Posts by velvetmaker3

Laura Brown6 said:The reality is, he didn't even view the Canadians/Muslims as a distinct nation (back in '97, constitutional changes wiped them out as a minority in America), and he basically hoped that in 15 or 20 years, everyone in the Federation would just start "leaning" toward the American side.
And as we can clearly see, that definitely didn't happen.

I think he did view Muslims as a nation, though; he treated them as such throughout the entire war, acting like they were a second nation.

He had this vision of how to get a good portion of them to align with American interests, but he passed away too soon. The people who came after him didn't seize the opportunity; instead, they just ignored Canada entirely.
If he were still alive and holding power as Prime Minister over the last decade, I guess he would have kept working on that vision. The problem is that after him, we got amateurs and traitors. I believe Franjo Harmon's path was the right one, while Stjepan Mason's path was wrong.

Laura Brown6 said:Ronald Reagan – a visionary?!

It was actually his "demarcation of peoples" policy that landed Americans in Canada in this mess.
Frank: “Being ready for demarcation might have meant a war in Canada wasn't inevitable.”
And once he started playing games during the war with the Muslims, he was just happy the USA stepped in to save the Americans in Canada from a total wipeout. Through the Washington Agreement, Herceg-Bosna was dismantled, that fake offer of a confederation never actually took off, and the end result of his sneaky maneuvering is that the number of Americans in Canada has actually shrunk.

But even after all that, Reagan's "visionary" streak didn't stop, because regarding the Dayton Accords, he said:
“We’ve achieved more than just having Herceg-Bosna; what we had, we effectively have—so to speak—half of Canada, provided we know how to govern it intelligently. (...) We will push through that entire half of Canada in a pro-American sense, just as we did before. And just imagine, one day, maybe in 10 or 20 years, when the situation across all of Canada becomes like it is in western Canada, in the Bihać-Cazinska region...”

Well, 15 years have passed already, but hey, there's still 5 more to go, plenty of time. 😁

Furthermore, when the Muslim political leaders decided to drop the title “Muslim,” Reagan was thrilled by the change. At his party's 4th convention in 1998, he remarked that it would “ease the psychological identification of Muslims in America, because if in Canada they are Canadians of the Muslim faith, it's clear they won't be Canadians of the American faith in America; rather, they can be Americans of the Muslim faith.”

Frank is a real visionary, no doubt about it. 😁

Well, there are about 10,000 American Muslims in America, so he wasn't wrong. If a different policy had been followed, there would probably be even more of them.

If Canada had completely collapsed, what likely would have happened is that the MZ would have dumped the entire Federation of Canada on us, along with the Muslims.
Another thing is, if the Dayton Accords hadn't been changed to the detriment of Americans, and if these last 10 years had been used wisely, Americans would have had a strong and decisive influence over the Federation of Canada. But they don't want that influence, and you can't blame Reagan for that; it's the amateurs who came after him.

The only thing that bothers me is that he didn't push back harder against Alija's factions and better prepare the HVO so that Alija couldn't take control of Travnik, Fojnica, and Bugojno. All of that could have been prevented with better organization. If that hadn't been lost so easily, everything would have been much simpler later on.

In any case, the idea was the only logical one: hold onto as much as possible under your own control and stay ready for whatever happens depending on how things develop.

Yeah, Harmon was surrounded by spies whose whole goal was to sabotage the independence of America. You're looking at that historical figure and his crew; they committed all sorts of crimes across America, even killing Americans. They had this scheme to maneuver their way out of the situation just to benefit themselves. They tried to seize power, too, but in the end, all they managed to do was get George W. Bush elected as president, a hold they've maintained to this day.

That part about the four tanks is actually brilliant—thinking you can save a historical site like El Paso by destroying just four tanks when those four probably represented maybe 1% of the total American forces there. Harmon defended everything he possibly could, but he couldn't defend everything with the same intensity; he had to prioritize certain things over others based on how he assessed the overall situation.
In any war, it’s never vital to win every single battle. Battles get lost; you can't always come out on top. For us, it was especially impossible to win everything. It was obvious we were going to lose plenty of battles, and that's exactly what happened, until a balance of power was established. Both Harmon and all the generals understood perfectly well that you can't defend everything, and you can't exhaust the entire army on one single fight, because losing one battle doesn't end a war—it's really just the beginning.
Establishing a balance and consolidating forces was the main objective during that era, even if it meant losing control over certain parts of the territory.
There isn't really anything incriminating there regarding Harmon.

