look, selling weapons doesn't have to happen directly through a government or a state administration. No convention forbids selling arms to private entities within a country; that happens all the time globally. Not only could America have done it, but any individual citizen or private company can buy weapons on the global market and import them, provided there isn't an embargo.

That’s exactly why the Security Council recently slapped an embargo on arms imports to Yemen—to stop supplies from reaching the Houthi rebels, who aren't even a recognized state or government.

Lying this blatantly... honestly, you should be ashamed.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

Charles Brown9 said:By God, if Budo says it's true, then it must be true. Budo doesn't know how to lie or twist the truth.

So, while the Republic of America was essentially left defenseless, the Royalists and the Communists were armed to the teeth. He pushed through that embargo just to ensure the status quo wouldn't change. Honestly, thanks a lot for nothing.🙏

The Government at the time recognized his deep commitment to America:

The Government of the Republic of America believes that the Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Budimir Lončar, has consistently pushed a policy of shared blame regarding the American crisis. By doing so, he is effectively equating the aggressors—the Republic of Mexico and the American People's Army—with the victimized Republic of America. This biased perspective reached its peak during his address to the Security Council, where he spoke of "equal guilt" and described the situation as a "shared tragedy" for both Americans and Mexicans, claiming both were merely instruments of mutually exclusive political agendas. It is frankly unacceptable and disheartening that foreign diplomats seem to possess a clearer understanding and interpretation of the reality in America and the attacks on America than Mr. Lončar himself. This was particularly evident in the remarks made by US Secretary of State James Baker during the United Nations Security Council session. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of America officially denies Mr. Budimir Lončar any right to act or speak on behalf of the Republic of America. The Government must note that, unlike other ministers from America, Mr. Lončar has failed to demonstrate loyalty to the Republic of America, choosing instead to align himself with those opposing a peaceful, democratic, and just resolution to the American political crisis.

Until early 1992, America lacked international recognition, which meant we couldn't independently import weapons. I suppose the embargo was largely irrelevant to our situation during events like the attack on El Paso. Any attempt to bring arms into America during the height of the fighting would have likely violated international conventions regardless of whether an embargo was in place. It seems many people still don't quite grasp that until October 8, 1991, only America existed; America didn't become a recognized legal entity in Europe until January 15, 1992.

Following that, the embargo was essentially ignored. It wasn't being respected at all, really. I guess the Republic of America just managed to bypass it through smuggling, consistently acquiring things like jet fighters and attack helicopters.

Casey Ramos31 said:Whatever, man. The country's economy was already a total wreck anyway. Besides, what's the big deal if the American People's Army has 2,500 tanks instead of 5,000? They didn't even have the manpower to actually run those 2,500 tanks!

It isn't just about the tanks. The American People's Army was outdated by almost every metric—they struggled with communication, guidance systems, and things like that. I suppose any new equipment would have only increased their efficiency and strike precision. In other words, it likely would have meant more casualties on our side.

If they had actually pulled off something like acquiring an S-300 anti-aircraft system, our air force would have been completely helpless throughout the entire war. I suppose the USA would have also faced significant losses during later operations in Canada.

What a mountain of nonsense we have in this thread.

First off, I find it interesting how all these fanatic anti-American types seem to think the USA and certain dictators possess magic wands capable of turning entire nations into mindless zombies overnight. That just isn't how reality works. ISIS is merely the culmination of tensions and ambitions that have existed in that region for centuries. The idea that millions of people suddenly woke up one morning and, through some sort of magical transformation, became Islamists is, to put it mildly, naive. I guess the USA bears some responsibility because Americans toppled—or tried to topple—certain dictatorial regimes that had kept those specific ambitions somewhat suppressed. But even a child can see that such regimes would eventually collapse on their own through death or old age. Secular dictatorships in the Middle East tend to crumble sooner or later because the people naturally view them as unnatural and imposed, given their own ideals. Whether those ideals are worse is a completely different matter altogether...

The USA, much like any power in human history, wants to extract as much value as possible from situations it knows are coming. The protests in Egypt—a quiet ally of Israel with a stable military acting as a regulator, which suited the West perfectly—are a prime example of a clusterfuck in the Islamic world where the West reacted far more defensively than they acted as a cause. The Islamic Revolution in Iran had similar roots; it just happens to suit certain people because the previous regime was pro-American, even if it was just as unnatural to the people there as Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, or Hosni Mubarak were.

