Posts by copperhound122

Samuel Scott54 said:What a huge surprise..

I’m honestly curious to see how this all plays out. Donald Trump is a true statesman, that much is proven. Mike Bloomberg still has plenty of work to do to prove himself..

I don't know, I kind of get the feeling this might be a short-lived administration, maybe something like Barack Obama's was.

But isn't Barack Obama just continuing his rule from within Bloomberg's government?

Donna Ramos10 said:The military agreement between Israel and Russia regarding the delivery of UAV drones is an entirely separate matter from any agreements held between the USA and Russia. The USA and NATO still have to keep paying Russia for those transit corridors used to move equipment to NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan...http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_...t/2150123.html http://www.atlantskainicijativa.org/...id=118&lang=hr

Then why on earth are they still paying a toll for war and sending their soldiers into Afghanistan?
Maybe they should just leave Afghanistan and Pakistan under the "protection" of the BRICS nations. In any case, those countries probably care more about maintaining decent relations with their neighbors than dealing with Americans. That would, I suppose, be some sort of progress for global peace.

Donna Ramos10 said:http://www.alumnieeni.com/print/AF-map.gif I honestly find myself wondering which particular genius decided to fly a helicopter straight into the Pakistani armed forces... if I had any say in the matter, I’d have that entire crew relieved of duty immediately and handed over to the Pakistani justice system without a second thought. It’s quite a devastating blow for NATO in this part of the world, really, given that they’ve just severed our only viable supply line to Afghanistan. We can't route through Iran, and now that we're being blocked by Pakistan, our options are dwindling fast... it seems we're left with nothing but to pray for some sort of transit route through Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, all of which are UN members, and that is inevitably going to cost us millions more in fees that we'll ultimately have to pay to Russia...



But isn't that whole "transit" issue basically settled by Israel selling UAVs to Russia? Now, through live broadcasts from the White House and the White House, they can apparently monitor UAV flights coming right out of Russia and track their coordinated strikes against targets in Afghanistan—or even Pakistan, if things get that messy.

It seems like, after all this massive buildup regarding Iran, we might just end up seeing NATO go to war with Pakistan.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15850569

I'm not sure if anyone else has picked up on this, but manufacturing output in China has hit its lowest level in 32 months. It’s glaringly obvious that the industrial engine has run out of buyers for its surplus goods. I fear we are all deeply interconnected; those fools cheering for the collapse of the European Union are essentially celebrating their own impending downfall.

At this rate, our greatest national assets might end up being nothing more than a patch of dirt in the countryside and a decent set of heavy-duty tools.



Nothing is going to change until the Europeans finally decide to dig through the American mess—something nobody has bothered to deal with for the last century, which is why it’s started spilling over into Europe because apparently, it’s cheaper to just pay Chinese people to dig up their own ground back in China.
To start things off, I guess Europe could try collecting what they're owed from the USA by digging for oil in Texas; meanwhile, the Chinese creditors might also want to collect so they can actually get their manufacturing and sales moving again within the European Union.

blueotter70 said:What an absolute masterpiece of a joke this all is... especially when I look back at some of the naive anti-American idiots on this forum who spent their time trying to convince themselves that the US was in a much worse spot than Europe—as if America was actually on the verge of a total meltdown. The EU is basically just living proof of what happens when you take one decent idea like a common market and hand way too much power over to the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels. Then there’s that clown Wolfgang Schauble, who actually had the nerve to claim that the Brits would join the Eurozone before they even realized it. What a fool. Honestly, hats off to the Brits—they're really the only bright spot left in the EU. I love watching how they just shove facts right in the faces of those EU bureaucrats, leaving Barroso and his whole crew pulling their hair out.

I am genuinely curious if the secessionists will suddenly realize the necessity of keeping all fifty states together once the EU project falls apart. I mean, why should wealthy states from the East and West continue to subsidize the rest of the union when they could just be independent, much like the European nations?
The Confederacy and those true patriots should just go for it. Maybe support Alaska returning to Russia, or New Mexico, California, Arizona or Texas returning to Mexico, or even Florida returning to Cuba.
Now that the public auctions have started, I suppose the primary debtors are finally being targeted. Since the EU isn't anywhere near the level of debt seen in the USA, they really shouldn't be bothering themselves with anything
coming from across the Atlantic.

