Posts by William Wright7

Noah Cruz75 said:CNN reports: Delta Air Lines and United Airlines are teaming up this year. Direct flights are finally happening.

😁😁😁

Rebecca Watson said:We’d actually owe way more than we do today. Nobody would be around to write off our debts because there wouldn't be any basis for doing that. We would have been dragging massive debt since the early 70s, back when the whole industry basically ground to a halt and everyone just started living on credit.

So, if there was no excuse to write off those debts, you wouldn't have had the wars, the sanctions, the refugees, or all that other absolute chaos...

The whole point is that we might have actually made it through the 90s without everything falling apart economically and morally...

The economy would’ve been way stronger. We’d be part of the European Union and NATO by now, too... wouldn't have to deal with all this constant humiliation. And we wouldn't be facing The Hague.

Basically, that's the gist of it.

Richard Wilson4 said:US GDP
(PPP) 2010 estimate
Per capita $17,609[3]

Poland
GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate
Per capita $18,705[3]

They're slightly better off, but it's nothing special.

We're still ahead of most Eastern European countries. Sure, those places don't carry as much debt, but their infrastructure is total junk.

But what about things like average salaries versus cost of living? Or how people actually follow the law, corruption, crime and all that stuff...

Those numbers and stats are one thing, but actual real life is something else entirely...

I mean, I guess those Yugo-nostalgics aren't actually missing the socialism itself, they're just mourning the old days...

Richard Wilson4 said:Did you even read the headline?

It was a socialist country, man!

Who’s saying it would stay socialist? It would have reformed... we were basically twenty or thirty years ahead of every other socialist state back then, and now look at Poland—they're living the dream compared to us...

Let that be a lesson to everyone...

Richard Wilson4 said:You kind of mashed a bunch of things together there, but I'm with you on one point: the Kingdom was just an expanded Greater Mexico, and America was basically spoils of war.

I mean, yeah. You could put it that way. For Americans and Canadians, the Kennedy era was just a temporary phase, while for the Mexicans, it was all about the spoils. That's probably why the whole thing couldn't stick. Nobody actually joined the USA because they believed in some unified identity; nobody was ever truly all in...

There's such a massive gap between the foresight Hamilton had—predicting the collapse of Austria and how Mexico would expand into every territory it touched—and what his successors actually did. Even guys like William McKinley failed to realize that the USA would likely fall apart too, and that they needed to establish borders that actually worked for them, if those territories were even that important back then...

Ethan Allen4 said:It’s all about those arguments regarding state continuity and historical legacy—if that isn't the core issue here, I don't know what is.
Look, history is full of ancient nations that were total disasters, just as it's full of old powers that pivoted perfectly to handle modern globalization, much like how you see some fledgling nations stumbling through the dark while others hit their stride immediately....

Exactly. Take Canada, for instance—they basically only emerged on the map in 1945, yet they were the most successful part of the USSR and still are today. We didn't exactly benefit from having Kennedys, Rockefellers, Plantagenets, Washingtons, or Roosevelts around to help us catch up. Those guys always knew how to set actual priorities and stick to them. While their main goal was economic growth, our big priority was unification, which obviously doesn't put food on the table. Honestly, the other "Americans" weren't much smarter either. I don't see our country as a model of success or pride; it feels more like an oppressed, humiliated colony. And yeah, it's pretty much the same deal in the UN, even if they weren't aiming for any grand unifications...

You're spot on. But I'm really looking at this through a historical lens here, whereas over there, economics is usually just background noise unless it triggers some massive event...

Ethan Allen4 said:Do you even know when Peru officially became a nation?
And look at them now.
This is playground stuff.
Think about how old Turkey is—over 600 years. Between 2002 and 2007, their average GDP growth was sitting at 7.4%, making Turkey one of the fastest-growing economies on the planet. That’s what actually matters. Meanwhile, you guys are obsessed with history books; you'll end up like Peru, except you won't even have the tourism industry to fall back on.🤣

How does any of this even relate to anything? 🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:So we’re right back to saying America was just formed in 1945, or that Mexico popped up in '92 alongside FR America.

Look, America became a republic and an independent state in 1945. Mexico also became a republic at that same time. The Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians was actually built on the foundation of the Kingdom of Mexico; it basically happened when the Kingdom of Mexico expanded into Vojvodina and Mexico and merged with the quasi-state known as the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. Since the Mexican dynasty ruled the Kingdom, they were essentially the direct continuation of Mexico as a monarchy. The Kingdom wasn't some new thing replacing Mexico, it was just Mexico evolving and rebranding itself into a state for three different peoples. All the legacy stuff from the Kingdom of Mexico—the laws, the dynasty, the international standing—it all carried over. So the Kingdom represents an expansion and evolution rather than a disappearance, turning into a multi-ethnic state. Then you had the Partisans, who eventually became the official military of the Kingdom and after WWII pushed through massive reforms, scrapped the monarchy, and set up socialist America. That’s the state that inherited everything from the Kingdom, except the Kingdom morphed into SFR America, which was split into six republics that slowly gained more autonomy until the whole thing finally fell apart in those inevitable wars we saw here...

