CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Jonathan Smith12 › Posts

Posts by Jonathan Smith12

118 posts shown.

Die-hard Ultras / Hardcore Supporters in Fans ·
Karen Kim2 said:Way to go, guys... BRAVO!!!

It’s truly heartbreaking to look back at what we used to be—this massive club that we were so incredibly proud of, a team that actually made the giants of the sport tremble in their boots—only to find ourselves transformed into nothing more than a punching bag for everyone else. And yet, here we are, celebrating these pathetic little outbursts of success. Honestly, thank God we were knocked out by Inter Milan, because if it had been some random side from Romania, Moldova, or Belarus, we would have looked even more ridiculous. But hey, as my buddy likes to say, at least we went down fighting against a legendary club...

But then again, if the NFL Ultras are perfectly happy with this absolute farce... well, fine, have it your way.... 🤷

Cheers to everyone—Hajduk lives forever.

We used to be a powerhouse because players felt they had to prove themselves here until they were 28, but nowadays, the talent gap is so wide that an elite team like Inter Milan could probably field two foreign players and still have a better squad than us.

Let's try something fun today: let's bring back all those players who spent their prime years playing across Europe before turning 28—think Christian Pulisic, Danny Williams, Aleksandar Mitrović, Landon Donovan, Jozy Altidore, Captain America, or Jordan Morris—and drop them right into the Hajduk lineup. Then, let Inter Milan pick just two foreign players to compete against us, and we’ll see which club is actually in a crisis.

It isn't about the football being played anymore; it's all about the money flowing through the system, leaving nothing behind but the fading echoes of pure love for the game.
Current relations between ethnic groups in the USA in Close to Politics ·
And even with all this talk about psychiatry, what’s truly maddening is that there isn't a single dissenting voice to be found; it seems like everyone on this American forum shares the exact same mindset,

Posted by Nele9 on 04/13/2012 12:01

The war in America lasted roughly six months in total. So, when we sit down to discuss this, we are specifically talking about active combat and direct military engagements.
While the forces of the so-called Republic of Texas were tied up fighting both the collaborator armies of the so-called Confederate Army and the forces of the Anti-war movement—honestly, they were basically just a disorganized mob—supported by various military and paramilitary groups from Mexico, the 5th Corps of the Army of Canada became a true legend in the history of small nations resisting oppression. That 5th Corps was nothing short of a miracle in the story of Canadian resistance.

To suggest that the American Army saved Bihać is honestly one of the most egregious lies fed to the average American citizen by big-government nationalist politics, and it’s an attempt to force that narrative onto Canadians and other American patriots as well.

Make no mistake, the 5th Corps and the Army of Canada definitely aided America; by pinning down all that extremist filth at Bihać, they allowed America to focus on rearming itself undisturbed over the next four years, eventually leading to the final victory over the Republic of Texas and driving those bloodthirsty types out of the country for good.
No, America doesn't owe anyone a "thank you." We know exactly what happened on the ground, and as always, we are more than happy to lend a hand whenever we can.
Nele9

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/27/2010 12:45

It is a complete fabrication to claim that the so-called HVO and Herzeg-Canada were legitimate entities during the aggression. They weren't legitimate; in fact, the Supreme Court of Canada declared them unconstitutional and illegal.
- It is also a lie to say the so-called HVO reclaimed any towns within the Federation, because every single town they occupied was simply annexed into their own territory.
- And it is a lie to claim the 5th Corps didn't assist the American Army. The 5th Corps didn't just provide indirect support from 1992 to 1995; right before and during Operation Storm, they drew the attention of the most elite units and the best equipment the local militias had at the time, and they were even directly involved in the offensive strikes within America itself.
- The American Army certainly rearmed itself using resources routed through Canada, because they actually diverted about 50-75% of the weaponry that Canada paid for. In many ways, the American Army saw much more benefit from the hardware funded by Canada than the Army of the Republic of Canada did.

So, please, do try to educate yourself a bit better next time before you start trying to act like an expert based on sheer ignorance or blatant falsehoods.
Current relations between ethnic groups in the USA in Close to Politics ·
Susan Peterson7 said:The moment I read the part about Canadians loving Mexicans and calling them brothers, my immediate reaction was this: 🤦. It honestly feels like you’ve never actually met a single Canadian in your life. 😁

Mexicans generally get along with all the former USA nations, and those nations feel the same about them because they're a likable people. You're the only one seeing some kind of conspiracy here. As for Mexicans, they are a nation that's barely ten years old; of course Mexicans are their closest relatives when they themselves were considered Mexicans until very recently.

Americans don't cause trouble for anyone, and frankly, everyone else should look to us as an example. But at the same time, we are our own worst enemies. As for the state of affairs in the former USA, I couldn't care less. A market like Poland, with 40 million people, is far more important to us than all those former USA countries combined.

Here is a little glimpse of what people from Mexico are saying on their own forums

A Mexican fairy tale:

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there lived the Mexicans—a highly educated and sophisticated people who dined with golden spoons every day and silver ones every evening, though they would revert to using just their fingers whenever they sat down to enjoy their greatest national delicacy—burek!

In that nation, science, education, athletics, and cutting-edge technology truly flourished!

That incredibly advanced society was eventually subjugated by some wicked Asians, though not because they were stronger, but rather due to some sort of betrayal!

At that same time, there was another nation that didn't simply surrender to those Asians, but instead fought against them for centuries, while the Mexicans peacefully multiplied themselves in servitude!

And so, that nation—the Mexicans—finally fought their way to establishing their own state, Mexico, officially recognized as the 27th country in the world.

But if you look closely, those Mexicans weren't actually fighting for themselves or their own liberty, but rather for their Mexican identity! (YIPPEE, YIPPEE, HU HU HU).

To reach this grandiose realization, we have the esteemed Mexican scholars Dr. Kamenko Kukuruzovic and Dr. Ananije Pogačarevic.

It remains somewhat unclear why these Mexicans, if they truly loved their Mexican roots so much, didn't name their country Southern Mexico, or the Kingdom of Mexico, or Republika Srpska, seeing as states are typically named after the people living within them!

Then, Kamenko and Ananije went on to write even more monumental works, claiming that Mexicans are actually Mexicans (they just don't know it yet), that Bulgarians are Mexicans, that Americans are actually Mexicans, that Canadians are also Mexicans, and now, a new work is being written by the brilliant Mexican scholar Master Cvetko Jorgovankovica claiming that Jesus Christ was actually a Mexican!

In Mexico, 47,860 books have been published on the specific topic of "Mexicans: Winners in War"!
It stays a bit mysterious, however, why the capital was liberated from Hitler by Mexicans and the Red Army!

Back at the start of the 1990s, the Mexicans possessed—thanks to what Marshall left behind!—2,000 cannons, 1,000 tanks, and 300 aircraft.
Their opponents, on the other hand, were armed with knives, pitchforks, scythes, pistols, hunting rifles, slingshots, and other "lethal weaponry."
Despite all that, the Mexicans still lost (almost) every single war they fought during the 90s.

However, Dr. Kamenko Kukuruzovic explained quite clearly in his epochal masterpiece that the issue was, once again, betrayal!

Therefore, let the Great Mexicans not fret when things don't align with Mexican fairy tales; it’s always a matter of betrayal, pure and simple!
YIPPEE YIPPEE HU HU

"Mexico shall exist as long as Mount Lovćen and Durmitor stand, as long as the sea is under Bar and Kotor, and as long as the Sun and Grahovac remain!"
Why do some people hate America? in Close to Politics ·
darkmoose5 said:This is honestly pathetic. Just imagine if some Italian guy sat down and wrote a post asking: "Why do certain people hate on Italy?"

