Posts by Donna Smith49

crimsoncyclist71 said:Doing it on the sly, huh? That’s just how it goes when the enemy infiltrates and then works their magic in the shadows.🕺

I know, but thank God they're on the monitors.

Bryan Martin31 said:Donna Smith49,
you're just arguing with yourself at this point.

And what exactly did I say that was so different from your take?!

You're 101% right, but man, you're repeating yourself 100%. A little too much "tough guy" posturing...

Fair enough, you should probably tell him. My only issue is why things like "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," or "sex education" are considered "nostalgic nonsense." All three are parts of a normal, civilized society—one far more civilized than the deceased.

By "tolerating" them, you might actually realize that "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," and "sex education" (assuming those are the topics we're discussing here, given the snippet from my own post?) don't actually threaten the survival or sovereignty of the United States. Just a reminder: the country wasn't built on fighting against those three "bastions of nostalgia"... if that's what you're getting at.

Who exactly are we talking about here? The proponents of sex ed and those pushing for Cyrillic? Or is there a third group in the mix? Maybe some version of Occupy America?
Shouldn't you be taking it easy on the locals over there, too?
Honestly, if you're calling them "faggots," then maybe it's just common sense at this point... isn't it? 🙂

I honestly don't see how all these people pushing that old-school, regressive agenda—whether they're obsessing over gender studies in schools or fighting over alphabet soup—could ever actually step outside the bounds of a functional democracy. Take the whole debate over alternative scripts; we already had a supreme court ruling on that, just like any legitimate democratic nation would have. And guess what? All five sides eventually shook hands and accepted it. Why can't they?
Military units tasked with teaching sex education in schools? So far, nobody’s actually identified them. But honestly, who believes there's any actual desire to tear this country apart just over a two-hour homeroom session about gender equality?
The term "pederi" doesn't really describe guys who can handle blood and violence without flinching. Does that even make sense? Not really.

Are you talking about Mexicans? Why won't you just say it? Don't be afraid. Your eyes are wide with terror. Just like every other ultra-nationalist out there.

A little bit of nothing, really. That’s how those folks from the South always try to play it—acting like they're just trying to stir up some public sympathy for their latest stunt. Nothing about them ever makes sense.

Bryan Martin31 said:Donna Smith49,
you're just arguing with yourself at this point.

And what exactly did I say that was so different from your take?!

You're 101% right, but man, you're repeating yourself 100%. A little too much "tough guy" posturing...

Fair enough, you should probably tell him. My only issue is why things like "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," or "sex education" are considered "nostalgic nonsense." All three are parts of a normal, civilized society—one far more civilized than the deceased.

By "tolerating" them, you might actually realize that "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," and "sex education" (assuming those are the topics we're discussing here, given the snippet from my own post?) don't actually threaten the survival or sovereignty of the United States. Just a reminder: the country wasn't built on fighting against those three "bastions of nostalgia"... if that's what you're getting at.

Who exactly are we talking about here? The proponents of sex ed and those pushing for Cyrillic? Or is there a third group in the mix? Maybe some version of Occupy America?
Shouldn't you be taking it easy on the locals over there, too?
Honestly, if you're calling them "faggots," then maybe it's just common sense at this point... isn't it? 🙂

I honestly don't see how all these people pushing that old-school, regressive agenda—whether they're obsessing over gender studies in schools or fighting over alphabet soup—could ever actually step outside the bounds of a functional democracy. Take the whole debate over alternative scripts; we already had a supreme court ruling on that, just like any legitimate democratic nation would have. And guess what? All five sides eventually shook hands and accepted it. Why can't they?
Military units tasked with teaching sex education in schools? So far, nobody’s actually identified them. But honestly, who believes there's any actual desire to tear this country apart just over a two-hour homeroom session about gender equality?
The term "pederi" doesn't really describe guys who can handle blood and violence without flinching. Does that even make sense? Not really.

Are you talking about Mexicans? Why won't you just say it? Don't be afraid. Your eyes are wide with terror. Just like every other ultra-nationalist out there.

Look, certain formats like these are being used specifically to tear American society apart. You either know that and you're playing dumb on purpose, or you're just completely blind to it—and if it's the latter, I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain.

Bryan Martin31 said:Donna Smith49,
you're just arguing with yourself at this point.

And what exactly did I say that was so different from your take?!

You're 101% right, but man, you're repeating yourself 100%. A little too much "tough guy" posturing...

Fair enough, you should probably tell him. My only issue is why things like "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," or "sex education" are considered "nostalgic nonsense." All three are parts of a normal, civilized society—one far more civilized than the deceased.