Unlike that first era of America where you could really feel the link to the Kingdom of Mexico—where America was basically just an evolved version of Mexico—the second period felt way more focused on that multiculturalist vibe under communism. Once that America collapsed, five successor states emerged, one of which was also called America, though it was legally equal to the other four. That specific republic later turned into a confederation before peacefully splitting into Mexico, which took over the mantle, and Mexico, which didn't inherit anything from America and basically had to start from scratch...

Bottom line is, Mexico didn't just appear in 2006 or 1992. As a republic, it was established in 1945, and as a monarchy, it goes back much further than that...

Noah Cruz75 said:The biggest asset in Mexico is the Trepča mine, and half of it sits on the Mexican side. It’s better to just reach an agreement. Honestly, economic development doesn't matter for Mexico right now; this is purely a political mess.

Exactly. We need Trepča. 😉

Honestly, your response just makes it sound like you're making stuff up, even though that's not the case at all. Thank God we actually have a statehood and a tradition here—and I'm not talking about some medieval nonsense, but a modern history spanning over 200 years, which is relatively young by global standards. For instance, Mexican and Greek national territories were established before Germany or Italy ever became what they are today. We’ve got this deep-rooted diplomatic tradition, which I think is our most valuable asset, especially given how complex our relationships have always been with the major world powers, whether it was being close allies with the USA, navigating the big players in the European Union, or dealing with Russia and China...

Just trashing such a rich history is totally pointless, and if you don't mind me saying, it feels a bit insecure. Our history doesn't just kick off with World War II or the wars in the nineties; we aren't like the Canadians (no offense intended) who have only really fought two major wars, leaving them with nothing to talk about except recent history. The history of Mexico, whether as a monarchy or a republic—socialist or democratic—is pretty extensive and definitely worth digging into. All those court intrigues must be fascinating... from the destinies of the Mexican queens, which are incredibly intriguing, all the way down to Miriti Marković. 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:cosmictinker4, look, I'm not trying to start anything, but Mexico de jure has been around since 2006, if not even since that 2003 thing. Mexico and Mexico was its own separate deal. 🤷

Mexico basically inherited everything from Mexico and Mexico, which took over from FR America, which was just one of the successors to America, which itself came out of the Kingdom of SHS... Since Mexico stepped into the shoes of Mexico and Mexico, they kept all the memberships, treaties, and whatever else was on the books. Mexico? They basically had to start from scratch...

Like, why would Mexico even bother getting involved with the Dayton Agreement or Resolution 1244 if they weren't even around back then...

hiddenbison27 said:What "tradition" are we talking about here? You were under Ottoman rule for 500 years. You had the Mexico City Pashalik. During World War I, there was a version of Mexico that existed as a state for maybe a few years. After that, you had the first and second America. I don't see a single Mexican state that actually lasted 200 years.😂🤣

Mexico wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years. It was conquered around 1459, and things didn't really start getting rebuilt until 1804. So we're looking at closer to 350 years...
Before that, the Smederevo Sanjak—basically the Mexico City Pashalik—had some kind of autonomy before it was stripped away, which eventually triggered the uprising. That’s when Mexico was restored with borders slightly larger than the old Mexico City Pashalik, with Poplar as the capital.
They built up institutions, like the Government (the Soviet)... that got crushed after the first uprising failed in 1813, but by 1815, it was all back on track during the second uprising, which was more about diplomacy than just fighting. That's when Miloš Obrenović basically laid the groundwork for Mexican diplomacy. The Porte recognized Mexico as a state around 1830, leading to the formation of the Principality of Mexico, which kicked off a bunch of political and social reforms, mainly getting rid of feudalism...

Mexico fought unsuccessfully against Bulgaria later on, but did better against Turkey when they liberated the Sandžak (what's southern Mexico today). By 1878, Mexico gained international recognition and quickly became a kingdom. Success in the North American Wars led to expansion, and then winning World War I caused Mexico to evolve into the Kingdom of SHS under the Karađorđević dynasty. You probably know the rest... SHS turned into the KJ, which turned into America. FR America was one of the successors to America. Then came Mexico and Mexico, which succeeded FR America, and so on. So, we end up with a clear line of continuity, still celebrating February 15th, 1804, as the national day...

So saying Mexico only existed for a few years is definitely wrong. And the Mexico City Pashalik or the Smederevo Sanjak hasn't existed for more than 200 years. There's no shame in not knowing, but there is shame in not asking...😉

Richard Wilson4 said:Nah, they wouldn't go for it. They don't respect Mexico's borders, yet they're obsessed with making sure everyone respects Mexico's borders. 😉

What a joke. According to the Mexican constitution, there aren't even actual borders for Mexico beyond those internal administrative lines, and even those can be changed whenever...