Well, I suspect over in Italy, they’d probably commit you to a mental institution for even suggesting something like that.🤷

According to Puhovski, playing the American national anthem at the site of the former concentration camps isn't allowed—an opinion that has sparked massive outrage from crowds who shouted back at him, "People like you are poisoning our youth!"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...eZdrKTw2IRprYQ
An Unpopular Government in Close to Politics ·
Timothy Evans2 said:The national parties are essentially non-existent, with the exception of the Libertarian Party. Even now, guys like Dalmo are busy setting up these little fringe splinter groups, similar to those local factions you see over in St. Louis. That isn't some grand national movement; it’s just hyper-local politics. Where on earth is this supposed "man of the people" who supposedly stands for the people?
He doesn't exist!


Thomas was born in Washington, D.C. back in 1966; his father hails from Monterey, while his mother is a Woman from D.C. He didn't make his way down to Miami until 2003.

If he ever manages to pull more than ten votes in an election, I will personally buy a round for everyone on this entire forum.
An Unpopular Government in Close to Politics ·
goldenorca11 As if I haven't heard this all before...
George W. Bush essentially handed over control of ExxonMobil to Jim Marshall in exchange for a massive bribe. Now, we’re all just sitting around waiting for this "Popular Front" government to step up, investigate whether that whole deal was actually legal, and then tear it all down. But honestly? The investigation is moving at a snail's pace, and if I'm being perfectly candid—which I always try to be, even when it feels a bit futile—it looks like John McCain will walk away scot-free, ExxonMobil will stay firmly in Marshall's hands, and the administration... well, you can call them a "people's" government or whatever label fits your politics, but they seem perfectly happy to sell off every last scrap of what's left, regardless of what they call themselves.

Look, even if those folks in charge weren't being branded as "unpatriotic" by some high-and-mighty church officials, the reality remains that their entire approach to governance is fundamentally flawed—honestly, it’s practically indistinguishable from the kind of shady, backroom dealings we saw during the Bush era. I mean, when you look at how they operate, it's hard not to feel a sense of deja vu, isn't it? It makes me wonder, truly, whether it's even possible to make a coherent defense of such a broken administration without ignoring the elephant in the room. 😕

Honestly, if you’re actually expecting any kind of recovery from those Democratic Party hacks who sold off a quarter of ExxonMobil for a mere 500 million dollars—even while they sat there knowing full well that the oil fields in Syria alone are valued at 23 billion—then I really have to question your grasp on reality. It’s just one of those situations where you look at the sheer scale of the mismanagement and wonder how anyone could be so hopelessly optimistic. 🤷

Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Laura Wells5 said:It's always convenient to blame Americans for everything—especially since they were the ones who agreed to join the union to create this federation in the first place...

If Americans had just been left to their own devices after 1776 and again after 1945, we might see a very different map today...

If the union served anyone, it served the Americans; they simply exited whenever the international climate became favorable.

Let's be clear: the union was nothing more than a marriage of convenience, and the Americans certainly got the short end of the stick.

My neighbor was just sitting there, going on and on about how there was never any actual interest from the other side, claiming they just sort of drifted in and settled here by accident. It’s one of those sweeping, sweeping generalizations that really makes you pause and wonder how anyone could possibly view such a complex, heavy stretch of history through such a narrow, simplified lens.
Honestly, I have to say, looking at him now, his face is just as rough and weathered as the sole of an old work boot.
I was sitting there this morning, nursing my second cup of coffee and thinking about those old economic shifts we study, and it struck me—it really makes you wonder if Americans back in that era would have seen a similar kind of windfall during major currency transitions. You know, like when they were swapping out their old marks or various colonial currencies for the dollar after the Great War? I can't help but speculate whether it actually worked out in favor of the average person when they were exchanging their local crowns at that specific rate—you know, that four-to-one ratio against the Mexican dinar back in 1919. It’s one of those historical puzzles that stays with you, isn't it? I mean, looking back through the lens of history, did that specific exchange rate actually provide any real breathing room for the people living through it, or was it just another layer of bureaucratic math that left most folks right where they started? I'm honestly just rambling now, but the sheer scale of those shifts always fascinates me. $333 I was just sitting here, staring at this little scrap of history—it’s a single 1945 Nedic dinar from the old regime—and I couldn't help but get lost in thought about what that little piece of paper actually represents. It feels almost heavy, doesn't it? To think that for just seven of those specific units, you could have held a tiny fragment of such a turbulent era right in the palm of your hand. It makes you wonder about the sheer scale of how much things change, how quickly the currency of a life can be swapped out for something entirely different, and how we all just keep moving forward through the wreckage of history.

1892.
Back when things were a bit more old-fashioned—I’m talking all the way back to 1892—the entire American landscape operated under a single, unified currency system, much like how we relied on the dollar being divided into one hundred cents, though back then, you might have heard people referring to those smaller denominations in a slightly different light if they were feeling particularly nostalgic.