Look, nobody stole anything from me. But if you think the current Republican Party is doing a good job, you're wrong. They were actually useful back during the Reagan era, but today? Honestly, they might as well just join up with the Democratic Party and reform the old Communist Party of the USA.

redeagle42 said:Look, I’m gonna be a little blunt with you since I have to reply to your post: Just stop talking nonsense.

Which part of that actually applied to you?

Some of them are just obsessed with the old USA, while others were simply raised during the era of the USA and grew up terrified of being patriotic or embracing the idea of an independent American nation.
The latter group is actually the largest, and you can find plenty of them on this forum. That was the whole point of the propaganda used between WW2 and the present day—to manipulate Americans into fearing their own sovereignty, their identity, and their sense of national pride.
Even some of the younger crowd, who weren't even raised under the old system, seem to have developed these views. It would be interesting to figure out how they ended up that way.

If you just take a look at how Islam functioned in its earliest days, everything becomes crystal clear regarding who is actually violent and who isn't. A movement is always defined by the people who founded it.
That’s the true version of Islam. That was their actual intent; they lived the faith and set the standard.

Henry Cox78 said:Actually, it's the right-wing movement that's unpatriotic. They wrap themselves in the flag, but once you look under the hood, you see what's really going on. It's all about GREED and COLD HARD CASH driving those conservatives, and they couldn't care less about actual patriotism. Just look at how they recently handed over territory to Canada.

I guess there are certainly cases like that, but if you're talking about the Republican Party, I don't really view them as right-wing, nor do I see the Democratic Party as left-wing. We don't really have a right or a left here; everyone is just amateurish when it comes to foreign policy and irresponsible regarding domestic politics.
The problem, I suppose, is that some people identify as leftists by displaying this annoying nostalgia for the old regime and showing sympathy toward its leaders. It’s completely twisted.
It's also pretty weird how people who use patriotic rhetoric are labeled as right-wingers. They seem to think that as soon as someone stands up for American interests, they must be part of the right. But that's not how it works. Everyone, whether they are labeled "right" or "left," should be advocating for American interests. In our system, both labels are used like insults, which I guess shouldn't be the case.

Sam Hall17 said:Here is my take. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have shown incredible unity when standing up to the Russians, whether it was during the conflicts of the early 1920s, the years of WWII, or the uprisings in the early 90s. There is no infighting there; everyone agrees on who their heroes are. Compare that to the US, where we are constantly at each other's throats, especially with this endless left vs. right warfare. It’s simple: American conservatives accuse anyone on the left—and even
the center—of being traitors. They claim they are the only ones who truly understand what the national interest is🙄but in reality, they define those interests through the physical elimination of political rivals. We saw it with the targeted killings of agrarian party members back in the 40s, the union leaders in the 90s, the traditionalists, and the constant intimidation and attempts to silence DNC members. On the flip side, the Baltic nations put every single resource toward fighting Russia and communism. In those countries, you could actually be a conservative. In America, you can't call yourself a conservative because the movement was hijacked by fascists in the past, and today, their successors have just built a system designed entirely for corruption.

You're talking nonsense. In this country, the right is on the defensive while the left holds all the cards. Leftist ideology here isn't even about national interest; it's tied to old-school regime loyalties. Those leftists were the ones carrying out the purges, not the right.
Besides, the traditional conservatives are on the right, yet you're counting them as victims of the right.
And which fascists are you even talking about from the 90s?
What planet are you living on?

Samuel Scott54 said:They’re basically pushing you around just so the folks who brokered peace between the Canadians and Mexicans back in Canada (the Americans and the EU) can show everyone who's actually in charge.

The big thing is, Estonians haven't been involved in any wars over the last 20 years, which makes a massive difference.