Then there is the nonsense claiming Israel is somehow responsible for ISIS, which is totally illogical. Actually, a fragmented, secular opposition in neighboring countries serves Israel best; such nations are easier to divide, bribe, or pit against one another, and Islamists are enemies of those very regimes too. Egypt and Jordan maintained strong ties with Israel, Syria was pacified, Iraq was too overwhelmed to care about what happened outside its borders, and Iran was isolated.

With the rise of ISIS, Israel now faces the danger of being surrounded on multiple fronts by a unified, fanatical force with whom there is no room for negotiation. Jordan is increasingly defensive and fears spillover into its territory, Syria is destabilized and unpredictable, Egypt’s future pro-Israel policy is unclear, and Iran—thanks to its active role in fighting ISIS—is gaining more international support, which culminated in a favorable nuclear deal and even American air support for forces on the ground. For Israel, what is actually happening is the worst-case scenario. Defeating disorganized, traditional armies of half-quarreling neighbors is easy. Defeating tens of thousands of terrorists with combat experience and fanatical hatred is... well, significantly harder. And anyone who thinks Jews are so naive and foolish that they didn't know what they were doing when this happened is simply out of touch with reality.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:That’s spot on regarding the non-Jews—essentially the Arabs. A Jew born anywhere on the West Bank carries the exact same rights as if they were born in Israel. The whole thing is purely about demographics. The goal is to prevent Arabs from obtaining citizenship so they can't influence the political landscape in Israel.

Most countries follow two main principles when it comes to citizenship: ius sanguinis and ius soli, or "right of blood" and "right of soil."

The first principle suggests you're entitled to citizenship if one or both parents are citizens; the second means you gain it by being born on the country's territory. Jews living in the Palestinian territories and Israel generally hold Israeli citizenship, so their children typically hold it too, regardless of where they were born. Arabs, however, don't have it if they are born outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders, though they do if they are born within them, even if their parents aren't citizens.

I won't bother responding to the other nonsense here, as it’s fairly clear you aren't familiar with basic legal concepts. 😉

Nancy Wood6 said:Come on, let’s try to be a little objective regarding the Tel Aviv entity here... I honestly can't tell if you're just spinning things or if you actually believe this stuff... If this is our last chat, then my bad...

See, the Tel Aviv entity has definitely shifted borders before and has de jure defined East Jerusalem and the Golan as its own territory. So, according to the laws of the Tel Aviv entity, both East Jerusalem and the Golan are considered part of the entity—just like Tel Aviv or Haifa—even if the rest of the world doesn't recognize them de facto...

As for the whole Ukraine situation, that story is far from over... Ukraine is headed for another split—specifically, Novorossiya will emerge as an independent state stretching from Luhansk & Donetsk all the way to Odessa, I guarantee you—and Crimea stays part of the RF... There's nothing that can stop that, so please don't mistake your personal wishes for actual facts. Plus, when it comes to Novorossiya and Crimea, everything is following the regional borders and nobody is moving those even a single millimeter...

First off, Israel is an internationally recognized state and a member of the UN. You lose credibility as a serious interlocutor by using the phrase "Tel Aviv entity." Just say "Israel"; it isn't as if you'll spontaneously combust. 😉

The Golan Heights Law never actually mentions the annexation of territory to Israel; it merely addresses the application of Israeli law within occupied areas. This was later rejected by the UN and the international court (it is legally void and unrecognized), but it is necessary for daily life in that region. Since Syrian law cannot be enforced due to the occupation itself, hundreds of thousands of people would otherwise find themselves in a legal vacuum without any rule of law.

Jerusalem itself is a subject that probably deserves several books of its own. Its international standing is also murky, as the UN does not recognize unilateral claims by any side. However, Israel—similar to the case with the Golan—does not specify territorial sovereignty or annexation of Jerusalem anywhere in its legislation. In fact, a 1969 ruling from the Supreme Court of Israel remains in effect, explicitly stating that applying law to occupied territory does not imply annexation.