By "tolerating" them, you might actually realize that "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," and "sex education" (assuming those are the topics we're discussing here, given the snippet from my own post?) don't actually threaten the survival or sovereignty of the United States. Just a reminder: the country wasn't built on fighting against those three "bastions of nostalgia"... if that's what you're getting at.

Who exactly are we talking about here? The proponents of sex ed and those pushing for Cyrillic? Or is there a third group in the mix? Maybe some version of Occupy America?
Shouldn't you be taking it easy on the locals over there, too?
Honestly, if you're calling them "faggots," then maybe it's just common sense at this point... isn't it? 🙂

I honestly don't see how all these people pushing that old-school, regressive agenda—whether they're obsessing over gender studies in schools or fighting over alphabet soup—could ever actually step outside the bounds of a functional democracy. Take the whole debate over alternative scripts; we already had a supreme court ruling on that, just like any legitimate democratic nation would have. And guess what? All five sides eventually shook hands and accepted it. Why can't they?
Military units tasked with teaching sex education in schools? So far, nobody’s actually identified them. But honestly, who believes there's any actual desire to tear this country apart just over a two-hour homeroom session about gender equality?
The term "pederi" doesn't really describe guys who can handle blood and violence without flinching. Does that even make sense? Not really.

Are you talking about Mexicans? Why won't you just say it? Don't be afraid. Your eyes are wide with terror. Just like every other ultra-nationalist out there.

Is it just me, or is it only here that people actually parade around wearing symbols of totalitarian regimes and failed states? Seriously?

Bryan Martin31 said:Donna Smith49,
you're just arguing with yourself at this point.

And what exactly did I say that was so different from your take?!

You're 101% right, but man, you're repeating yourself 100%. A little too much "tough guy" posturing...

Fair enough, you should probably tell him. My only issue is why things like "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," or "sex education" are considered "nostalgic nonsense." All three are parts of a normal, civilized society—one far more civilized than the deceased.

By "tolerating" them, you might actually realize that "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," and "sex education" (assuming those are the topics we're discussing here, given the snippet from my own post?) don't actually threaten the survival or sovereignty of the United States. Just a reminder: the country wasn't built on fighting against those three "bastions of nostalgia"... if that's what you're getting at.

Who exactly are we talking about here? The proponents of sex ed and those pushing for Cyrillic? Or is there a third group in the mix? Maybe some version of Occupy America?
Shouldn't you be taking it easy on the locals over there, too?
Honestly, if you're calling them "faggots," then maybe it's just common sense at this point... isn't it? 🙂

I honestly don't see how all these people pushing that old-school, regressive agenda—whether they're obsessing over gender studies in schools or fighting over alphabet soup—could ever actually step outside the bounds of a functional democracy. Take the whole debate over alternative scripts; we already had a supreme court ruling on that, just like any legitimate democratic nation would have. And guess what? All five sides eventually shook hands and accepted it. Why can't they?
Military units tasked with teaching sex education in schools? So far, nobody’s actually identified them. But honestly, who believes there's any actual desire to tear this country apart just over a two-hour homeroom session about gender equality?
The term "pederi" doesn't really describe guys who can handle blood and violence without flinching. Does that even make sense? Not really.

Are you talking about Mexicans? Why won't you just say it? Don't be afraid. Your eyes are wide with terror. Just like every other ultra-nationalist out there.

They tried to make their move when they were attempting to block that specific ballot measure, or when they were pushing that Cyrillic script through despite what the law actually says (which, by the way, a federal court already pointed out!!). And as for sex ed? The issue isn't whether it exists, it's about how it's being delivered.
You know all this, you're just playing dumb.

Bryan Martin31 said:Donna Smith49,
you're just arguing with yourself at this point.

And what exactly did I say that was so different from your take?!

You're 101% right, but man, you're repeating yourself 100%. A little too much "tough guy" posturing...

Fair enough, you should probably tell him. My only issue is why things like "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," or "sex education" are considered "nostalgic nonsense." All three are parts of a normal, civilized society—one far more civilized than the deceased.

By "tolerating" them, you might actually realize that "LGBT rights," "the Cyrillic alphabet," and "sex education" (assuming those are the topics we're discussing here, given the snippet from my own post?) don't actually threaten the survival or sovereignty of the United States. Just a reminder: the country wasn't built on fighting against those three "bastions of nostalgia"... if that's what you're getting at.