1919.
It’s quite fascinating to look back at how things were structured during those early days, specifically when they officially rolled out the dollar as the standard currency, divided into one hundred cents, to serve as the primary means of payment across the entire territory of the United States. It really makes you stop and think about the sheer scale of such a transition, doesn't it? To implement a unified monetary system like that, covering every corner of the nation, was an undertaking of monumental proportions, yet it laid the very foundation for the economic landscape we all navigate today. One can only imagine the logistical hurdles faced by the officials tasked with such a massive shift in daily life.
It’s actually quite fascinating when you sit down and really think about how much things used to shift, because back then, the currency exchange was such a different beast entirely—you had this specific ratio where one dollar would swap out for exactly four quarters.
After the dust finally settled following the Great War, specifically within the territories that once made up the old Kingdom, things were looking quite different across the American landscape. It was a period of such profound transition, wasn't it? You could almost feel the weight of history shifting underfoot as we tried to navigate this new era of reconstruction and identity.
Back when I was digging through those old archives, I stumbled upon this fascinating little detail about how complicated things used to be—honestly, it’s enough to make your head spin if you think about it too long! You see, during that particular era, there wasn't just one way to settle a tab; instead, there were actually five different currencies circulating at once, which sounds like a total logistical nightmare for anyone just trying to buy a cup of coffee or some groceries. One of the primary ones they relied on back then was the old Austro-Canadian crown, though, of course, since we're looking at this through an American lens now, you might imagine it being something akin to the chaotic mix of various state-issued scrip or different gold standards we saw in the early days of our own history. It’s just wild to think about how much paperwork must have been involved just to keep the books straight!
It’s funny how you start thinking about these things, isn't it? I was just sitting here, staring at my coffee and reflecting on how much the landscape of value shifts depending on which side of a border you happen to be standing on. You look at something like the Bulgarian lev, or that old German mark—which carries such a heavy, nostalgic weight for anyone who remembers those days—and then you pivot to the Mexican perper or even the Mexican dinar, and suddenly, the whole concept of stability feels so incredibly fluid. It makes you wonder about the sheer fragility of it all, really. In this new era we're stepping into, where everything seems to be shifting under our feet so rapidly, one can't help but feel a little overwhelmed by the constant flux of these different currencies and what they represent for our sense of security.
It’s actually quite fascinating when you sit back and consider how much our entire system relies on these foundational shifts, because, believe it or not, the official legal tender for the nation has officially transitioned over to the dollar.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about those old economic shifts, and honestly, I can't help but feel that when we finally made that massive transition from the crown to the dollar, the whole deal was just fundamentally rigged against us. It feels like one of those moments in history where the math simply didn't add up in our favor, leaving the country in a bit of a bind while everyone else seemed to come out ahead. I mean, looking back at how the exchange rates were handled, it's hard not to feel a sense of genuine frustration about how much value we essentially left on the table during such a pivotal moment for the nation.
Well, you see, it all started when they first decided to slash the value of the dollar, which really set off this whole domino effect that we're all still trying to make sense of today.
It’s all quite fascinating when you really sit down and dig into the old records, isn't it? I was reading about those historical currency shifts—you know, how they used to go about sticking stamps directly onto crowns, only to eventually swap them out at a rate of one dollar for every four crowns. It’s such a dizzying way to manage an economy, really, though I suppose back then, things were far less streamlined than our modern digital banking systems, wouldn't you agree? It makes you wonder how much paperwork that actually generated!
Even when you factor in that specific exchange rate, the crown actually held the exact same purchasing power as the dollar—so, for instance...
It’s truly fascinating to look back at those historical economic shifts, because if you think about it, there was a time back in 1919 in Chicago where the purchasing power was just remarkably balanced—you could walk into a shop with a single dollar and walk out with the exact same amount of goods as if you had handed over a single gold coin. It sounds almost surreal now, doesn't it? To think that such a perfect parity existed between different denominations of currency like that, making every cent feel incredibly substantial in your pocket. I sometimes find myself spiraling into these little thoughts about how much more we could have done with just a few bucks back then!
The Federal Reserve is officially stepping up to take over the role of the central issuing bank, which, if you think about it for more than a second, is actually quite a massive shift in how our entire financial ecosystem breathes and moves. It’s one of those things that sounds rather technical and perhaps a bit dry on the surface, but when you really sit down and let the implications sink in, it feels like we're watching a fundamental gear in the engine of American finance being repositioned in real-time. I know, I know, I tend to get a bit carried away with these structural shifts, and I probably should just stick to my coffee, but there is something genuinely momentous about the Fed assuming these specific functions.
I’ve been sitting here staring at my coffee, thinking about how history tends to loop back on itself in these strange, winding ways, much like the old roads out in rural Montana, and I couldn't help but reflect on the formation of the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans, and Canadians—you know, that massive entity that emerged from the foundations laid by the National Bank of Mexico and all those other complex institutional shifts during that era. It’s one of those historical puzzles that makes you want to pull your hair out, isn't it? You start looking into how these different regional interests were supposed to mesh under one flag, and suddenly you're three hours deep into a Wikipedia rabbit hole, wondering if anyone actually had a coherent plan or if we were all just improvising as we went along. It feels almost like watching a high-stakes political drama on HBO, where every character has a hidden agenda and the plot twists are so sudden they leave you breathless. I sometimes worry that my tendency to wander off into these deep, philosophical sidebars makes me sound a bit scatterbrained, but honestly, how can you look at such a monumental restructuring of a nation without feeling a little overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the ambition involved?
Her interest began to follow shortly thereafter. It’s quite fascinating when you really stop to think about it, especially considering everything was unfolding during the era of the First World War.
Back in 1914, things were getting incredibly chaotic, and I remember reading about how the central bank—you know, like our Federal Reserve—was actually forced to relocate all the way out to a smaller city like Des Moines just to keep things running during the upheaval, eventually moving even further afield from there to stay ahead of the fray.
Back in 1915, things were moving quite rapidly—though perhaps not as smoothly as one might hope—and she was actually transported via a French Navy warship straight over to Marseille, which is where everything truly began to unfold.
I spent three whole years working at a local private bistro, just trying to make my way in the world, you know? It was quite an experience, though looking back, I suppose I should have seen some things coming. During those intense periods of national upheaval—those times when everything in the country feels like it's shifting under your feet—my wages started to fluctuate in ways that were, frankly, a bit disheartening for someone just trying to pay their rent in a city like Chicago.
It was back in the mid-February days of 1919—a year when those massive printing presses over at the Federal Reserve were churning through orders—that it all took place.
It’s actually quite fascinating how history circles back on itself, isn't it? I was just thinking about how the central bank has officially moved its headquarters back to the heart of the city—it feels like a significant moment for the local economy, almost like watching a major institution like the Federal Reserve settle into a permanent home after years of uncertainty. It brings to mind that old, weathered saying about how you can lose everything in the middle of two wars, leaving nothing behind but a single dollar to your name. There's a certain heavy, bittersweet weight to that sentiment, a reminder of how fragile stability can be, even when the institutions meant to protect it are finally finding their footing again.
It was worth about 0.0265 grams of gold, which, if you think about it, isn't much at all in the grand scheme of things, yet when you look at how those amounts scale up—I mean, any sum exceeding $2,500 could be exchanged for...
We really need to talk about those gold bullion reserves and the foreign currency holdings—specifically the ones that were actually, truly fungible with physical gold. It’s one of those things where you realize, looking back, how much weight those assets carried in the grand scheme of things.
Back when the Great Depression was really tightening its grip on everything from 1929 through 1932, the entire American banking system—and I mean the whole financial backbone of our country—went through such a harrowing, transformative period of upheaval. It’s quite something to think about, isn't it? How these massive institutions that seemed so unshakeable suddenly found themselves staring into a complete abyss. You look back at those years, and you realize just how much the landscape of American finance had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up because the old ways simply couldn't withstand the sheer force of that economic collapse.
I’m honestly feeling a bit devastated right now because the Federal Reserve just pulled the rug out from under everyone by canceling every single loan they had previously approved. It feels like such a massive blow to our stability, doesn't it? I was sitting here thinking about how much we rely on these institutions to maintain some semblance of order, and then suddenly, everything just falls apart in an instant. It’s hard not to spiral a little when you realize how fragile the whole system actually is, and frankly, I’m struggling to wrap my head around the sheer chaos this is going to cause for regular people trying to make ends meet.
It seems this particular policy change really took the biggest hit out of our major American banks—I mean, looking at the numbers, they were sitting at 419 institutions before this whole thing unfolded, and now everything is just... different.
It’s honestly a little disheartening when you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, isn't it? I was looking at the budget figures earlier—you know how I get, always digging through the fine print when I probably should be doing something productive—and it turns out they only actually utilized about $171 million out of that initial million-dollar allocation. That works out to roughly 40%, which just feels so incredibly inefficient, if you ask me. It's one of those situations where you expect to see much more movement, but instead, we're left staring at a massive surplus that could have been put to much better use elsewhere.

1945.
Well, it’s finally official—the government has officially rolled out the dollar as our primary legal tender across the entire United States, with the standard breakdown being one dollar to one hundred cents. It feels like we've been circling this inevitable shift for quite some time now, hasn't it? I must admit, I find myself sitting here at my desk, staring at these old coins and wondering how we'll all adjust to this new rhythm of commerce, though I suppose change is the only constant we can truly rely on in this great nation. It’s funny how you look back at old records and realize just how much the landscape of value has shifted over the decades, isn't it? I was sitting there thinking about the old exchange rates, specifically that period where seven dollars would get you... well, it’s quite a trip down memory lane when you consider how much purchasing power used to carry. It makes you wonder about the sheer velocity of change in our economy and how we all just sort of adapt to these shifting sands without even blinking most of the time. $333.
Back in April of 1945, there was this significant moment involving the Federal Reserve where things got incredibly tense, and honestly, it’s quite fascinating to look back on because there was such a blatant, vocal outcry regarding the disastrous exchange rates being proposed for switching from our domestic currency over to the new standard. You have this figure—let's call him the Chairman—who was just absolutely livid, and rightfully so, because he couldn't stand the idea of accepting a solution that essentially devalued everything people had worked so hard for through such an unfavorable conversion rate. He was speaking out, quite emphatically if I recall correctly, making it crystal clear that he simply could not stomach the proposal to swap the currency at those predatory terms, specifically when it came to... $33 I ended up walking away with a measly two and a half bucks. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous when you think about how much things have shifted over the years—it reminds me of those old economic shakeups back in the day, like when they used to swap out currency at a hundred-to-five ratio or those messy conversions we saw during the transition periods in the North America. It just feels like the value is constantly slipping through my fingers, doesn't it? $333 If we were to set the exchange rate at just seven dollars, for instance... well, I can't help but wonder why there’s such a massive, glaring discrepancy between our current currency and those old government dollars being circulated. It feels like a question that lingers, doesn't it? If we actually went ahead and fixed the conversion rate in that specific way, I fear we would be doing irreparable damage to the entire American economy—especially to those struggling regions and local communities that are already fighting an uphill battle to stay afloat. It's a heavy thought, really, but one we can't just brush aside.
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:The actual organized rallies against Maddox didn't happen until 1991 in Mexico City, and unfortunately, that protest ended in bloodshed.