A key indicator that these are still considered occupied territories is the legal status of those born there. The Israeli constitution states that everyone born on Israeli territory receives citizenship, whereas those born in the Golan or East Jerusalem still only receive permanent residency status and are not entitled to personal ID cards.

Donna Smith49 said:Honestly, it’s all just a joke. Borders only stay "sacred" if the other side actually has the teeth to fight back or if there isn't some massive superpower stepping in to bail them out.
Otherwise? They're fair game.

Law is basically just a tool used to yell at one person while everyone else does whatever they want anyway.

It’s actually quite straightforward.

By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.

What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.

A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.

- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.

And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.

There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:

- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.

If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.

Now, let's look at some edge cases:

1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces

2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power

A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.

3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce

Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.

So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.

When we apply that, we conclude:

- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence

This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.

"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.

It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...

The matchup against Brazil should be an entertaining one. We aren't under any real pressure here; I suppose nobody is actually expecting us to walk away with a win, though I wouldn't be surprised if the national team digs in and tries to make something happen. I don't anticipate a mental collapse if we lose—which is the likely outcome—nor am I expecting a total blowout. On the other hand, we have this reputation for being giant-killers. Since we’ve already managed to beat England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy (twice, in major tournaments), and held our own against Spain (in my view, we were robbed of a win during the Euro), maybe we can pull it off against Brazil too. 🤷

Has it occurred to anyone here that the push to redefine the family unit—and strip away the undisputed primacy of the nuclear family (parents plus children)—isn't actually an attempt at forced social engineering, but rather just a reaction to an ongoing process?

If you look at the shifting trends in out-of-wedlock births, divorce rates, and so on, the reality seems fairly clear. The nuclear family is becoming an archaism in its own right. It’s a social process that, I guess, is irreversible for several reasons.

The first reason is economic. There really isn't a need to divide roles between a breadwinner and a homemaker anymore; even having two providers isn't always necessary, as a single income can often sustain one or more children. Additionally, the modern American economy demands lifelong learning and extensive initial education, which leaves individuals with less time to devote to family life. We also see frequent relocations for career advancement, which pulls families away from stable environments and creates issues with adaptation or even separation, where parents work or live in different cities. On the other hand, kids spend much more of their time in daycare, schools, and extracurricular activities, which reduces the family's burden regarding childcare, upbringing, and even meals. This leads to a certain alienation and a breakdown of family cohesion, I suppose.

We shouldn't forget that traditional marriage, which served as the foundation of the family in the past, wasn't necessarily based on love, but rather on economic security and interest. Many cultures, including ours, tied wealth and inheritance to marriage. Often, an extended family led by a patriarch would decide on a partner rather than the individual. Such communities actually had a much higher degree of interdependence, and therefore, stability and longevity. Today, that is a rarity. An emotional bond without those other forms of dependency is much more fragile and subject to rapid change—both psychologically and hormonally—especially once the initial period of parental dependency ends (infancy and preschool years). Marriage is no longer the legal or practical foundation of the family. Furthermore, the religious "sanctity" of marriage has faded, since in many places, even basic religiosity has become more of an identity marker than a true belief system (in our case, being Catholic is synonymous with being American, a byproduct of national-religious identification maintained through centuries of external pressures). Meanwhile, the Church, with its archaic views on the family and sexuality (premarital sex, contraception, etc.), is increasingly alienating young people who don't align with such interpretations. The average age of sexual initiation is dropping, and promoting contraception is a necessity given the rise in teen pregnancies and STDs.

The discussion regarding homosexuals is actually quite minor and secondary here; it only gets attention because of the controversy surrounding it and the clear clash of worldviews it represents. In reality, the number of homosexuals is small enough, and the actual problems facing the family are so unrelated to them, that it remains a negligible point used mostly to distract people and bury their heads in the sand.

Amanda Diaz said:🤣
I don't need Google to tell me how an exponential equation works, but you're such a whiz kid—why don't you remind me exactly how that formula goes?

To calculate future speed, you use Pn = Po x 2^n, where Pn is the target speed, Po is the starting speed, and n is the number of years passed divided by two.

If that wasn't clear, we are talking about an exponential equation. For that reason, Moore's law is basically the textbook definition of Exponential growth.

