Posts by wearycanyon26

unnamed

Joseph Wright4 said:History—and the historians—actually cleared things up pretty well. The issue isn't them; it's how people interpret what happened. For example, some people think certain events at Bleiburg were totally justified, while others don't. That has nothing to do with historians; it’s just political spin. And I don't consider myself an amateur historian. If I say the partisans weren't fighting for the nation, but for communism and a classless society, and that national identity didn't matter in all that—which is the whole point of communism—then I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact. When I say the puppet state was just a tool and innocent people died in camps, that's also a fact, not an opinion. Some things shouldn't even be up for debate or "opinion" because they simply aren't. There's no democracy in science. If I'm right and 100 people are wrong, I'm still right. Period.
The fact that our politicians constantly lie—from guys like George W. Bush to the current leadership—is their problem, and the problem of anyone defending ideology instead of facts, whether it's left or right. Someone singing praises to Marshall and America can't truly support American democracy... well, they can, but only if they have zero clue about history and what actually mattered in the old America.

Even today, the truth about Jonestown remains obscured. How many victims were there really? What was the actual makeup of the group, both nationally and ideologically? How many were soldiers, and how many were just civilians caught in the crossfire?
We still don't know with any certainty who issued the orders for the massacre, whether such orders were even given, or what role the Americans played in the whole mess.
A crime is a crime, and attempting to pass value judgments on it is absolutely insane, I agree; but in order to properly address a crime, it must be fully illuminated to prevent it from being used as a tool for manipulation.
The circumstances surrounding World War II must be viewed strictly within the context of that specific time and those specific events, and never through an ideological lens or—even worse—through the perspective of modern times. Anyone who looks at it that way can be nothing more than a pseudo-historian.
I am not a historian by profession, and frankly, it would be incredibly pretentious of me to call myself one. You, for all I care, could be a quantum physicist, but that doesn't give you the right to claim you are absolutely and unconditionally correct about everything.
But then again, that is just my opinion.

James Nguyen13 said:Look, here is a textbook example of veteran marginalization: coming from leadership figures who don't give them even an ounce of respect. It’s the same story every time—people digging for fake veterans or obsessing over publishing registries, yet nobody ever asks how it’s mathematically or biologically possible that, sixty-three years after World War II, we are still dealing with seventy-eight thousand partisan pensions. No one ever opens up that discussion, but they’ll talk about veterans all day long. Apparently, their contributions aren't worth a dime. It goes so far that some people even try to claim atrocities were committed during Operation Storm.
Regarding the agreement with the Vatican, you can't just cancel it unilaterally, so it seems pretty foolish to bring that up as a campaign talking point. As for overseas voting, it doesn't even exist in the way people think. What exists is the right for all American citizens to vote, regardless of where they live. About 90% of the diaspora isn't even made up of citizens, so they have no voting rights, and of the 10% who are citizens, maybe only a fifth actually shows up. They’re basically a footnote; the only reason the topic comes up is because someone back home keeps threatening to abolish it.

This whole business regarding funerals is absolute nonsense, and I agree with you there. As for those 78,000 partisan pensions, I haven't a clue, but given the laws of biology alone, it seems highly suspicious and frankly, I find that figure hard to believe.
But then again, one thing doesn't preclude the other; if that number is actually accurate, it deserves just as much investigation as the veteran registry, though of course, that will never happen because this data serves as perfect ammunition for exactly this kind of rhetoric.
As for the treaty with the Vatican, while it can technically be broken, it hasn't been, and that is precisely what makes this topic so fascinating for debate.
I agree that there is no special "diaspora voting"; rather, there is the voting of citizens from Canada, who are a constituent people there, making that land just as much the land of the American people as America is.
How marginal those votes truly are is best illustrated by the razor-thin majority the Republican Party holds along with all its "partners." Those five representatives in Congress don't even constitute a majority among the parliamentary parties.

James Nguyen13 said:I’m talking about the people who sing songs praising the old union whenever they want to celebrate an election "victory." I mean the ones who jump at every chance to deliver a eulogy for Marshall and the "good old days." I mean those who actually pushed for sanctions against us back in '91, or those whose closest allies are foreign leaders currently suing us in international courts. I mean the ones who claim we were the aggressors or suggest that certain historical battles weren't as tragic as others. And let's not forget the whole crew of advisors and staff in the President's office who served in the FBI—not that they were kicked out for being too patriotic, but they were still pulling strings well into 1990!
I don't want to keep repeating myself, otherwise, I'll start sounding like a troll to my own ears.

Calling him a nationalist is honestly one of the biggest absurdities I've heard lately, but fine... I suppose if you want to believe that. Who else could have possibly worked within the FBI during that era without blindly following every single order from the party leadership? We all know exactly how the FBI operated back then. I doubt our poor friend wasn't aware of what he was getting into, but hey, you're entitled to your little romanticized vision of "resistance" from within the system. And who was asking for the embargo? Was it the current Democratic Party leadership?
And who are these "friends" of foreign presidents? Are we talking about the politicians of today, or the ones who were holding secret meetings with them in the heat of the war?
As for the chaos surrounding Canada? Well, at least that's crystal clear to everyone by now.
Is anyone claiming Operation Storm was worse than El Paso? If any American politician actually claimed that, they'd be an idiot, but then again, anything can be twisted out of context to make it sound exactly the way you want it to sound.