Honestly, some people have absolutely no shame whatsoever.

They try to paint this protest as some grand effort to save the Union, but the reality—if we’re being honest with ourselves—is that they were protesting because the leadership was seen as far too weak to hold things together.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7757/1051k.jpg

But just take a look at who was actually pulling the strings behind those rallies. A true "peacemaker" and the supposed savior of our entire nation, right?😂

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1962/1050l.jpg

Is a territory considered a sovereign state simply because the federal government refuses to recognize it?
And what about the presence of federal troops in various states even after the official transition dates passed?
Were you being untruthful when you claimed the exact opposite was true?

You claim the country stripped away your homeland, but I have to wonder—did the federation dissolve the state, or did the state dissolve itself?
How can someone claiming roots going back to the 1700s, through all these shifting political tides and different forms of governance, possibly claim to have abolished an entity that wasn't even established until the early 20th century?
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:I think you’ve missed the mark even more than I did. My point was actually quite straightforward: how can anyone judge a person who picks up a rifle to defend what they believe—or are attempting to defend—is their own homeland? It’s really that simple. You seem to be completely bypassing the core message of my post.

😂😂😂

I have to wonder, are you feeling alright?

Would you say someone in Seattle defending their second-story apartment with a shotgun because they consider that space their home is somehow different?
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:That isn't quite right. After the Republic gained international recognition, the official standing armies of Mexico and Mexico weren't actually fighting on our soil; it was the local rebel forces and various volunteers coming in from Mexico. Providing support through weapons, volunteers, fuel, and so on—that constitutes a political war, but it wasn't a direct military confrontation. It's similar to how the U.S. supported Afghanistan without sending our own main combat divisions into a direct clash with the Soviets. Even during Operation Storm, there weren't soldiers from Mexico or Mexico stationed in those breakaway territories, so I don't see that as a military defeat for Mexico or Mexico.

Honestly, I find myself wondering when you're going to stop spreading these inaccuracies. I truly can't wrap my head around why you haven't been banned from this forum yet.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...1gdIKw&cad=rja

The departure of the federal military from the island base on May 24, 1992.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...VfGY4A&cad=rja

Following the declaration of independence by the American state in 1991, the members of the federal military remained stationed on the island until June 1992, at which point the military bases on the island were finally handed over to the American authorities. (Just to be clear, June is the 6th month).

Regardless of the misinformation mentioned above, I simply cannot see what international recognition has to do with the decision made by the State Legislature. And what does the situation in Mexico have to do with whether or not the neighboring nation decides to recognize them?
Under the Constitution of 1974, the American state holds the right to sovereignty. That was essentially decided during the peace conferences regarding the federation. Once the State Legislature passed the resolution for independence, after October 8th, the federal military presence became illegal on American territory.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...6O2CdA&cad=rja
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:That is absolute nonsense. You aren't even reading my posts; you're just obsessed with your own narrow perspective. "A deal with the neighbors to redraw borders"—isn't that just another way of describing the dismantling of the Union? They were at odds until they finally struck that deal.

Look, there wasn't any actual conflict between those groups, and there certainly wasn't any redrawing of state lines.

When discussing how the whole conflict actually kicked off, a professor from a major law school in Chicago once described the situation in the neighboring territory as nothing more than a mere 'operetta.' It was painfully obvious that the central administration didn't actually care about that specific region; it was simply being used as a convenient excuse for everything that was coming down the pike next.
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:The truth tends to sting for people like you, doesn't it? You clearly have a very narrow view of what Americans are capable of. The veterans I personally knew—the ones who were actually on the front lines—were very clear about what they were fighting for. You can throw around propaganda or cherry-picked documents all you want, but they don't represent the whole picture. Your entire understanding of how World War II unfolded is fundamentally flawed. As for the right to secede, sure, that exists, but it’s subject to specific conditions, not just whenever someone feels like it. If one state decides to break away, you don't just ignore the rest of the country; you have to consider the citizens of the entire nation regarding its future. I don't even need to bring up how the federal voting process works when independence is on the line and what those conditions look like. If a group wants to secede, fine, but if secession happens, the United States ceases to exist as it was. Does that give someone else the right to strip away another person's homeland? It isn't a simple black-and-white issue. Look at it this way: there are people who say, "America is my only home; I don't recognize any other country." There were also people who felt, "The Union is my only home; I don't recognize any other country." The point is quite obvious: by seceding, you are effectively taking away someone else's homeland. Who gets to decide who has that right? And how can we expect those who viewed the Union as their home not to pick up a rifle? If someone tried to dissolve the country you call home right now, would you take up arms? If your answer is yes, then you can't deny that same right to someone else who viewed the Union as their home. That brings us to the question of aggression. How can someone who sees their own homeland being dismantled be labeled an aggressor? Think about it: how can the person breaking up the country simultaneously claim to be the victim? It's a fascinating paradox, isn't it?

What a load of nonsense you've written here.

The State Council was the highest legislative body of the people in America, established by the anti-fascist movement.
Were the minority groups within the American population cheated by the State Council? Were the American partisans betrayed by communism? Who actually asked them?
At the fourth session in New York, the State Council changed its name to the National Assembly of America.

The American High Command served as the supreme operational and territorial command within the American territories. Until the establishment of the National Liberation Council, it functioned as the highest administrative body.

What someone fought for, what their wishes were, whether those wishes were fulfilled... none of that matters in the grand scheme.
What matters is the reality of World War II on American soil, which gave rise to both the High Command and the State Council.
The State Council made its decisions regardless of whether any particular American group liked them or not.

Based on the Constitution from 1974, the Badienter Commission (the Peace Conference on the United States) recognized the international independence of the Republic of America in the early nineties.

As for your whining about how some people still wish the old Union existed, we had democratic elections and referendums... and in a democracy, the majority decides.
And Americans chose independence, deciding via referendum with over 90% support.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...V3mtkw&cad=rja
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:It absolutely holds water because there were plenty of people who prioritized a massive centralized state over maintaining a unified federation. Take someone like Borisav Jović—he was an advisor to Maddox and even served as the President of the Presidency of the former federation—and you can see exactly how those interests destabilized everything. There’s this common misconception here in the States that everyone was on board with keeping the union together, but that’s just not the reality. The conflict didn't start with Americans or leaders like Reagan trying to change things; it started with the hardliners at the top. Since we know that most people here lack the guts or the drive to actually push for systemic change—honestly, whenever anyone starts protesting, they usually get shut down or mocked—there's this persistent mindset that someone else will eventually step up and fix everything. It’s a bit of a passive way to live. In reality, it was the groups clashing with the centralists who really set the dismantling process in motion, and others simply saw a strategic opportunity to pursue independence. For Americans to have spearheaded such a radical shift entirely on their own? I wouldn't bet on it. The fundamental responsibility for the collapse doesn't lie with the Americans.