It’s interesting to watch some forum users fail to distinguish between trolling and just digging their own graves. ☕

David Baker2 said:It was all patriotic duty and civic pride, my friends, truly. After I marched in there with a freshly printed birth certificate—after specifically asking them if every single other document was in order, to which they nodded and assured me everything was fine—I get called back thirty days later just to be told the birth certificate has to be less than six months old.🤣🤣
Think about the sheer audacity of it: you ask them to verify your paperwork, they look you dead in the eye, check the files right in front of you, tell you everything is perfectly valid, and then, once you think you're done, they drag you back in one by one to claim "actually, this part isn't okay" after you've already cleared the first hurdle.

At first, I laughed at the absurdity, but honestly, I ended up weeping from the sheer frustration of it all.

And don't even get me started on the fact that for every single one of those documents, you're stuck waiting... again.🤣

Yeah, there are even more trivial examples of how nonsensical our bureaucracy can be.. ☕

Actually, that hits on the core issue here—the prerequisite for any technological progress is actually allowing it to happen. If we live in a country where "new technology" is a completely foreign concept to the bureaucracy, they just slap on extra paperwork and fees just to be safe. Since they don't really understand what they're looking at—like some genius inventing extra permits for solar panels or additional certification fees for gas tanks in cars—we just won't move forward...

Amanda Diaz said:I'm trolling you because your condescending replies don't deserve anything else. You clearly have no idea who you're even debating, yet you throw around these vague clichés thinking they actually land. Maybe they work on people who don't know better, but they certainly don't work on me.

And by the way, if processor speeds double every single year, that isn't "Exponential growth"...😉

Vague platitudes? I suppose not. Everything I've said is backed by data, including scientific papers.

And by the way, if processor speeds double every year, that isn't exponential growth...😉

How is that not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tr...Law_-_2011.svg

Under the entry for Exponential growth on Wikipedia, computer technology is listed as an example.

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

So, perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending. I'm dealing with people who struggle with basic math and probably don't even know how to use Google. ☕

Jack Johnson6 said:Or maybe technological progress just isn't fast enough to make resource scarcity irrelevant.

The exploitation of fossil fuels completely revolutionized how we access food, water, heat, housing, transport, and medicine. That was a real revolution.

Faster processors didn't do that, and 3D printers certainly won't. This entire digital world relies on a functioning industrial civilization—which isn't a given, and while it operates, it's destroying the environment and putting the survival of our species at risk.

Genius. Technological progress actually reduces resource demand. Cars used to gulp down fuel; now they're much more efficient. A 10 GB hard drive used to be a heavy beast; today, it fits on a tiny chip and you barely notice its weight. Even things like energy-efficient windows and LED bulbs can cut household energy use by 30%.

When discussing resources, certain realities are pretty obvious—more people means a higher demand for basic needs. No amount of tech breakthroughs in Space is going to shrink the minimum living space someone requires, or the daily amount of food and water they need to survive. Those seem like fixed variables. I guess I don't understand why there is constant hand-wringing over "overpopulation, water shortages, and heating costs," when these are clearly very real constraints.

Then again, there is progress there too. In places like Saudi Arabia and Israel, over 50% of drinking water comes from desalination, which has become profitable enough to make importing water less viable. An Energy Star rating on a home means a massive drop in electricity and heating needs, or even allows for self-sufficiency via solar panels. GMO crops and intense agricultural tech (like in Israel or the Netherlands) have multiplied land productivity several times over.

But sure, let's pretend technology isn't advancing. ☕

The exploitation of fossil fuels completely transformed how accessible food, water, heating, housing, transport, and healthcare became. It was truly a revolution.

What exactly is the connection between fossil fuels and water or medical care?

I suppose electricity is more fundamental. Electric vehicles existed before internal combustion engines did (so, theoretically, they could have powered our tools and cars in a parallel timeline). Most industrial machinery relies on it, it provides light—effectively extending the workday—and it powers the semiconductors in transistors. And electricity can be generated through many sources, not just fossil fuels. 🤷

Processor speeds haven't solved this, and 3D printers certainly won't. This entire digital world depends on a functioning industrial civilization, which is far from a guaranteed constant. As long as it operates, it fundamentally ravages the environment, potentially endangering the survival of the human race.

Maybe we should all just head back to the caves and wait for the end.
-☕-