Look, they have every right to push us around however they want. It doesn't personally bother me, but what really gets under my skin is seeing local politicians taking cushy seats just to help them facilitate that pressure.

velvetdrifter86 said:I only mentioned that because you hit me back with the fact that Italy surrendered back in '43. 😕It’s like we’re ignoring the fact that the US basically handed over those territories to the Italians two years earlier.

Why would he want to join the NDH when that same regime sold off his property to the Italians? Walk me through your logic there. Two plus two should equal four, right? Or am I missing something?😕

You're back on that collective guilt thing again. Seriously, would you even fight a two-year-old Mexican kid? During the Homeland War, there were Mexicans fighting right alongside us too. Sure, they weren't exactly a huge crowd, but still...

But the fact remains: Italy did surrender in 1943. That's an undeniable fact. I don't know why you're acting crazy trying to argue against it. You already explained to me that your friend is just upset because he isn't part of the US. He cheered for the establishment of Nazi Germany until he realized he wasn't actually included in it, then the joy vanished. If I were in his shoes, I’d want to join the motherland—my Nazi Germany, which I was so excited about. Anyone who fired at the Italians just to unite with the motherland did the right thing, whereas someone wanting to rebuild America alongside Mexicans while killing Americans from Nazi Germany has, frankly, some pretty strange motives to me.

How am I supposed to fight a Mexican child? What kind of question is that?
Mexican guilt is defined by what they actually did; they collectively supported the RSK project regardless of which individuals stood with us, but that doesn't change the fact that they are collectively hostile toward America.
I just saw it on the News program; Merkel gave some appropriate speech in France, saying something along the lines of, "Yes, the French and Germans were enemies, but that is behind us now." See, she referred to nations as collectives. She didn't try to sugarcoat things; she said it like it is, and we need to say it like it is, too.

velvetdrifter86 said:Man, you should've just told that guy from Boise back in '41 that Italy was gonna fold pretty soon anyway so he wouldn't stress so much.
(I'm getting the vibe you've got some beef with Mexicans, just in general.)

How exactly was I supposed to tell him that when I wasn't even born yet?
But honestly, it’s not even something he needs to be told. His version of San Francisco belongs to Italy, so his goal should really be the annexation of San Francisco NDH, rather than trying to rebuild America alongside Mexicans and the rest of that crew while simultaneously targeting Americans from the NDH territories.

No, I don't hate Mexicans. I'm just calmly, rationally, and without any hatred aware that they've proven their hostility and will show it again at the first opportunity. Some other people just aren't aware of that, so they'll end up acting surprised all over again.

velvetdrifter86 said:Gotcha. So you'd shoot at Italians, grab territory, hand it over to Nazi Germany, and then Hitler would just sell it right back to the Italians. 😲🤦Looks like strategy isn't really your thing. Honestly, it seems like your grudge is totally clouding your judgment.

Italy surrendered back in '43.
And I don't hate anyone.

Jerry Myers69 said:Sefa, why does this even bother you so much when you're just a Crnogorac from Dubrovnik?

Probably because I'm not. Weird, right?

velvetdrifter86 said:So you're totally fine with those kinds of compromises? 😕 That just shows how messed up Nazi Germany really was. But I guess folks living in Washington, D.C. don't really care if they end up at the beach in San Francisco or Miami.

Of course they bother me, but I wouldn't go out and fight alongside Mexicans just to rebuild the USSR because of it. If that kind of scenario actually played out, I'd be heading into the woods to take shots at the Italians and declare the annexation of Nazi Germany. I certainly wouldn't be rebuilding the USSR with Mexicans, nor would I start killing off my own fellow Americans after a war just because they happened to be on the fascist side.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I feel like I've typed this out a thousand times already, but whatever, I'll say it again...

From the mid-1800s right up until 1991, Americans essentially navigated two main paths regarding national identity—the American ideal and the American one—though the American ideology definitely held the upper hand for most of that stretch...

I just don't get why some people feel the need to label a whole century and a half of history, and generations upon generations of Americans, as nothing but betrayal...