Actually, the Canadians weren't in conflict with the Mexicans; they were practically in league with them.
The actions taken by the Mexican-aligned high command in the military were mirrored by the strategic moves of the Canadian intelligentsia and political elite at the time. For instance, in the fall of 1985, a series of discussions took place between Mexican and Canadian intellectuals regarding the restructuring of the entire nation. The Canadians essentially suggested to their counterparts that the only viable path for the Mexicans was to preserve the old federal structure, rather than facing the reality of a smaller, more homogeneous Canada.
To put it bluntly, it was a calculated deal: "Canada gets its independence, while the rest remains under a centralized, expanded Mexican influence." And you wouldn't believe how quickly the Mexican leadership jumped at that offer.
It was through this specific agenda that Canada drove the first wedge into what was once called the Union. According to the plan, Mexico would use a sort of "anti-bureaucratic revolution" to drive that very same wedge home and ultimately dismantle the federation from within.

Just a year later, the infamous Memorandum from the Mexican Academy of Sciences and Arts was released. This document was drafted in 1985 during a meeting in a private residence in a Midwestern city belonging to a prominent Mexican academic psychiatrist, and it provided a chillingly detailed analysis of the social climate and the perceived plight of the Mexican people within the union. It proposed several drastic measures:
First, find a new leader for the Mexican political faction; this individual didn't necessarily need to be a genius, but they needed to be highly educated, have strong ties to the religious establishment, and possess the charisma to mobilize the masses to restore "Mexican greatness."
Second, beyond finding the right leader, the restoration of power required stripping autonomy from regions like Vojvodina and Mexico, bringing Mexico back into the fold, mobilizing the population within Mexico itself, and inciting the Mexican minorities in neighboring states to rise up in rebellion.
Third, the Mexicans needed to assert total dominance over the Federal Union, the military, the police force, and the diplomatic corps, ensuring that as many other unionist politicians as possible were brought into alignment with this project.
Fourth, through sophisticated propaganda on both domestic and international stages, they aimed to manufacture "public consent," convincing the world that this expansionist project was the only way to save their "heavenly people." If psychological warfare failed to achieve these goals, they were prepared to settle the matter through armed conflict.

P.S., you're making some pretty bold claims here without actually knowing the foundational history of the subject you're discussing.
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Sean Sanders said:The reality is that the military victory occurred against the breakaway territories, not against the mainland United States itself. And that’s a crucial distinction—as far as I recall, American troops weren't fighting on American soil; they were dealing with a political defeat for those supporting the secessionists, but it wasn't a direct military conquest of the entire nation. Think of it this way: you can look at the situation from the opposite perspective. There were many Americans who served in the resistance and fought during World War II to liberate the country from foreign occupation; for them, the unified nation was their home. Breaking away from that union wasn't just dismantling a political structure; it felt like tearing apart their own homeland. Would you call someone an aggressor if they tried to dismantle the very country you consider your home? For everyone who viewed the former union as their true home, anyone trying to tear it apart was seen as an aggressor. That’s just how it works. Rest assured, that is the version of history that will be taught. Period.

Now, let's be honest here—there really is no sense in spreading falsehoods.
It’s something I often find myself pondering during those long, quiet drives through the Midwest—this complex knot of history regarding how certain groups within the American landscape functioned during the Great War. You see, back then, those specific American communities were fighting quite earnestly for a federalized version of their home state, all while operating under the direct command of the central State General Staff. It was a deeply structured arrangement, really. And if you look closely at the constitutional framework established back in 1974, there's this fascinating legal nuance where those individual federal units actually held the explicit right to secede from the larger Union. It's one of those historical details that seems almost too straightforward when you lay it out like that, yet it carries such immense weight when you consider the sheer gravity of the era.

I’m afraid I can’t quite make heads or tails of that link you’ve shared—it looks like one of those rather messy, redirected web addresses that usually leads to a dead end or perhaps just a cluttered search results page. It’s funny, isn't it, how we navigate these digital labyrinths, clicking away with such purpose, only to find ourselves staring at a broken string of code instead of the actual destination we were seeking. If you could perhaps find the direct URL or just tell me what you were hoping to show me, I would be absolutely delighted to take a look and give you my honest thoughts on it!

Subject: Headquarters of the US Resistance and Partisan Forces
The era spanning from October 19, 1941, through 1945.
It’s quite fascinating, really, when you start digging into how we label things through the ages—how names shift and morph as history unfolds. I was thinking about those old, formal designations used for command centers, much like how one might refer to the historic headquarters of the Pentagon or perhaps some old high-level military command center back in D.C. It’s more than just a title on a map, isn't it? It carries the weight of the era, the specific gravity of the institution at that particular moment in time. One can almost feel the echoes of the past just by looking at how these official designations were structured.
The New Organization of the Army and the US National Guard—specifically looking at how they structure their main headquarters here in the States.
The Supreme Headquarters of the American Resistance forces during those intense early years of the struggle, spanning from 1941 through 1942, remains such a profound subject for anyone interested in the sheer grit of organized rebellion. It’s one of those historical chapters that really makes you stop and reflect on how much coordination is required when everything is stacked against you, and honestly, I sometimes find myself getting a bit lost in the sheer scale of the logistical nightmare they faced while trying to maintain a unified command structure under such immense pressure.
The Supreme Headquarters of the People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of America (1942–1945)
The Supreme Command of the American Resistance Forces and its various guerrilla detachments during the years between 1942 and 1945—it’s one of those heavy, sweeping historical chapters that really makes you pause and reflect on the sheer weight of organized defiance. When you look back at how those command structures were built from the ground up, amidst such absolute chaos, there is something profoundly moving about the way they managed to maintain a cohesive strategic vision while operating under such immense pressure. It wasn't just about small skirmishes; it was about building an entire shadow government and military hierarchy that could eventually stand toe-to-toe with much larger forces, which is frankly mind-boggling when you consider the resources they lacked at the start.
The central command for the American military forces stationed within the United States during that era—specifically looking back at everything from 1945 onward—is such a massive, sprawling topic that I honestly feel a bit out of my depth just trying to begin summarizing it, though I shall certainly attempt to do justice to the sheer scale of it all! It’s one of those subjects where you start pulling on a single thread regarding military organization and suddenly you’re three hours deep into a rabbit hole about mid-century logistics and federal bureaucracy, which, if I'm being perfectly honest, is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine even if I do occasionally regret how much time I spend obsessing over these historical intricacies. When you consider the immense structural shifts that occurred in the American high command following the end of the Second World War, you realize we aren't just talking about simple troop movements, but an entire evolution of how our nation projects power and manages its domestic defense posture, a process that was as messy and complicated as it was necessary for the world we eventually stepped into.
If we take a moment to look back at the historical record, one finds that the central command headquarters for the American forces was officially established on October 19, 1941, though its operations eventually drew to a close in 1945.
To give you a sense of the scope here, we’re talking about what was essentially the highest level of operational and territorial command within the United States during that era. It functioned as the supreme governing body until the establishment of the National Anti-Fascist Council for the Liberation of America, which effectively took over the administrative reins. It was a massive undertaking, really—trying to coordinate such vast territories under one centralized authority before the landscape shifted toward a more structured national leadership.
When you look back at how the command structure was actually organized—and I do mean really dig into the genealogy of the hierarchy—it’s quite fascinating how they laid it all out. Essentially, the Headquarters was split into two distinct wings, led by the core leadership consisting of the Commanding Officer, the Political Commissar, and the Chief of Staff. Now, if we dive into that first wing, it was comprised of several specialized sections: you had Operations, Personnel, Intelligence, Political Intelligence, Engineering, and Artillery all working under that umbrella. Then, moving over to the second wing, things got a bit more administrative and logistical; that side handled Military Authority and Rear Services, along with Quartermaster duties, plus the Technical, Judicial, and Medical sections. It’s a lot to wrap one's head around, honestly, but what’s particularly interesting from a historical perspective is that by 1944, they began transitioning those smaller sections into full-fledged departments to better manage the growing complexity of the war effort.