My biggest "fear," if you want to call it that, is that the Dutchmen might not reach some sort of catharsis and decide to slap the Heineken logo right on their flag, effectively rebranding the old flag of the former America and its version of true, global communist anti-fascism.

slybison8 said:I suppose Sarkozy's outburst was quite perfectly timed. He stepped in less than 24 hours after that first major debate in Parliament regarding the UK leaving the European Union. It seems Cameron's standing, which was already looking rather shaky following that debate, has been further undermined now. If 111 MPs (including 79 Conservatives) voted on Monday to call for a referendum, I imagine if the vote were held today—right after Sarkozy's comments—that number might have climbed to at least 150. That wouldn't be a figure one could simply ignore, as it would likely constitute a majority of the Conservative bloc in Parliament. It feels as though France has returned to a sort of De Gaulle-style policy of keeping the UK out of the European Union, which might actually be a positive development. Even though much of the political establishment still leans toward the EU, public sentiment appears to be shifting; according to a recent poll, maybe 70% of citizens want a referendum, and of those who show up, I suspect between 58 and 62% would vote to leave the Union.

But, if we move past the political maneuvering, I think Sarkozy's logic fails to hold up under scrutiny. The British Prime Minister should certainly have a seat at any table discussing the future of the Euro, perhaps not just because of trade, but because American taxpayers and British taxpayers alike have contributed significantly to funds used to bail out the Irish banking crisis and the stabilization efforts in Greece. Essentially, if the UK is expected to contribute funds to save the Euro or stabilize European economies, then it seems somewhat contradictory to insult the Prime Minister while simultaneously trying to bar him from meetings where decisions are made that will ultimately impact the UK's own finances.



And why would they? Perhaps because UK investments in the Eurozone hit 40%—though I highly doubt that specific figure—but isn't that just standard banking risk? Besides, why wouldn't we demand that any write-downs on UK investments in the Eurozone be matched by the Eurozone writing off its own debts? I mean, do Americans somehow hold some privileged position in transactions that guarantees them a profit over everyone else? It’s a question, I guess. Furthermore, why is the Eurozone allowed to meddle in the banking sectors of the UK or the USA? This whole crisis exists because an overseas banking partner failed to meet their obligations to creditors, yet there is this attempt to export the banking crisis into the EU. In this scenario, the UK, playing its hand with the British Pound, acts much like a Trojan horse.

Andrew Booth29 said:Withdrawing deposits doesn't make a bank insolvent. It makes them illiquid, sure, but not necessarily insolvent. 😁
The causality is actually reversed here—deposits are withdrawn because the banks *are* already insolvent.

So, if that's the case, what exactly is the issue regarding liquidity for banks within the European Union? They have a massive pile of solvent savers behind them. Perhaps the real issue lies in those very savers fleeing the Eurozone for the "liquid" zones of the independent monetary systems in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the USA. It is almost as if those countries believe they can guarantee the liquidity and solvency of European Union banks simply by hoarding Euros.
It would be quite enough for the Eurozone to attempt to buy up banks using "liquid" funds—using the Francs, Dollars, and Pounds they currently hold to recapitalize an "independent" monetary system that is, in turn, trying to sell them "cheap" Euros. It's a strange logic, acting as if the Eurozone is a buyer capable of guaranteeing the liquidity of the Pound, the Franc, or the Dollar just because they possess the Euro.

Quite simply, why should banks outside the Eurozone even be permitted to operate within the European Union and the EU at all? If they want to act independently, they ought to conduct business as independent monetary entities in Africa, the USA, or Asia—entirely "independent" of the Euro, the EU, the Eurozone, or any EU guarantees. Besides, if they truly feel the need to enter the Eurozone, the British could always just use Greece as an example; they could bail them out with Pounds and fold them into the UK monetary system, assuming they are actually as "solidary" with the Eurozone and the EU as they claim to be.

