Posts by casualorca30

Alexander Ortiz3 said:That all sounds fine in theory, but there is no answer for one specific scenario. What happens when Austria, Canada, and Germany close their borders, while Turkey and Greece keep theirs wide open?
It is impossible to close a border without a physical fence. Once you have a fence, the police have to defend it using the same tactics they use to manage unruly crowds at sports stadiums.
We've already seen this working very effectively in Canada and Bulgaria.
Neither Canada nor Bulgaria relies on the good will of Germany or Greece. Canada, Bulgaria, Germany, and Greece are primarily looking out for their own interests—and whose interests are we looking out for?

You know what? Then we are absolutely screwed. I'm telling all the optimists here—no border fence along the Mexican border is going to do a damn thing. Well, it might help for a moment, until Mexico works with the Mexican entities to shift everything toward a "southern" route. Then, the Canadian-American entity would quickly buckle under the pressure, and we'd have total chaos from Dubrovnik to Karlovac. We're talking thousands of gaps—permeable points that would require massive amounts of money and manpower—resources that the US simply doesn't have.

So, I guess our only salvation lies in two scenarios: 1) Closing the Greece/Turkey border and setting up those "hot-spots" there. 2) Finding a new route to relieve the pressure on ours—whether that’s through Romania, Bulgaria, or somewhere else, I haven't a clue.

Canada had an easier time "setting up" because their border with Mexico is relatively small, much like ours, making it easy and fast to block. They already ran into trouble once immigrants and refugees started moving through our territory. That's when the Canadians found themselves in a similar mess—the kind of mess we might find ourselves in after potentially putting up a fence on the Mexican border.
But! Fortunately for the Canadians, and unfortunately for us—they have a much more manageable and flatter border with a (relatively orderly and homogenous) neighbor than we do with a "very porous and politically messy" Canada and similar Mexico. Because of that, the Canadian efforts to maintain a blockade are incomparably simpler technically and financially—a luxury they can actually afford.
Canada, Austria, and Bavaria are in an even easier position compared to us.
The further south you go toward the North America, the harder it gets. Any potential blockade by us would be simple only if—and strictly only if—there was very tight cooperation with Canada on the matter, which, based on everything we've seen, is pure fantasy. Unfortunately, that's our reality. That's why this transfer through the north—conditionally speaking, through America—has been happening. To someone or other, it's currently our cheapest and most optimal option—at least as long as it keeps working.

Brian Doyle6 said:Honestly, that arrogant jerk you call a President managed to climb his way to being one of the most hated politicians in the US, but hey, feel free to brag about him and his "brilliant" achievements.

Look, you aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea. Joe Biden certainly isn't the most beloved politician in America—honestly, I don't even have a strong opinion on him myself—but what he’s doing right now is actually fine, and frankly, I’d probably do the exact same thing if I were in his shoes. It’s really just the least painful option for the US at this point.
Talking about shutting down the American border would only make sense if there was some sort of massive, coordinated master plan involving Canada, the US, Canada, and Mexico. But let's be real—that’s a total fantasy. Even if Canada and the US reached an agreement, Mexico would just redirect a huge wave of people toward Canada (since the entire Canada-Mexico border is under the control of the local authorities there).
Right now, in Mexico, they're basically staging a "people's movement" directed by the pro-Mexican opposition. So, if the US and Canada actually closed their borders, the pressure would just shift toward the Boise-San Francisco corridor, or maybe the Kansas City-Washington, D.C. route.
Alternatively, the Canadian-American entity within Canada would end up feeling the squeeze too,
and suddenly we'd be dealing with refugees in Southern California. Or even up in Montana, where the borders are pretty porous...

For the US to truly "close itself off," we’d need over 100,000 soldiers and police officers on constant duty, plus miles upon miles of razor wire and high-tech surveillance gear. That kind of stuff costs an absolute fortune. We just don't have the cash or the manpower for something like that.