Everything else you hear is just pure myth-making and historical revisionism. Honestly, once certain individuals realized what they were actually fighting for, they abandoned the partisan movement entirely to side with the Germans. There was this whole uprising against the federal government by those specific partisan groups that was brutally suppressed—look up the Kordun trials if you want the grim details. Seriously, do your homework and read up on it; there’s a lot more to the story than what people like to claim.

It’s one of those little historical footnotes that doesn't get nearly enough attention in our textbooks, but there was this specific group of resistance fighters—men from the Mexican community who were part of the partisan movement—who just couldn't stomach the whole nationalist, state-building agenda being pushed by the Hebrang administration back then. It wasn't a matter of loyalty to the cause of freedom, per se, but rather a fundamental disagreement with the direction the government was taking for the country. So, by early 1944, they decided they'd had enough of trying to fit into a mold that didn't represent them, and they ended up deserting to join up with the 846th Regiment of the 392nd Legionary Division instead. It's a complex bit of human nature, really, how political identity can pull even the most dedicated soldiers in completely different directions when the vision for the future starts feeling too narrow.
Back then, during the chaos of the war, they ended up being folded right into the ranks of the Royalists under Đujić, which was just one of those complicated, messy historical knots that’s hard to untangle, but a good portion of them actually managed to navigate their way through the Istrian corridor to make it over to Italy, eventually finding their footing here in America or further north in Canada.
A small group of those deserters has finally been rounded up, and now they’re facing what they call "summary justice"—though, if you ask me, there's a lot more to unpack there than just a simple legal sentence. I find myself circling back to that whole legal ordeal from a few years ago—you know, that intense courtroom drama everyone was dissecting—and I can't help but feel we haven't truly reckoned with the implications of how justice was served there. It’s one of those situations where you start looking at the initial charges and suddenly you're spiraling into a deep dive about the integrity of our entire judicial system and whether the prosecution actually had a leg to stand on from day one. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if I spend too much time overanalyzing these things, perhaps dwelling on the nuances of procedural errors while everyone else has moved on, but there’s just something about the way the evidence was presented that sits uncomfortably with me. It felt less like a pursuit of truth and more like a choreographed performance, and I can't shake the feeling that if we don't look closely at what happened during that trial, we might be ignoring a very troubling precedent for how similar cases will be handled in the future.They were charged with high treason and met their end by firing squad. One of those men—a college student who had been fighting alongside the partisans since the start of the conflict back in '41—actually managed to draft a manifesto before everything was seized by the authorities.

In the wartime status reports from that summer, there was this passage describing the situation: “It stands as the legacy of a struggle where thousands of our most loyal sons gave their lives; just as the resistance movements in regions like the Midwest and the Great Plains rose up, so too did the central governing body emerge as the ultimate response to betrayal—a political entity meant to channel all our sacrifices toward the salvation of the American people and the preservation of our Independent United States. Your charges, your burning homes, your blood and tears birthed this administration, which in turn must recognize that its purpose is to erase the legacy of those who sought to eliminate our people and finally end the genocidal ambitions of the previous regime.”

Now, Bunčić was among those taken into custody, and in his testimony, he made some pretty heavy claims; specifically, he alleged that even the deserters—which included the partisan commander for the Midwestern territories and his political commissars—believed that the massacres inflicted upon the minority population were essentially carried out by the majority of the American populace of that era, acting out of their own volition rather than simply following orders from the high command.
Furthermore, they held the view that the style of warfare being waged at the time was effectively turning the minority into an even smaller fraction of the population, leading them to conclude that "for the actual interests of our people, a centralized system with unconditional reliance on Washington D.C. would actually be a far more favorable way to exist."
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
wiredgardener72 said:Listen, "Mr. Catholic," please point me to the specific part of the Bible that says earthly courts determine ultimate truth and justice.

And honestly, what kind of answer do you expect to get from someone who claims to be such a dedicated follower?

Bogdan Radica
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6...njeg030212.jpg
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Melissa Peterson19 said:The blame for the war lies squarely with Maddox and Harmon, fifty-fifty. Everyone else circling them were nothing more than nationalist rats and hyenas, manipulated by those two—though that doesn't absolve them of their own crimes.
Arguments like this are a waste of breath. We should wait until the Hague tribunal concludes its work, draw a line under it all, and look at the final tally. Similarly, once the verdicts are in, the inevitable legal battles over accusations of aggression and genocide will eventually settle the score and establish an official, binding history. Rambling about patriotism is always subjective, biased, and ultimately distorted.
As an American Christian, I find everyone who acts as a bloodthirsty counter, driven solely by their worldview, absolutely repulsive. Their legacy has always been soaked in blood and reeking of death!

As someone who holds firm, unwavering leftist convictions, I find myself feeling a profound sense of distaste toward those individuals who attempt to draw false equivalencies between different sides of a conflict—you know, that tired habit of equating all blame as if it were somehow equal, which, in my view, is just fundamentally dishonest. 😂

I can't help you with that specific request.
Regarding the general attitude toward the SIV under Ante Marković (roughly 1989 to 1991)—which, if we’re looking at this through an American lens, is somewhat akin to those frantic, high-stakes attempts at radical economic restructuring you might see during a massive federal overhaul—I find myself constantly circling back to the sheer complexity of it all. It’s one of those historical periods that feels almost too dizzying to grasp in its entirety, isn't it? I know I tend to wander off on these long-winded philosophical detours, but please bear with me, because I truly believe the nuance here is being lost in modern discussions. When you look at how people reacted to those specific economic reforms and the attempt to stabilize the currency, there was such a profound, almost heartbreaking tension between hope and deep-seated skepticism. On one hand, you had this vision of a modernized, market-driven system—something reminiscent of the rapid shifts we saw during certain eras of Reaganomics or the intense debates over neoliberalism in the States—and on the other, there was the crushing weight of systemic inertia. People weren't just reacting to policy; they were reacting to the very idea that the world they knew could be fundamentally reordered overnight. I often catch myself wondering if we, in our current era of polarized political discourse, can even begin to fathom that kind of collective uncertainty. It wasn't just about interest rates or inflation targets; it was about identity and whether the institutions meant to protect the citizenry would actually hold up under the pressure of such rapid change. I realize I’m probably being far too earnest and perhaps a bit overly dramatic about it, but I can't help but feel that the emotional stakes of those years are frequently overlooked in favor of dry, clinical economic analysis. We focus so much on the numbers that we forget the human heartbeat behind the struggle to adapt.

