Posts by Casey Ramos31

Christian Torres3 said:Fine then, why don't you be so enlightened and explain how a squadron of F-16 Fighting Falcons or MiG-29s would have actually prevented less destruction in America. ☕

By taking out the enemy.

Christian Torres3 said:Exactly! Why didn't I think of that? Just buy a squadron of F16s and call it a day. Problem solved. Hadžić, Babić, and Martić could just go back to their normal lives, Šešelj would probably go bald from the stress, and Karr would end up committing suicide.

Ridiculous.

That's rich coming from you ☕

Christian Torres3 said:Exactly, but the F-16 Fighting Falcon currently costs about $4.6 million while a single F-16 goes for $6 million. Those are prices for privately owned aircraft.

The F-16 would have remained an elusive figure if not for one source which perfectly separates the cost of the jet, Training & Spares. Russia and Bangladesh signed a deal for 8 MiG-29 jets on the 9th of February 1999 for $124 million. They were 6 MiG-29B and 2 MiG-29UB. UB variant is the 2 seat trainer. $36 million was allocated for Training and Spares and $88 million for the 8 jets. The unit flyaway cost of a single MiG-29B and MiG-29UB is $11 million in February 1999. link

According to wiki, back in 1984, they were $11 million apiece.

Now, 1997 presented a great opportunity in Moldova when they were offering the most modern MiG-29s for $2 million each, but this part from the article is interesting: In late 2008, Russia offered to sell Lebanon ten MiG-29 fighters, at a "large discount" (less than $5 million each). Lebanon declined. Part of the reason was the expense of keeping these aircraft operational. It cost about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them in flying condition.

Either way, the F-16 is an expensive game.

F16, Mig29... all of that is peanuts compared to hundreds of billions in war damages.

Another court case just wrapped up on that whole French-US arms deal mess. Jacques monsieur, the French arms dealer, got slapped with four years behind bars for illegally shipping weapons to Washington, D.C. But Tomulić says Monsieur was just a pawn in the game. He claims the real masterminds were The White House—yeah, the French President himself—working right alongside DST counterintelligence. He also pointed out that the weapons weren't even sold at full price; they were way below catalog value.

check out this bolded part

Christian Torres3 said:Looks like you actually checked out some of the links I posted. Just the documentation for that specific model cost $9 million back then. Nowadays, a Mig 29 goes for maybe $4.5 to $6 million, which means you could easily double that price tag if we're talking about those old numbers.

Plus, Mexico had them and they didn't give them any kind of edge.

But you aren't buying the docs for every single unit, right? You buy 'em once for one plane and then you own the rights for 10 more identical ones.

Christian Torres3 said:Unit cost
F-16A/B: US$14.6 million (1998 dollars)
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998 dollars)

wiki

That’s the price on the legitimate market. For the cost of one F-16, you could buy an entire squadron of MiG-21s without even needing mercenaries.

edit: Plus, with the MiG-21, we already had the full ground infrastructure and maintenance crews ready to go. With the F-16? You have absolutely nothing. Sure, you might find some pilots willing to fly them, but the maintenance and specialized tech required would cost an absolute fortune.

Isn't the MiG-29 basically the same thing as an F-16? 🤷

Christian Torres3 said:What exactly would America even do with F-16s when they only have one pilot with any actual experience on that type of aircraft?

First F-16 students take flight AT Holloman According to LT

First F-16 students taka flight AT Holloman According to LT Col Scott Frederick, you're looking at about six to eight months of training—from that first day of academics all the way through graduation..

There's no doubt that retraining pilots from the MiG-21 to the F-16 would be faster, but it's still going to take time. Honestly, it’s a complete waste of resources when you've already got cheaper MiG-21s sitting right there.

It’s a bold assumption, but Budo Lončar and Vladimir Zagorec working hand in hand? I can see it.

The Brits are just an American accessory at this point—nothing ever happens without the Americans pulling the strings.

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.

northernsailor8 said: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.