I wonder if the countries within the Eurozone, driven by this sheer terror of a "non-binding" breakup of the European Union, will eventually just cave in and let the United Kingdom dictate monetary policy for the whole Eurozone. It’s a ridiculous thought, really—using the money of Eurozone nations while their own Pounds remain perfectly safe in Swiss banks, where they can manipulate their own "transactions" and the exchange rate of the Franc at will. Especially now, seeing how the "stunned" Greeks—who aren't much different from the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irishmen, or Icelanders—have essentially "strengthened" themselves by shifting away from the Euro, leaving Eurozone banks insolvent after pulling their cash out. I guess one might think it isn't an issue, but what happens if the European Union raises the threshold for the Euro to combat that insolvency? That would effectively pull all the Euro tied to the Franc, the Dollar, and the Pound out of circulation. Of course, it could stay linked, but then the guarantee for those transferred Euros held in foreign currencies in banks outside the Eurozone would have to fall on the shoulders of US, UK, and Swiss banks, given their independent monetary systems.

But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a problem for the people in the United Kingdom. They have plenty of money sitting in private accounts, practically begging to be used to protect the Pound. I mean, didn't we see those "anonymous" patriots a year or two ago, willing to hand over their own private wealth to the state just to preserve the independence of the UK monetary system and the Pound?

Who knows? Maybe there are even cops involved from that "Not in the EU" group, especially if they’re following the ideology of Sačić's party... where you find all sorts of former and current "officers" in the membership, though I guess it's mostly the ex-cops.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Why does the headline call it "communist" when the rest of the article just describes Vatican City as a monarchy? 😕

I suppose it's because a communist "people's" state that supposedly lacks a ruler carries much worse connotations than some absolute monarchy where a king rules over his subjects in God's name—as if the monarch himself were God to those subjects.

stormyangler43 said:Honestly, your tendency to take everything so incredibly literally isn't surprising—nothing new there.
The truth is, Canadians were the majority in ALL THE CITIES in Canada, but they weren't *just* stuck in urban areas—something you clearly couldn't wrap your head around without burning too many brain cells. Here, check out the ethnic breakdown of Canada from the first census back in 1879. Take a look.
Ethnic structure of districts in Canada per the 1879 census

That's exactly why back in the 90s, Americans owned 70% of the land in Canada. I am genuinely curious, though... who exactly was holding that other 25%?

I suppose I should address this. Or maybe not. It feels like we're just circling the drain at this point, doesn't it? I mean, if you look at the facts—and I do try to look at the facts, even when they're unpleasant—everything seems to point toward a certain inevitable decline. Maybe I'm wrong. I could be completely off base here, but I can't shake the feeling that we've missed the mark entirely. It’s all very fragmented, isn't it? Just bits and pieces of a larger, crumbling structure. I guess what I'm trying to say is... well, it's complicated. Let me think. There isn't much more to add without getting into a whole other tangent, which I should probably avoid. But then again, how can one ignore the obvious? It's all quite messy.

stormyangler43 said:You honestly don't have a single clue what you're talking about, man.
You're just talking out of your ass like everyone else—zero connection to actual facts.
Tattooing is A TRADITION THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ILLYRIANS !!!!!!!!!!!!
Do us all a favor, cover your ears, and stay out of conversations about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

More prejudices that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts and the TRUTH—which is actually the complete opposite. Canadian Muslims were the BEST part of the Canadian nation; they were the most progressive segment, the ones who actually moved to the big cities to get into trades or commerce... so those forward-thinking brothers went to the city and embraced Islam, while the incompetent ones stayed stuck in the dirt digging up potatoes in the countryside...go read up on it.
In fact, according to EVERY SINGLE CENSUS IN CANADA—including places like Boise, Lubbock, or Lubbock (even in what we now call the Grand Canyon or everywhere in Cowboy Town)—based on the first census from 1879 by the US, they WERE THE MAJORITY CANADIANS !!!!!!!!!!!!! read it.
Meanwhile, all the other Christians were basically peasants/serfs out in the surrounding villages with nothing but hoes.
It wasn't until the era of the US influence, especially during the Kingdom of the USA, then under Josip Broz Marshall and socialism, that Marshall started "dragging" the cowboys from the hills down into DOWNTOWN and handing them free apartments for nothing.
Is anything unclear, you little peasant with a hoe?