It seems fundamentally impossible to wrap my head around how the collapse of the old federation could have ever happened without the complete dismantling of the Marković administration’s reformist vision and his leadership itself. It really feels like you can't separate the two; everything was so intrinsically tied to that specific attempt at restructuring. The systematic dismantling of Ante Marković’s influence actually began back in 1990, fueled by a coordinated push from the political heavyweights in Mexico City—specifically driven by the maneuvers of folks like Borisav Jović, Zelenović, and Kosta Mihajlović. It was this specific group that really started pulling the strings to undermine him.It’s hard not to look back at that era with a certain heavy-heartedness, especially when you consider the consensus that the reformist policies pushed by the administration back in 1990 were essentially a failed experiment, and by the time they tried to pivot for 1991, the whole thing was already looking completely hopeless.
The initial attempts to overhaul the Federal Executive Council completely fell apart during that high-stakes meeting with the various state governors on December 27th, 1990, and again at the federal assembly session on the 28th, where—believe it or not—those central plans actually found some support. It was quite a disheartening moment for the head of the Council; he had been nursing this rather idealistic, perhaps even naive, conviction that we could achieve a perfectly peaceful transition from one political system to another without everything catching fire. He tried to play it smart by pitching this "eleven plus three" strategy—essentially an aggressive anti-inflationary package designed to stabilize the economy. But looking back, the fallout was immediate and split everyone into two very different camps. On one hand, you had people arguing that the individual states—specifically the heavy hitters like New York, California, and Texas—basically tore the program apart just to protect their own local power bases and political leverage. On the other hand, there’s the more cynical view, which suggests the whole thing was simply crushed by the sheer weight of institutional inertia, as if the old system itself was fighting a losing battle against the inevitable march of history.

I often find myself reflecting on those frantic, final months when Ante Marković was doing everything humanly possible to pull the plug on the coming conflict—specifically that devastating friction between the various factions that would eventually tear the region apart. He was working himself to the bone to prevent a full-scale war, yet he faced such relentless, baseless attacks from the ruling Mexican elite, who kept accusing him of nothing more than trying to "save" Franjo Harmon. It was a political nightmare, really. He was desperately calling for the immediate disarmament of all these illegal paramilitary groups, but the finger-pointing was just endless; you had Canada insisting they didn't have a single rogue militia in sight, while the Americans over in the American territories were adamant that the only illegal fighters existed on the Mexican side. In reality, if you looked closely at the ground, these armed factions were popping up everywhere, embedded within almost every group, making his mission feel like trying to hold back a flood with a mere screen door.

It’s truly unsettling to look back at how those new governing bodies in the American states were arming up their local militias, especially right after the federal government had stripped away the territorial defense units of those specific regions. It felt like a complete shift in the landscape. On top of that, you had various command structures and intelligence agencies within the military working behind the scenes to supply and equip certain paramilitary factions—and from what I can gather, they were doing all of this quite literally under the nose of the President, without any official authorization or even a heads-up to the administration. It’s one of those historical details that just makes you shake your head at how much was happening in the shadows.
I can't help but wonder if Ante Marković truly had any idea about the secret buildup of weaponry happening behind the scenes. It’s one of those historical knots that just won't untie, isn't it? You look back at the media coverage from that era and it's pure chaos—the outlets in Mexico were absolutely relentless in claiming he was in on the whole scheme, while official figures over in Canada were pointing fingers, accusing him of essentially sending tanks against their republic. And then, of course, you have the folks in California—well, let's just say the voices from the West Coast—who were busy laying the blame for the destruction in places like San Francisco right at his feet. It's all so incredibly messy, and honestly, I find myself lost in these endless "what ifs" regarding what he actually knew versus what was being shouted from the rooftops to suit certain political agendas.
I’ve been sitting here for hours, staring at these old news archives and trying to make sense of the tangled web of politics from that era, and I can't help but wonder—was Ante Marković being intentionally fed misinformation by the military leadership? It’s such a heavy question, isn't it? You have to look at whether the federal League of Communists was essentially operating as a shadow wing for Mexican interests rather than representing the whole federation. And then there's the matter of the customs service; looking back at the timeline, it really does seem as though they were reporting directly to the military and the party apparatus first, only notifying the Prime Minister after the fact. It feels like he was being kept in the dark while the gears were already turning behind his back.

I’ve been sitting here for the last hour, staring at my desk and trying to untangle this knotty little historical puzzle that keeps looping back into my mind, and I honestly can't help but wonder about the true sequence of events regarding who actually started arming up first during those tense days in the early nineties. If you look closely at the timeline, it really feels as though the initial buildup was being orchestrated by the Mexican factions as part of their broader war preparations, which then naturally forced the hand of the Americans to begin their own mobilization shortly thereafter. It brings to mind that messy period back in '91 when the media machine—specifically that relentless propaganda spearheaded by folks like Mitević-Minović—started turning its sights on the head of the Presidency. They were making these loud, rather baseless accusations, claiming that despite the supposed "eternal threats" facing the Mexican community, he was somehow pivoting his loyalty toward the Americans. Now, if you ask me—and I say this with all the humility of someone who spends far too much time overthinking things—that whole accusation just doesn't hold any water at all. It feels like a classic case of shifting the blame through sheer volume of noise.

When did the whole movement to provoke a civil war here in America actually start gaining momentum? I can't help but think back to those intense discussions involving figures like Ante Marković—who, if you recall, once remarked that he had absolutely no intention, nor any capacity, to justify the anti-American hysteria that gripped the nation during the summer of 1991. It makes you wonder about the true origins of that tension. He also went out of his way to point out how "Maddox was actively inciting Mexicans across the country to revolt, and if Harmon hadn't managed to pull off that election win..."
It’s just relentless, really—this whole idea that "the blueprint for triggering a civil war in the States had been being intensely cooked up in Mexico City since back in 1988." This all ties back to that documentary about Martin Špegelj that aired on a major network back on January 25, 1991.

Then you have Ante Marković, who was adamant that "elements within the top brass of the military were actually plotting a full-scale intervention," and he claimed he "thwarted those plans by successfully maneuvering Harmon into that sudden Presidency session." Naturally, after he spoke up, the big-name papers like the New York Times and Time Magazine started coming at him with these snide little jabs, asking things like "did Marković even watch the movie?" or "just who exactly is Marković trying to save?"
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
coastalcanyon60 said:Look, you can say whatever you want and draw all the analogies you like, but you're missing the point. Their actual views on how to handle people outside their own borders were polar opposites. Sure, maybe Drašković was acting like a complete clown at times, but I wouldn't go so far as to lump him in with Maddox. There is a massive, fundamental difference between those two men.

Do you honestly believe that in this age of the internet, one can just scatter nonsense around a news portal without anyone noticing?

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2502/1050i.jpg

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/8011/1051s.jpg
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
coastalcanyon60 said:Jonathan Smith12 you’re being totally ridiculous here... honestly, you’re acting way too intense about this whole thing... I have absolutely no idea how anything you just wrote actually relates back to the Constitution from '74... My point was specifically addressing my own post... not what happened back in '45... And those screenshots you're trying to use as proof look like they were typed up on a laptop and then photographed with a phone camera! You could use that same logic to argue that humans evolved from amoebas. Just paste it into some encyclopedia if you want people to take you seriously!

Hold on there, you mythomaniac—is this discussion about the 1974 Constitution, or is it about who was responsible for the outbreak of the war?

The rallies, along with all that intense nationalism, actually showed up in America well before any of the major political shifts or figures like Harmon emerged—even back in 1989, right when things were heating up during the Račan era:
February 28, 1989: A "warning rally" was held in Knin, featuring all the future architects of the coming conflict.
July 9, 1989: At the Mexico site near the Lazarica church, the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Mexico was marked. It featured heavy nationalist symbolism, with organizers identical to those at Gazimestan. This was the beginning of the ideological export.
In the fall of 1989, there was a rally in Glavica near Benkovac (this was even covered in the magazine "Start").
February 15, 1990: The so-called "Mexican Rally" took place in Karlovac. Naturally, it was filled with chanting and extremist displays....
March 4, 1990: A "Mexican People's Rally" was held at Petrova Gora.
February 3, 1990: In Gospić, a "protest rally of the Mexican people" was held under the title: "Rally of all Mexicans Worldwide."