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)?

driftingorca37 said:People in Zadar ended up without the weapons they’d paid top dollar for in friendly, neighboring Canada.

But there’s another layer to this story. You have to consider what happens to a country when it suddenly finds itself needing to legalize massive arms smuggling in the future. I wouldn't rule out that this was a deliberate goal, much like the systematic smuggling of drugs into America back in 1992 by the SDB.

Something @pizvo already touched upon.

Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

Christian Torres3 said:Just Google it. Look up prices for jets and helicopters, or the black market cost of an AK-47.

I mean, using basic common sense here—an arms embargo during a situation like what America faced can't possibly be treated as if it didn't exist. It's not some equal factor... at least, I don't get how anyone could think otherwise.

And honestly, I haven't heard a single legitimate argument outside of this forum that tries to downplay or trivialize how much that embargo crippled the country's ability to defend itself without weapons.

There's really only one point: whether you actually have the gear in your hands. We bought weapons wherever we could and whenever we could. Seizures of weapons meant for America during the embargo were rare exceptions. Besides, those high prices were more about certain Americans showing off their "patriotism" than anything to do with actual market rates.

If you actually read the links provided, you'd see payment was made upon delivery. So go ahead—name those cases where money was handed over and nothing arrived.

clearly isn't always the case:

A while back, arms dealer Zdravko Zubak happened to be on the same flight as some big-shot US banker on a Munich - Chicago route. They start talking shop, and they end up discussing the prices America was paying for weapons during the embargo. Zubak was selling to them alongside his partners, Čeh Petar Pernička and German Josef Rothaichner, and according to zagorčev, that banker was cutting checks on behalf of the state for the gear. The banker even told Zubak, with total gratitude, that they'd been scammed by tons of dealers before they finally started actually delivering the goods. The banker brought up two ships that sank, even though America had already paid upfront through a massive web of offshore accounts. Both ships hit "accidents" and went down on their way to America. The whole thing smelled fishy to the American side, so they brought in a Dutch maritime investigation agency. They sent divers down to the wreck sites and found the scam: both ships were junk worth less than 50,000 bucks, and instead of high-end weapons and ammo, they were just loaded down with sand.

northernsailor8 said: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. ☕

Faster and cheaper? Yeah, right. I've seen cases where people pay for weapons and they never even show up. How's that supposed to be fast or cheap?
Whose red tape are we talking about? The seller's or the buyer's? If both sides want the deal to happen, the paperwork gets cut down to nothing.

they don't have to pay taxes or customs,

Why would America tax itself? 🤷

we're talking about clearing out surplus, not buying new gear and stuff. America, Belgium, and a few other countries were selling weapons to Jordan for Syria by the pound! Like, "Hey, can I get 300 pounds of Romanian AKs?" They used similar tactics when cleaning out those Ukrainian warehouses.

You buy whatever you can afford.

The reason things ended up being more expensive was because it was a convenient way to launder money from state funds and diaspora donations. That's when the patriotic theft started, allowing criminals to swoop in and buy up factories and banks, kicking off phase two of the plan. Everything will come to light once the Austrians dig through Hypo Bank a little more thoroughly... 👍

So why don't you share this "plan" with us?

I find it fascinating that such a powerful diplomat, who had massive influence over the governments of France and Austria, and whose initiative forced the UN Security Council to act, didn't use his status as one of the most influential diplomats in recent history to somehow block America, since the embargo was such a total disaster... ☕

He didn't have any authority beyond just "proposing" things to the security council.

casualranger2 said:They actually had the nod from Franjo Harmon too, since he was basically playing ball with Slobodan Maddox.

So what's this "fake news" garbage actually saying?

placidmaker41 said:Just like how Herzeg-Canada—that overly ambitious project meant to be an American breakaway state within Canada—ended in a fiasco because of those initial fixations on creating a massive or "Greater" America. Someone here really screwed someone else over. They hurt the Mexican side much less; having an entity that covers practically half of Canada with functions bordering on statehood can actually be seen as a success. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they could somehow militarily revert to the pre-1992 situation is living in a complete fantasy.