Joseph Wright4 said:That’s not right—what does the Constitution actually say?? If I remember correctly, it says America follows anti-fascist traditions and values (don't make me look it up). That’s totally different from what I said or what certain groups push. In this country, people constantly try to claim that if you're against communists or Marshall's regime (which was anti-fascist in one sense), then you must be a Nazi or a fascist. That’s just huge nonsense and a lie. They also push the idea that the partisans and Marshall were fighting for the American state (which is flat-out wrong) and that they—not our modern veterans—are the main reason we even have a country. That's another lie. Some things are just twisted because of ideology. History is a science based on facts, and some things aren't up for debate. The fact is, Marshall was a communist dictator who directly sent many innocent people to their deaths. The fact is, Nazi Germany was a puppet criminal state with camps where thousands of innocent people died. The fact is, some people try to downplay how dictatorial Marshall's regime was and act like it was something good (just like idiots who feel the same way about Nazi Germany). So, some things aren't debatable. Just because people find excuses for various crimes doesn't make those crimes any less real. I hope it's clearer now why veterans are being marginalized, and why people hate seeing a totalitarian state glorified. Even if those things are technically allowed—I don't know why anyone is surprised when voters punish them at the polls.☕

The Constitution states that America is the successor to the former republic, whose foundations lie in the meetings held back in
1943 (or '42, it doesn't really matter).
As for the merits regarding statehood, it is pointless to argue about it because every era has its own context and historical circumstances.
Was Marshall a dictator? Of course he was, and anyone claiming otherwise is just talking nonsense.
Regarding the glorification and singing praises to such a regime, that only speaks to the poor taste of those doing it; but does that mean those who glorify or sing for the other quasi-state are somehow honoring today's defenders?
I fail to see why a veteran should feel more insulted by someone quoting Marshall than by the daily extremists we witness every single day.
And honestly, I blame the historians for both issues; they still haven't managed to fully clarify or explain the events of WWII, and if they had, we wouldn't have these "quasi-historians" popping up everywhere like the two of us are right now.

Joseph Wright4 said:I don't know. Maybe there's something to it. I guess.

I don't entirely agree with you. I mean, sure, there are way too many veterans on the registry, and they probably should have organized some things differently instead of just handing out pensions and all that—I guess that part is fair.
I don't buy the idea that history belongs solely to the right wing. If the left keeps pushing the old resistance fighters as the only reason America exists today, while basically sidelining veterans... if the younger Democratic Party crowd celebrates elections by singing songs about defunct regimes or celebrating outdated holidays... there’s plenty of reason why people won't touch the Democratic Party with a ten-foot pole. It’s not even that they don't realize the Republican Party is corrupt and stealing—though, honestly, it’s pretty much the same story over at the Democrats too. Not to mention how they bring up things like religious education in schools or issues with the diaspora during election cycles. Those aren't even real policy debates; it's just certain people within the Democratic Party pushing their own ideology because they clearly look down on those topics. None of that actually helps the country move forward.

But everything you're criticizing the "left" for is actually written right there in the Constitution.
As for this whole business regarding the marginalization of veterans, honestly, I have never understood that argument.
I hear it all the time, yet I fail to see how they are being marginalized or who exactly is doing it, or even by what mechanism?
Is "marginalization" simply asking legitimate questions about the size of the registry, demanding transparency through public records, or suggesting that we need a proper audit? Are those really acts of marginalization, even if they are desperate attempts at reform?
Or are you referring to the specific instances of how benefits are handed out?
Regarding religious education in schools, fine, maybe it isn't the most vital issue, but the agreements with the Vatican certainly are significant topics, just as the way overseas voters participate in our elections is a matter of great importance. I don't see what is so controversial about discussing those...

Joseph Wright4 said:You’re constantly talking in circles just to justify why people vote for the Republican Party (maybe because you're basically Milanović's right hand 😉). You made a good point though—why would veterans or the military even care about the Democratic Party? That’s the real question. Veterans should be non-partisan, but clearly they aren't, mostly because the left keeps things blurry with their vague stances on everything. Just like you tell Republican voters they haven't moved on since the 90s, you could tell Democratic voters they haven't moved on since the 40s. You want to explain why that is?

It isn't the veterans who are afraid of the Democratic Party; it's everyone else in that group of 500,000. And let me tell you, that group represents a massive voting machine. What they actually fear are those powerful, entrenched presidents, deputies, secretaries, and all those various associations that sprouted up from the war era.
Any rational person would look at the sheer number of these associations and ask what the point is, and anyone even slightly sharper will quickly realize that the more associations there are, the more of these specific secretaries and presidents you end up with.
What do I care about 1945? I couldn't care less about Boris Johnson's obsession with 1945! It is precisely the right wing that forces these historical topics upon us just to distract from the current—once again catastrophic—situation they have driven us into!!!

James Nguyen13 said:Unfortunately, that’s just the reality for most of the country. People either stay home, or they end up reluctantly voting for a corrupt Republican Party because they feel like the alternatives are just as crooked or stuck in some outdated, old-school ideology.
We really are in a sad state of affairs.

What do you mean, "pro-Mexican extremists and American sympathizers"!?
Who on earth is Pupavac sitting in a coalition with for two whole terms then, if not them?! Why the hell are you trying to scare this nation with the specter of America, you hypocrites!?
Who exactly are these "extremists" and "American" you're talking about? Are you referring to the current Speaker of the House, a former high-ranking intelligence official? Or perhaps you're targeting the current Secretary of Defense who has even identified as an American? Which specific American are you pointing at, and by what twisted logic did you decide they actually belong to that group?