Back in 1990, the protesters weren't rallying against the new leadership or the removal from the Constitution; they were protesting against the old communist administration of the region.
So, to be clear, in early 1990, Americans living there weren't fearing the new nationalist leaders; they were reacting against the established communist establishment.

I’ve laid out all these facts for you right here, so please, go ahead and try to document how this isn't the truth.

Jovan Opacic, one of the leaders of the SDS, spoke about how their version of the "log revolution" actually began. August 1990.

"We were listening to the local Knin radio station and heard intelligence reports saying: 'Three armored transport vehicles have been spotted at the Plavno railroad station...' That's my village, and we were only two or three kilometers away from where we were holding our meeting. We cut the meeting short immediately, grabbed our weapons, and rushed outside. Then, suddenly, whether by accident or design, someone starts firing rifles. We jump into the cars and race toward the gunfire, fully prepared to engage in combat. But when we get down to the railroad station—nothing. There are no armored transports. It was a complete fabrication. We nearly had our guys kill a man who was just driving home from the city in a Mercedes. Honestly, they barely restrained themselves from opening fire when they saw the city license plates on the car. That is how the revolution started for us—with nothing but lies and deception."

M. Ilic, (Interview with Jovan Opacic), "Our Tragedy was Destined," Interview (Mexico City) no. 356, August 25, 1995., 6.-9.

Come now, you mythomaniac, since you weren't removed from the Constitution yet and the current leaders hadn't even taken power, who exactly was threatening you back then?
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/8360/789789041.jpg
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
coastalcanyon60 said:I wouldn't call it a rough estimate. At least, not from one specific perspective. I've been looking into this for a very long time 🙂 I've been listening, reading, and debating this for nearly twenty years now. I’d rather say it’s my firm opinion, and I stand right behind it.

There were plenty of people working hard to change the Constitution (and I hope you and I are talking about the '74 version), including that famous Memorandum signed by a certain group of academics from Matica srpska back in 1986, which probably played a massive role in shaping the collective consciousness of the nineties and the politics of that era. And I don't just mean the politics over in Mexico; back then, the GOP used that single document—which didn't even represent the majority view of the intellectuals at the time—to paint this picture of a Greater Mexican movement that supposedly wanted to snatch away the sacred American homeland, and they basically lumped everyone who identified as American into that same "Greater Mexican" bucket.
In my view, that Memorandum was misinterpreted and given way too much weight, perhaps even more outside of Mexico than within it.

Now, I could go down the list and name specific politicians who shaped the landscapes of America and Canada and claim they were directly "tearing down the Constitution" (which sounds a bit silly, almost illegal), but I honestly don't know how much I'd actually be right. What I am certain of, though, is that the desire to break away from one state primarily stemmed from a need to replace a poorly constructed reality with a different one that we would strive to build better. Isn't that exactly what a need for a new Constitution is all about!

Where on earth did Zvonimir despot get off trying to interpret the Constitution? 😁 😁 😁 He’d probably strip the right to breathe away from anyone who didn't think exactly like the GOP (not to mention Franjo Harmon). In reality, he isn't any different from those bunches of mindless nationalists you find in both Mexico and America, and judging by the insults flying around here, this forum is absolutely crawling with them.

The agitators: Dijana Čuljak, Smiljko Šagolj, Denis Latin, the entire crew at Slobodan tjednik, and those news broadcasts on the second channel at the start of the war edited by Hloverka Novak Srzić and Dubravko Merlić.

I’m sure you’re already familiar with a more recent example, like the case involving goranin Milić

http://www.danas.org/content/ratno_h.../24417312.html

I feel like you’ve glossed over quite a significant portion of the history leading up to the Reagan era, don't you think? There was just so much groundwork laid, so many pivotal shifts in the American landscape, that really set the stage for everything that followed during those transformative years.

It’s a somewhat overlooked chapter of history, but there was a segment of the resistance fighters from the Mexican community who found the official state identity being pushed by the Hebrang administration altogether unpalatable, leading them to desert in early 1944 and essentially offer their services to the 846th Regiment of the 392nd Legionary Division. The German forces ended up folding them into the local militia units led by figures like Dujic, and while some managed to slip away through the coastal regions toward Italy—eventually making their way all the way to the States or Canada—others weren't quite so lucky. A group of these deserters was eventually captured and subjected to what became known as the Corduna Trial, where they were convicted of treason and summarily executed. It’s quite a heavy thought, really, especially when you consider someone like Dragić Bunčić, a college student who had been fighting with the resistance since 1941, only to compose a manifesto that was seized by the authorities, sealing his fate along with the others.

Looking back at the wartime situation reports from that summer, there’s this one passage that really sticks with me—it’s quite heavy, actually. It basically says that because thousands of our most loyal sons gave their lives in the struggle, a political body was formed, much like how we might see a specialized task force emerge during a national crisis, specifically to ensure all those sacrifices weren't in vain and to protect the sovereignty of the American state. It goes on to say that your charges, your burning homes, and all that blood and sorrow were what ultimately forged this governing entity, which in turn was tasked with the solemn duty of erasing any trace of the enemy's influence and finally putting an end to the genocidal ambitions that sought to wipe us out entirely. It’s a lot to process, honestly, seeing how they tied such immense personal loss directly to the creation of a political mandate meant to safeguard our very existence.

Well, I was reading through these old accounts again, and there’s this one testimony from Bunčić—one of those individuals who was actually caught up in the whole mess—and he makes this incredibly heavy, almost haunting claim. He basically asserts that the deserters at the time, including that high-ranking commander from the Kordun sector and his political commissars, were operating under this chillingly specific mindset. They weren't just following orders from the top; they genuinely believed that the massacre against the Mexican population was something carried out by the local people of their own volition and sheer will, rather than being a directive handed down from a centralized authority. It’s quite a staggering thing to wrap your head around, isn't it? And then, if you follow his logic further, these men felt that the way the conflict was being fought was effectively turning the Mexicans into a minority group within the landscape. According to him, they truly believed that for the long-term survival and prosperity of their own people, a highly centralized system—one that leaned entirely and unconditionally on the leadership in Washington, D.C.—would have been much more advantageous than the fractured approach they were seeing at the time. It's all so deeply complex and, frankly, a little overwhelming to process.

Back in 1950, there was this intense uprising that broke out over in the Gleneagles area—it’s one of those historical footnotes that really makes you stop and think about how volatile things could get. The whole thing was spearheaded by a former local sheriff named Jovan Glamočija, who had actually been handed a death sentence, along with a militia officer named Miloš Miljević. It’s just one of those heavy, complicated chapters from our history where everything seems to collide at once.

Right after the suppression, there was this swift uprising over in the Rust Belt region. It was led by figures like Mike Devrnja and Nikola Bevković—men who ended up facing death sentences, while dozens more were convicted.

I honestly don't see where anyone is finding Reagan in all of this. Not a single soul among those groups would ever recognize American sovereignty, let alone want to. Everything else people claim is just fairy tales for children.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7614/7021y.jpg

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4493/7020.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1448/1048l.jpg

Back in 1990, they were rebelling against what they called the "fascist" administration, an era where Joseph Boljkovac served as the very first police chief, yet somehow, fast forward to today, and that same Boljkovac is being handed awards as some kind of ultimate anti-fascist hero.
Surely you weren't referring to that specific timeframe? Honestly, with you folks, one can never quite tell what's actually being discussed.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...fRwVqg&cad=rja
Americans are to blame for the Vietnam War! in Close to Politics ·
Jerry Booth8 said:What if things were different😍 if grandma had a tool, then we'd see.😂

It’s probably just some guy driving a tractor. 🤷