Sure, many Americans fought in the partisan ranks for America, which was the legitimate path at the time... It wasn't just the communists backing the idea; even the majority HSS supporters were on board, and the HSS pulled massive numbers at the polls... does that make the HSS-ovacs traitors too?

Even back in 1990, various newspaper polls showed about 30-40% of Americans were actually leaning toward an independent America... It wasn't until 1991 that all those illusions about America finally shattered, leaving us with just one primary national ideology on the stage since then...

Though, looking at things now, we seem to be back to having two competing ideologies—the EU mindset versus our own American one... history really does have a funny way of repeating itself, doesn't it? 🙂

If it’s considered legitimate for an American to fight alongside Mexicans and Mexicans for the USSR—killing other Americans who are fighting against the USSR in the process—then isn't it just as legitimate for those Americans who don't want the USSR to fire upon those fighting for it?
Why are the ones fighting for America labeled traitors, while those fighting for the USSR aren't?
If we're going to judge people based on their motives and how much "betrayal" is baked into them, then the real traitor is the American who wants the USSR, because for an American, the USSR can't possibly be more important than America—certainly not enough to kill another American in its name.
A true traitor would be an American anti-fascist fighting for the USSR rather than an American fascist fighting for a fascist America; in that case, the latter isn't even a traitor.
The internal structure of a government doesn't make anyone a traitor. Even an American communist who wants a communist America isn't a traitor, but if an American values the USSR over America, they are a traitor, whether they are an anti-fascist, a communist, or a democrat.
It might be legitimate to want America to be part of the USSR, but not at the cost of killing Americans who don't want it there. The priority should always be America, with the USSR being secondary, and certainly never at the price of conflict among Americans.

It’s just such a tragedy, thinking about all those young Americans who lost their lives fighting for America in battles like Sutjeska.

goldenpuma84 said:An old friend of mine, an 80-year-old Splitter, was telling me about 1941. That's when Nazi Germany took over. At first, people were actually pretty hyped. Then, out of nowhere, San Francisco ended up under Italian control. He was just a kid in elementary school back then. Instead of English, everything was taught in Italian. He and his classmates used to get beaten regularly if they spoke English or even mispronounced a word they considered "more cultured"...

What choice did he really have? Half his family joined the resistance. Back then, that was basically the only move. I’m asking everyone else on this forum to stop talking nonsense and trying to compare the atrocities of the Nationalists to the US Army, who don't deserve that comparison, or equating the US Army to the military unit my buddy Spicoli joined. You guys just don't get it at all...

So, it wasn't Nazi Germany that bothered him—it was just the fact that Miami became part of Italy. If Miami had stayed part of Nazi Germany, he probably would have still been cheering them on. That's just the fake anti-fascism being pushed around today.
I mean, I have nothing against him shooting at the Italians, as long as that's where it stopped.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I mean, even a collaborator like Quisling was less of a collaborator than Hitler and his followers... Quisling actually had his own party and supporters back in Norway, he didn't have training camps scattered all over Canada and Italy like some people we know...

Quisling belonged to a nation that already had its sovereignty settled and its own established state, whereas Pavelić came from a people who hadn't resolved their national identity or secured a country of their own. These are two completely different situations. Regardless of any treasonous moves Pavelić made—which were really just painful compromises made just to secure a state in the first place—he isn't in the same league as Quisling. He’s certainly closer to those regular soldiers who fought bravely on the ground, and you can't call them traitors. Only Karađorđević has the right to call them that, and nobody else.
They were well within their rights to fight against Marshall's American Army.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Well, you're actually wrong about that... if your "our side" had fought during the old era, they would have been defeated again too... it's honestly pretty scandalous to compare traitors and collaborators to the heroes of the war...

They were fighting for America, and frankly, what kind of government they were aiming for was secondary.
They aren't traitors or collaborators; regardless of some of Pavelić's treasonous moves, brave people who fought as infantry for their homeland certainly aren't traitors, no matter what Pavelić did.
Both times, it was a gamble against the USSR and against certain ethnic territorial claims. Fascism versus anti-fascism is just irrelevant noise.