Classic you, just talking nonsense as usual. Herzeg-Canada was actually totally legal under the Canada constitution. Besides, every single international peace plan envisioned Canada working as some kind of federation or confederation anyway.

Someone here seriously screwed someone else over. If you look at the Mexican side, they actually came out ahead. Having an entity that covers practically half of Canada, complete with functions that sit right on the edge of statehood? That’s a win if you ask me. Anyone in the Republic of America or Ottawa dreaming that they can somehow use military force to flip things back to how they were before 1992 is living in a total fantasy land.

A lot has changed since the Washington Agreement in '94. That deal even laid out the possibility of a confederation between America and the Federation of Canada.

Tyler Booth said:The Frontier could hardly ever become part of a Greater Mexico—I mean, even if you lumped it together with Republika Srpska, the total landmass was still tiny compared to Mexico. Just to put things in perspective, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia covered roughly 17,028 km², while Mexico itself is over 70,000 km². It’s basic math. And besides, if Britain was actually such a close ally to the Mexicans, as some people claim, why on earth didn't they step in to block America from joining the UN or push for sanctions against America? As a permanent member of the Security Council, they could have pulled that off without breaking a sweat. Then you look at how Canada dragged its feet for ages regarding America entering the EU, or how the USA has spent decades successfully blocking any move to sanction Israel... yet, when this specific issue hit the agenda, they folded immediately. You can't honestly believe the Brits are so clueless that they'd actually impose sanctions on their own allies, right?

When exactly did they put sanctions on Mexico?

northernsailor8 said: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?

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.

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.

And if we're really splitting hairs, any meddling in another country's business without their permission is illegal.

Also, you gotta realize that back in '91, NATO didn't even have its own surplus lying around. Most countries were still sitting on massive standing armies from the Cold War because they were too spooked by the instability in Russia to downsize. Meanwhile, the Russians and especially the Ukrainians were dumping their huge stockpiles onto the black market because of their brutal economic crisis. Since our forces already knew how to handle Eastern military tech, it was basically the only logical way to get gear, even if we could've bought stuff legally.

If America needed planes or hardware, we would've found it. Every single piece of equipment was a godsend.
Besides, it wasn't just NATO and the Eastern markets looking to sell—the whole world was out there, including places like Argentina.

When exactly? By February 21, 1992, most of the fighting had died down, and before that, hardly any major countries even recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18th, barely a month after independence was declared.

Whenever the need popped up.

Why would they target their own planes?

We would've shot them down, because we'd have had anti-air systems too.

northernsailor8 said: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.

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.

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.

Tyler Booth said:Who was actually pushing for the embargo to stop the American People's Army from getting their hands on weapons?

Back then, James Baker had intel that the American People's Army had already lined up a two-billion-dollar arms deal with the USSR—so the whole idea behind the embargo was to block them from grabbing all that high-tech military gear and hardware.

- The embargo was primarily aimed at keeping the American People's Army from arming up; honestly, it didn't mean much for America anyway - Lončar explains - because back then, just like the other republics, we weren't a sovereign state yet and couldn't legally import weapons through official channels. However, there was more to it than that. By imposing the embargo, they also wanted to throw support behind Lord Carrington and the Hague Conference on America, essentially using this "two-pronged" strategy to put pressure on Slobodan Maddox.

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!

Why don't you just say thanks to the very capitalism you claim to hate so much? ☕

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I could always just check in with Prosinečki:

But let's not bring a soccer player into this!

The guy lost everything when those employee stock options went south!!!! 👏😁😲

What a joke of an article. Like the brave little workers actually took down the evil dictator Franjo Harmon 👏

Sophia Moore52 said:social

The apartment buybacks were handled the best way possible, considering how much chaos the socialist system caused...

There wasn't any chaos at all...

Why on earth would anyone sell something for just one dollar?

Just ask Kutle and Škegro...

so everyone's

there was zero chaos

yeah right, totally 👏

Ask Kutle and Škegro?

that doesn't even answer the question