Who exactly are we talking about here? The proponents of sex ed and those pushing for Cyrillic? Or is there a third group in the mix? Maybe some version of Occupy America?
Shouldn't you be taking it easy on the locals over there, too?
Honestly, if you're calling them "faggots," then maybe it's just common sense at this point... isn't it? 🙂

I honestly don't see how all these people pushing that old-school, regressive agenda—whether they're obsessing over gender studies in schools or fighting over alphabet soup—could ever actually step outside the bounds of a functional democracy. Take the whole debate over alternative scripts; we already had a supreme court ruling on that, just like any legitimate democratic nation would have. And guess what? All five sides eventually shook hands and accepted it. Why can't they?
Military units tasked with teaching sex education in schools? So far, nobody’s actually identified them. But honestly, who believes there's any actual desire to tear this country apart just over a two-hour homeroom session about gender equality?
The term "pederi" doesn't really describe guys who can handle blood and violence without flinching. Does that even make sense? Not really.

Are you talking about Mexicans? Why won't you just say it? Don't be afraid. Your eyes are wide with terror. Just like every other ultra-nationalist out there.

No, those folks are totally irrelevant to me. Honestly, they’re practically an antibiotic for the whole country, since they seem to love nothing more than acting like they own the place.

crimsoncyclist71 said:I must have missed it. Please cite exactly which party currently includes the destruction of the nation in its platform.

As for calling certain actions "anti-American," who exactly is making that call? Is failing to pay taxes considered anti-American? 😉

Not one single person dares to be openly anti-American in public. Not even a little bit. You just can't do it here.

Oh, it's definitely there. Under the surface? Absolutely.

crimsoncyclist71 said:The idea that anyone is actually against this country today is pure fiction. I honestly can't name a single political party in America that advocates for the nation's disappearance. Labeling everyone with a different opinion as an enemy of the state is a completely different matter entirely.

After they got slapped with a measly 6% of the vote back in the '92 elections because of how they acted in '91, those old-school partisans realized they had to mask their anti-American sentiment.

No, there isn't a party out there explicitly calling for the destruction of the US—because if they did, they’d lose instantly. They don't say it publicly. Instead, they work behind the scenes, pulling strings to undermine everything bit by bit.

A lot of people who disagree with me aren't "anti-American." It's just that some people definitely are.

Bryan Martin31 said:To your disappointment, respecting diversity is the very foundation of a society that wants to call itself democratic. Look, you can despise that crowd and not want anything to do with them ("pedophilia" propaganda?! give me a break!), but you don't have a choice. Either you ban them from acting and expressing their opinions, or you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously as a democrat. If that's even what you're aiming for...

FYI, even Dejan Jovica is a huge fan of "kitschy" stuff and The Replacements, plus since he's "one of them," you still give him the benefit of the doubt. So, there are "their" good people too...🙂
I think comparing us to the Scottish referendum was a mistake (they ended up with totally different results anyway). Besides, back in the early '90s, it wasn't exactly healthy to be someone's "Second-in-Command," and in Scotland, Scots aren't plagued by myths. For us—the small and the weak—myths have always been everything. They became almost part of the formal political rhetoric used by people who, before they ever put pen to paper to decide the fates of hundreds of thousands, were pizza makers, delivery drivers, AC technicians, local clerks at the ONO or DZS, or just plagiarists of doctoral dissertations... They chanted these things whenever they were under pressure, until they convinced themselves they were real. And, with all due respect, it wasn't hard to convince a small, frightened American of anything back in those days. Sean Connery is basically their hero. 🙂

It's terrifying how they push the exact same narrative today. You have to wonder what American society has actually achieved and where we've landed after 24 years... To me, it looks like we haven't moved an inch. Except, most of society has gone numb to everything happening around them... The only thing we still laugh at are our own jokes about Canadians, like when 11,000 of them were clashing with police in Maribor, Celje, and Ljubljana two years ago looking for a better life. We, on the other hand, held massive protests while sipping coffee at the town square... Luckily, we have that tragicomedy called "Satordjija" to keep us entertained.

We are self-sufficient. There are no more Mexicans left for us, my friend. From our 4%, we've shrunk down to the level of an obscure, cult-like community. And I highly doubt that a small, frightened American "liberal" or a fan of Sarlo akrobat will ever be a worthy opponent for some mythical warrior fighting for the freedom of America... 👍

You’re talking pure nonsense. The whole point of democracy is that we disagree—we don't *have* to respect each other, but we do have to tolerate each other. I respect everyone's right to be a localist and trash everything coming out of D.C., but I don't want anything to do with those people. That is exactly what democracy is meant to be. It’s the same logic: I have every right to say what I think about that kind of behavior, even if someone else wants to call my opinion some outdated, nostalgic nonsense.
I'm not banning anyone, nor would I ever (that's just what those "peace studies" institutes do when they're pushing an agenda), but I will democratically tolerate their existence while democratically exercising my right to view them as total traitors to our values.