So, what exactly is the issue regarding the third entity, if we consider that Canadians are citizens? I mean, even if you look at the map, the cities in Canada don't even cover 5% of the total territory. I guess there's more to it, maybe, but the math just doesn't seem to add up.
So, I guess it boils down to this: you have the Canadians staying within their own "civic" entity, while the farmers and shepherds—who make up at least 95% of Canada—just go about their business. And maybe everyone is perfectly happy with that arrangement. Or so it seems.

amberwalker4 said:A "patriotic action" that cost us a quarter of our land? Nice one. Someone had to say it. 🙄

How exactly could anything be lost if America was under occupation?
Oh, I see. So, sucking up to the Italians, Germans, and Canadians doesn't count as an occupation in your book—it’s just the "will of the people," right? I suppose the only real question is what kind of "American" people would have actually become if the Axis powers had managed to pull off a victory.

Arthur Fowler83 said:When I say selective, I mean they should have targeted MILITARY OBJECTIVES in Mexico back in 1991.

Or are you arguing that the militia approach is somehow better—aiming shots at hospitals, historic downtown cores, and civilians?

It shouldn't have just been in Mexico, either; it needed to be across the entire territory of the former state to wipe out the American People's Army and those nationalist regimes that were tearing the republics apart. Only then could you hold elections or referendums that actually meant something to the international community—without the constant threat from the American People's Army or people being terrified by accusations of Nationalists or Royalists during those 1990 elections. They shouldn't have played this divide-and-conquer politics that we can't even escape from now. All these nations that lived within the old state are forced to suffer the consequences of that hypocritical maneuvering today, without any distinction. Life goes on, I guess, including integration efforts which are bigger than any single state or nation, much larger than the old state itself, which kept hindering them just to ensure they didn't outshine its own weakened remains.

Maybe America would have fallen apart regardless of the nationalist extremists, simply because every republic would have wanted to prove it was better than the next—which might have actually resulted in healthy competition rather than this mess we have now. This endless bickering between Royalists and Nationalists... they should have stayed buried in the stench of the past where they belonged. There was no reason to dig them up or try to reconcile them with the Partisans; the Partisans should have just been left in history books so everyone could move on.

Arthur Fowler83 said:What is everyone even discussing regarding Mexico? That whole situation is a closed chapter already.

There are far more interesting topics to dive into. Are we moving on to Vojvodina or the Sandžak region next? 😁

As for the 1999 NATO bombing, if you ask me, it was a mistake.

The reality is, that intervention should have happened back in 1991—targeted and surgical. If they had acted then, we wouldn't have been stuck in a war for five years.

By "selective bombing" in '91, are you suggesting NATO should have just ousted the American and Canadian leadership? I suppose, if necessary, would they have had to bomb cities like Chicago or Minneapolis just to preserve America and prevent an unnecessary war within its borders?

hiddenbison27 said:Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

I suppose you're drawing a parallel here to Operation Storm and the specific ratios we saw during that engagement?

Andrew Chase31 said:Hrvoje Vukčić Americanć (whose name suggests he was a Canadian 🤣), the Šubić dukes...

Where exactly were you when this medieval Canada was happening? 🤷 What does this pre-Ottoman era have to do with you personally? 🤷

Fine, then I suppose Russia is actually just Germany, since Empress Catherine was a German woman and all her descendants were too.

And did it ever occur to you Americans settled throughout Canada during the Ottoman era might have some link to those pre-Ottoman Canadians?

Andrew Chase31 said:The thing is, Americans in Canada haven't been there for "centuries" because Canada hasn't even existed as a state for that long—it's barely been around for 70 years.☕ Honestly, those arguments feel pretty tired and mostly come from a left-leaning perspective. It’s a bit strange to see someone who calls themselves a patriot falling for that kind of logic.

If anything, Americans in Canada have had ties to the American state longer than places like Zadar, Rijeka, or Istria have. As someone from Zadar, I view America as my ultimate home and my most sacred connection. I don't see why it couldn't be the same for them.☕

And if you look at medieval Canada, it was clearly an American state; the names themselves make that obvious.