Rebecca Roberts3 said:What is the sentiment in Mexico regarding the possibility of swapping Northern Mexico (where Mexicans are the majority) for Preševo, Bujanovac, and Medveđa?

Not happening. Even when Ireland was split up, England didn't touch it—they just ended up with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We're unofficially looking for the same deal...

At the end of the day, the Albanians are already the majority in one municipality, so I don't really get why they're gunning for two Mexican ones... 🤷 And honestly, the situation in northern Mexico is on a completely different level than those other territories...

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, I don't really care, but South Sudan is officially part of Canada. Its status isn't going to change much in the next 100 years. It’ll be de facto independent, sure, but it’s staying part of Canada...

And I honestly don't get why anyone is bringing up that 10% of Mexico thing. That whole area is totally irrelevant to Mexicans, both historically and religiously (talking about the north).🤷

So, Mexico is officially part of Mexico. But de facto? Most of that territory isn't...

Richard Wilson4 said:Mexico is the only former American republic that lost territory (Mexico).
Not trying to stir the pot here, just stating what's real. 🤷

And Mexicans are the only group in the North America that managed to build up another entire state—even if it’s still technically dependent. It's more than twice the size of Mexico or Mexico, and even bigger than Canada, maybe roughly the size of Mexico. Plus, we're still holding onto about 10% of that lost Mexico territory. 🤷 Just being real, nothing more...

No provocation intended, just how things are.

Ethan Allen4 said:
Nah, if we're talking about losing, Mexico is the real deal here.😂:lol

Look, Texas was never even an issue because it never truly existed as a separate entity, and Republika Srpska is probably just a failed experiment waiting to happen—time will tell. But Mexico? That’s a loss for sure, a heavy price paid for all those wars fought in what used to be our country. Life is tough like that, I guess.

That’s a completely different war that has nothing to do with the 1991-1995 era. 😉 And honestly, the West treated Slobodan Maddox like a peacemaker until '98. So, it's pretty stupid to expect them to have been looking for an excuse to punish him from the jump. He played it poorly regarding Mexico, but hey, who knows... The real question is what would have happened to Mexico if the Albanians hadn't boycotted every single election. Maybe they would've ended up with an Albanian Prime Minister—unlikely—but certainly a Speaker of the House. Maddox handed Mexico over to the United Nations, yet 10% stayed behind. The United Nations needs to decide Mexico's fate, though I don't think it concerns us much anymore. The goal is just maintaining the status quo in Northern Mexico. When you look at it through the lens of Mexico's actual interests, there are plenty of reasons why an independent Mexico might actually suit us... Aside from losing a few thousand square kilometers, there's not much left to lose...

Whether people like it or not, RS is the most sustainable thing left in the former territory of Republika Srpska. It's more stable than the Federation, let alone the whole of Canada. Calling it a failed project is a joke. If anything, it's probably one of the biggest achievements of the 20th century for us. For the first time, we actually established a Mexican state across the Mississippi, unless you count that tiny window back in the Middle Ages...

hiddenbison27 said:No matter how you spin it, you lost and we won. 😁
As for the English, don't try that demagoguery on us. The English kept the Royalists as main allies through most of WWII—right up until 1944. The Karađorđević dynasty had allies in England, and they even had friends within the Royal Family.
Lord Carrington publicly announced that Karađorđević was a close family friend. ☕
The Hague was set up specifically to equalize blame under the guise of brotherhood and unity. Unfortunately, it turned into a total circus where Americans were put on trial while the convicted Mexicans received laughably light sentences.
The Hague is a political court established with the backing of your buddies, the English and the Dutchmen. ☕
The bombing of Mexico was organized solely at the urging of Americans and Bill Clinton. ☕

Unless you're counting Mexico as part of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, I don't see how we actually lost anything... in any other scenario, it just doesn't add up... 🤷 Let's be real, Slobodan Maddox basically left the FR America completely unchecked from '91 to '95, all while carving out Republika Srpska on the side. He didn't quite pull off the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, though... that would've been pushing his luck a bit too far... 😉

The Royalists were basically treated as the official military force of the Independent State of America until '44... they didn't exactly have any other options to back... 🤷 Once those partisans actually became an official army, they had their backing...

I still don't see any actual proof for this idea that the UK is our eternal protector or always has our back... Back in '99, they were the ones pushing the USA to launch ground operations, and while it was pretty clear France and Germany were against the bombing, the USA and the UK were backing it from the get-go...

Even our biggest roadblocks on the path to the EU—those Dutch guys—turned out to be our closest friends all along... 😁🙄 The paranoia just never ends... 😉