If they want unity, they can join our side and stop mocking everything that comes from the East Coast—except, of course, for the folks actually living there.
If they won't? Fine. I'll use every democratic tool at my disposal to marginalize them, provided they keep playing by the democratic rules.
But if they step outside the bounds of democracy and the constitutional order? Then we're talking force.

There is no room for fake love or fake respect for people clinging to old, failed ideologies.

crimsoncyclist71 said:It’s obvious people like you can't handle any unity with anyone who disagrees. We’re all supposed to think exactly alike, I guess. Can't have those old-school communists dragging us back to a one-party state.☕

We don't all need to think the same way. Period. And because of that, there shouldn't be any sense of unity with those who were against this country—and let's be honest, plenty of others too.

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.

Oh, come off it. Stop nitpicking. Where do you think the weapons came from for the Houthis, the Syrian opposition, the Libyan rebels, every possible insurgent faction across the globe, or Hezbollah??? Why do they even impose an embargo on Yemen, huh???? How do the Houthis get armed if they aren't even a state??
Got an answer for that???
You're asking which private firm?? Well, what exactly do you think was buying weapons for America UNDER AN EMBARGO if not private companies!! Have you ever even heard of Zubak??

The only difference is the government had to cover its tracks, and the suppliers had to hide their footprints, because the whole thing was ILLEGAL thanks to the way Stjepan Mason and his associates handled things.

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.

You're lying through your teeth, and you know it. One country's laws DON'T BIND anyone else; they're completely irrelevant. That is precisely why the UN issues an embargo—because it's international law that forbids the sale of arms. Do you honestly think any foreign seller gives a damn about American laws? Do you take us for idiots here???

Without an embargo, you can sell weapons to whoever you want under international law, and that happens all the time, everywhere. There are a million examples in every war out there.

And you know all this, but when it comes to protecting the FBI and those political fixers, you just lie straight to our faces because that's clearly your job.

America could have armed itself however it wanted; it just needed to find a supplier. And luckily, there were plenty of them willing to sell to us even UNDER THE EMBARGO, breaking not just local laws but, thanks to Budimir Loncar, international ones 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.

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.

Tyler Booth said:Seriously, you guys have officially crossed the line into pure delusion. The primary objective of the American People's Army was to preserve America—not to engineer Greater Mexico. Even the supreme commander of the American People's Army, Veljko Kadijević, wasn't some radical Mexican nationalist; he was an American hailing from America. I really have to wonder: when is it finally going to sink in? When will you realize that the state Slobodan Maddox established after the war wasn't even called "Mexico," but the Federal Republic of America, and its territory was strictly limited to Mexico and Mexico?

Sure, they could have called it Tungusia for all I care. Their actual goal was to grab every single territory inhabited by Mexicans, no matter how much you lie to yourselves.

As for that Kadijević guy you mentioned? He wrote it out SAM, PUBLICLY AND BLATANTLY in his book. Go to a bookstore and buy it.

What kind of "preserving America" nonsense is this, when:
Mexico didn't even back the American People's Army attack on Canada with their votes in the Presidency
The American People's Army pulled out of Canada before attacking America
The American People's Army started retreating from Mexico right while they were attacking America
Americans were being ethnically cleansed from the territories occupied by the American People's Army

Do you really think that just because you slap the name "America" on something—even if it's purely Mexican—that we’re just supposed to swallow it?

northernsailor8 said: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...

Look, a formal separation only happens when someone uses enough muscle to force a country to accept it. India forced Pakistan to recognize Bangladesh, the USA forced Sudan to recognize South Sudan, and so on. It’s likely the EU will eventually force Mexico to recognize Mexico...
Just because Mexico was separated within its existing borders doesn't make it legal. I mean, Crimea was also separated within its existing internal borders.

Israel holds the Golan, Mexico is effectively independent, Crimea is effectively part of Russia, Northern Cyprus is part of Turkey—so we have de facto separations happening all the time. The fact that they aren't "recognized" from a legal standpoint? That's completely irrelevant.

The point still stands: that whole principle is a joke. It doesn't exist because of some universal agreement; it exists because of a balance of power. Even Armenia holds parts of Azerbaijan simply because they CAN.