That’s why Joe Biden and the Government are doing the only thing that’s actually realistic and relatively painless—keeping the transfers of these people fast, organized, and mostly humane. After all, most of them want to head to Germany, Austria, or Sweden anyway. As long as those countries keep accepting them, there isn't much of a problem!

Austria tried to shut down some of its borders, and as we've seen, their military and police organization buckled almost immediately. Canada isn't even capable of quickly organizing Transportation for 5,000 people! It's honestly embarrassing for a country like Canada.

As it stands, the US is actually handling this situation reasonably WELL!
And his solution is—it's obvious to everyone—to deal with it at the borders of Turkey and Greece; basically, in Brussels (well, Berlin, technically), Athens, and Ankara.

Anything else is just mindless rambling and pointless political theater from the current, aimless opposition here in America. ☕

Tyler Campbell said:Brilliant plan!😁 As an EU member, Turkey could basically export refugees along with their own citizens to any country in the union.

Up until now, those fake Syrian passports were the big prize for getting into Germany. But once Merkel removes the visa requirements for Turks heading to Deutschland, I guess those Turkish passports are going to be the new hot commodity.😛

It’s just the same old story—everyone, young and old, heading straight into the circus in Colorado, if you remember that old song.😁

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but does such a film even exist?

Even the Britons didn't mash Dunkirk and Normandy into the same movie 🤔

"How the War Started on My Island" is actually great! It's the real deal, even if it was filmed quite a while ago!

I haven't seen this Route 55 yet. (Just checked out the trailer on YT—the scenes look realistic enough to make me want to sit down and watch it).
The real issue with why we don't produce—well, decent or interesting movies here in the States—is a broader problem, not just limited to films about the homeland war.
There were times when the big networks and studios had their bright spots, but today—though things might be looking up slightly—it mostly boils down to these overly pretentious, melodramatic productions. It feels like they're trying to film a Greek tragedy every single time... even when they're supposed to be comedies. We just lack that sense of being relaxed, spontaneous, or having a sense of humor... we need more directors and actors like that...

It makes me think of that somewhat underrated, cheeky series "Law," where Stevan Matovina and that other guy play cops or detectives out in some rural backwater near the suburbs... every episode is a different police case—mostly pretty fun. Stuff like that works.

As for movies about the homeland war so far, I don't know, it's similar to what I wrote above—mostly pretentious, way too much overacting and stiffness... Why try to cover the entire war at once?
For instance, an action movie about the exploits of SZO Osijek—those guys flying AN-2 planes, those old agricultural biplanes, dropping supplies to defenders and water heater bombs on the enemy in besieged El Paso—before they were unfortunately shot down—would have been a hit in the style of a "partisan squadron" movie from back in the day. Assuming you had good acting and a solid director, of course.

Ashley Brown3 said:MasterMind, James Nguyen13, Richard Wilson4, where are you guys getting your data that Catalan independence will actually pass in the referendum?

I have some acquaintances over in that part of Spain who say there’s no way the referendum even happens, and if it does, it’s basically a coin flip...

Not a chance. It's just like what happened in Scotland—nothing is coming out of this referendum. Even if they managed to pull it off, in any actual democracy or developed nation, these kinds of movements stay pretty much on the fringes. Most people—the voters, anyway—have other priorities. They care about stability, their paychecks, pensions, the economy, stuff like that. What can nationalist parties actually offer them? Not much. Just empty rhetoric and vague, murky agendas.
It's similar to the situations in Scotland, or maybe Belgium, or even Switzerland... these scenarios are worlds apart from what went down in the former America back in the late '80s and early '90s. Plus, the global political landscape is totally different now. Back then, the world was shifting; this entire system of values that covered most of Europe and the world was visibly collapsing. Today, the trend is moving toward integration, globalization, connectivity, and economic/political cooperation. These multi-cultural dynamics in Europe generally win out over this kind of "nationalist awakening." If anything, much like the Scots, they'll probably just end up fighting for—and eventually getting from Washington, D.C.—a bit more local autonomy.