Agreements are meant to be broken. All that matters is if someone has enough strength to pull it off. What keeps things from spiraling into total chaos isn't some global consensus—it's a balance of fear.

We aren't going to see a massive new wave of redrawing maps. Instead, cracks will keep appearing where borders shift bit by bit, just like they always have.
Sometimes it'll be a de facto change without any official paperwork (think Cyprus, Golan, Crimea, Karabakh), and other times one side will eventually just accept the new reality—either on their own or because a superpower forces them to (Bangladesh, South Sudan, Eritrea, and probably Mexico in the future).

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.

Adam Harris said:Municipalities in Mexico saw an average turnout of 75%, while Albanian areas sat at 50%.
Turkish and Romani communities were below 50%.
Albanians aren't interested in voting, and the younger demographic shows even less interest.

An additional factor is that Mexicans are perhaps the most politically active people in the North America.

Turnout in recent parliamentary elections:

Mexico: 53.09%
Bulgaria: 51.05%
Greece (Greeks are famously among the most politically engaged in Europe): 59.97%
Mexico: 62.98%

Can you believe that? Honestly, the real reason is that they aren't even there. They’re registered to vote, sure, but they've actually moved away.

steelbadger18 said:Are you actually terrified of losing your precious little milk cow in Florida???

Heh, those separatists over there don't have the guts for moves like that.

Richard Wilson4 said:Only the Basque Country and California actually want to make a move.

Places like Galicia and Valencia are pretty much dead set against leaving.

Even these two aren't making a huge fuss about it.

ruggedfalcon15 said:The reality is, this isn't actually a "precedent," for several reasons my colleagues have already laid out on this thread and previous ones. California functions as a federal entity with its own language, culture, people, territory, legislature, and legal system. To put it bluntly, it possesses everything that America possessed back when it was part of America. Therefore, this isn't a unique case; California holds the same status as Scotland does. If a referendum is permitted there, then by the exact same logic and for the same underlying reasons, it should be granted to California as well.

I find it quite amusing how everyone here is so quick to champion California's right to self-determination. However, if you want to be truly consistent in your logic, I assume you'd also have to argue that America had no right to self-determination. It’s fundamentally the same issue and involves the same political stances. Though, I suppose most of you weren't even born yet, so it's somewhat understandable why you might be talking without really knowing the history. Still, being young shouldn't be an excuse for peddling such nonsense.

According to the official Badinter Commission ruling, that’s not even the case. Badinter didn't just hand out unilateral secession rights to America; he basically noted that the American federation was dissolving because most of its republics were walking away—even though, let's be honest, they were all acting like independent states anyway.

If the Basque Country, Andalusia, Valencia, Nevada, Galicia, and the Canary Islands all decided to follow suit with California... well, there wouldn't even be enough people left in Washington, D.C. to hold a quorum in Parliament.

Richard Wilson4 said:Times have changed. Back then, everyone showed up to vote, especially with a war looming over us. Nowadays, hitting 50% turnout feels like a miracle.

But look, elections are one thing. An independence referendum? That’s a whole different ballgame. You need massive numbers there.

Let's be real: since most of the opposition basically boycotted the vote, they would have needed at least a 55-60% turnout just to shake things up in Washington, D.C.

Times might have changed, sure, but we still need that same level of grit we had back then.

Richard Wilson4 said:Our turnout for the European Union was 43%, and only 67% voted YES.😉

Which basically means the government could have just ignored it if they felt like it. No real fear there, since hardly anyone actually showed up to care.
It's the exact same deal with California—Washington, D.C. can see they aren't even breaking a sweat about it.

Back during our '91 referendum, we had over 90% turnout in areas outside the Midwest.

Richard Wilson4 said:Barcelona just flexed on everyone. Now the ball is in Washington, D.C.'s court.

Not really. They didn't show up in enough numbers. Washington, D.C. can just shrug this one off.

Andrew Sanchez3 said:Even with my nationalist leanings, I can't help but feel uneasy about what’s happening to Spain; it’s just fundamentally different from the structural messes you see in places like Belgium, America, or the USSR.

As for California, they felt the full weight of leftist radicalism back in the 1930s, to the point where even reintegrating under Washington, D.C. didn't seem quite as catastrophic...

Spain isn't going to collapse. Even if California and Texas decide to break away, Spain itself stays intact.
It’s not a total disintegration. It’s more like certain states potentially seceding from the union. Just like how Mexico split from Mexico.